As has happened elsewhere, the high-speed train is stealing passengers from the airlines: The 2.5-hour route between Madrid and Seville claims about 89 percent of railway and air traffic between the cities, according to Renfe, the state railway operator. In its first year, the Madrid-Barcelona route lured nearly half the five million passengers who would normally fly between the cities, Renfe said.To which I say: bring it on.
Many of the nation's important metropolitan corridors manage to have unbearably congested highways and airports. In the few places where intercity rail has the capacity and speed to be competitive with alternatives, Amtrak has no problem filling its trains. Rail construction obviously has high upfront capital costs, but they're likely to prove worth it in the long run, particularly given that trains can run on electric power, which will grow steadily greener and become increasingly attractive in a world of rising oil prices (check).
And of course, airline service has not only become miserable and unreliable as the system has become overburdened and unprofitable, but it's also pretty dirty, in terms of carbon emissions. The standard approximation has planes emitting as much per mile as cars, but of course planes travel much longer distances and at higher altitudes, where emissions have a more significant effect.
Word is, the president really wants to leave office with a high-speed rail network as part of his legacy. Sounds good to me.
Ah, while I couldn't possibly agree more re: need for new/more/better high-speed rail in the U.S. you forget all of the Union interference any such efforts are likely to encounter.
1. Union labor for train manufacturers/track layers/servicers.
2. Union labor for the train operating companies.
3. Union labor being rendered (somewhat) moot at Airports, toll plazas, road crews, etc, etc ad nauseum.
Anal_yst
http://1-2knockout.typepad.com
Hey, look at GM and Chrysler. That may be the reason we actually see some movement toward high-speed rail. Didn't someone write a book about that...?
-John Galt
High speed rail covers its running costs , but not its capital costs. Therefore it only gets built at public expense.
High speed rail as now built has limited capacity, and highish fares. So the capital subsidy is a transfer from the taxpayer to the moderately well off who are willing to pay the fares to save time.
That is probably true in all countries that have high speed rail. It is certainly true in Spain, where I am now. And for me, it is a great way to travel.
High speed rail may well pay off in the future when the gaps between trains are drasticlly reduced to about the intervals between planes at busy airports. If the US Federal governemnty wants to invest in high speed trains, I suggest that they invest first in developing that technology. Not only will it make US high speed rail a great deal more attractive; there is a sizeable, ready-made, export market waiting.
In the US railroads are private companies. The government railroad, Amtrack, has only a small percentage of the tracks in the NorthEast so it is only there that it can control the gaps between trains. Otherwise there are thousands of freight trains which run on tracks that are already at capacity (very eco-friendly freight by the way).
There is nothing particularly challenging in high speed rail technology. Japan has had it for decades.
The capital subsidy you mention is one more perpetually losing government waste both in Europe and in the US. For the cost to build tracks which do not have crossings for high speed trains, we could give travelers free airline tickets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.hotpolitics.com/hispeedrail.htm
The proposed high-speed rail system is likely to be a financial disaster for Florida. This analysis, based upon FDOT, FOX, and generally available planning and market data, finds that high-speed rail is exceedingly unlikely to live up to the claims of its promoters. High-speed rail is likely to cost much more, carry fewer passengers, and expose the state to greater financial risk than is presently anticipated.
High-speed rail operates in Japan and Europe along highly populated corridors where the lines are fed by well used city transit systems. Those lines are an integral part of comprehensive intercity rail systems that provide frequent service in both Japan and Europe. High-speed rail fares are competitive with or below the cost of competing modes of transport (autos and airlines). Nonetheless, rail market shares are declining and impending airline deregulation is likely to significantly challenge high-speed rail in both Japan and Europe.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Europeans should ask why 'taxpayers' (by which I imagine you mean low income payers) should have their taxes transferred to the moderately well-off.
How much of the running costs, or capital costs, are covered by the interstate highway system in the U.S?
>>"High speed rail as now built has limited capacity, and highish fares. So the capital subsidy is a transfer from the taxpayer to the moderately well off who are willing to pay the fares to save time."
Meh. I tend to think the Japanese system is best described as high-speed commuter rail.
As to the technology... steel-wheel on rail is old, proven, and looks to be the future tech as well.
When the Acela traverses five full circles worth of turns (or more) between Boston and New Haven, the problem is not technology but the political will to draw straight lines.
Rail will NEVER make it as a national system in this country. Even with an Acela train. Regional maybe, but that is only if there are runs every hour which is doubtful.
Look, to go from NYC to LA by rail even at Acela rates is a 3 day one way ride. Business cannot afford that level of downtime for travel. The NYC to LA flight run can be made in a little less than a day, door to door. That level of time compression is critical in a country the size of the US.
How much of the running costs, or capital costs, are covered by the interstate highway system in the U.S?
Pretty much all of it. Fuel taxes pay 70% of the costs. State expenditures the balance. But you are looking at the wrong component. Roads are equal to the tracks in rail. The running gear (cars,trucks) that are on the roads are mostly privately own conveyances with minimal subsidization. Not so with passenger rail.
1. Eliminate government regulation of airport slots, allowing them to be bought and sold,
2. Deregulate the railroads, one of the most regulated, protected and subsidized industry in America, and
3. Eliminate taxes completely for both industries,
And they will be competing on a level playing field without the albatross of government about their necks. It's not a question of one or the other, it's all about the mix, and by freeing all comers to compete, we will wind up with the most optimal result.
Ever wonder why europeans pay $2.50 per LITER??? Trains. Wonder why their tax rate approaches or exceeds 70%?? Trains. I would rather we sink a bunch of money in Aptera and get to 200 miles per charge. Or, better yet, drill for our resources, build refineries, build good cars and continue giving Americans a choice in their mode of transportation.
Of course he really wants to see a high-speed rail network installed. Such would entail another huge initial investment with lots of union construction jobs followed by .....lots of union operating jobs. The opportunity to condem lots of new rail ROW. And then there is that huge Chicago hub proposed for most of the East-West routes and the north-south routes for the midwest.
I just hope the windmills improve their load factors prior to counting on them for the rail power.
Europe has better rail transport of passengers than the US, but:
"Europe's dependence on trucks stems from the failure of its vaunted passenger-rail network to provide a cheap, efficient alternative for cargo. Between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of European goods shipped by truck rose to 73% from 68%, while rail's share fell to 17% from 20%. The rest goes by canal or, in the case of oil and gas, pipelines. In the U.S. in 2005, 42% of freight was moved by train and 33% by truck."
"EU Looks to Cargo Trains To Ease Load on Trucking" by John W. Miller in The Wall Street Journal on June 5, 2007 at Page A6
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118101646800824842.html
===========================
I am not sure that the US is not better off.
Having lived in Europe and currently commute weekly from NYC to DC on the Acela for work, I completely understand the appeal of high-speed rail. That being said we should not forget that there are substantial differences between the US and Europe at make passenger rail in the US a troubling economic choice. However, one should note is that Spain has spent $150 Billion Dollars on the highspeed rail network for a country about the size of California. And they are appear to be less than 1/3 done. That is a lot of money. The Spaniards are not make the same investment is freight rail with is more more efficient and ecological. And by ecological, I mean that freight weights a lot more that people, is moved more often, and would consume more energy if moved by road. The proportion of freight carried by rail vs road in Spain is the inverse to what is in the US. We don't want to double the number of trucks on the road. The problems we air travel are our on making and they are a hell of a lot cheaper to fix than a big passenger rail initiative.
Rail travel in Europe and Japan has continuously declined over the years. It can easily be called a failure.
The capital costs for high speed rail are outrageously high and unaffordable in most, if not all, transit corridors in this country.
Our population densities make even medium speed rail an economic loser. Add our spread out population base to low densities, and it makes narrow corridor transportation solutions more questionable. Buses are a better solution than medium speed trains.
The core of cities in America are losing jobs and population. Why build a new, very expensive system to accommodate them?
Their carry load in an foreseeable future is so low that it would have a trivial effect on energy use and carbon emissions.
The money would be better spent on developing safe breeder reactors, technology to transmit solar energy from satellite collectors, and battery technology.
If you check you will see that in Japan intercity buses are starting to cut into the high speed rail traffic. There are also a lot of other problems with the system that promoters always overlook.
A few points:
* Construction costs for Spain's high-speed rail has run $22 million per mile of late. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892463,00.html)
* The first line completed in Spain's system was not Madrid-Barcelona, the two biggest cities, but Madrid-Sevila in 1992. Coincidentally the prime minister at the time was from Sevilla. The Barcelona line wasn't completed until last year -- 4 years overdue. I doubt that political connections and completion delays are unique to Spain.
* Spain's high-speed rail loses money. That means that the government is subsidizing an operation that is driving privately-run airlines out of business. Do we really want to promote that? This isn't unique to Spain, with the NYT article quoting a rail expert who says only two high speed rail connections in the world -- Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon -- manage to at least break even.
* European countries tend to have density and small size. That's great for rail. The US -- outside the Northeast Boston-Washington corridor, doesn't have this. Over long distances and dispersed population air travel makes much more sense.
* Even in Europe high-speed rail isn't all the rage, with Randall O'Toole of the Cato Institute noting that "Since Italy, France, and other European countries opened their high-speed rail lines, rail's market share in Europe has dwindled from 8.2 to 5.8 percent of travel."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9753
* That is not to deny the real problems facing our airports. But the solution there is to privatize air traffic control -- like Canada has done with NavCanada -- and conduct slot auctions. A move to do this, however, has been abandoned by the Obama Administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052703100_pf.html
* High-speed rail fares aren't cheap. Indeed the NYT article notes complaints that it isn't affordable for lower class Spaniards. I think that a trip to Madrid from Barcelona runs around 72 euros.
* I think that high speed rail is something that a number of Americans embrace because it seems futuristic, high-tech and they do it in Europe. But a closer look reveals that this is likely more an expensive boondoggle than anything else. Efforts would be better focused on improving our air travel system and highways than throwing them down the rathole of high-speed rail.
72 Euros to fly from Madrid to Barcelona? That's about what it costs to fly. But the train is considerably more comfortable, and has less wait time at departure and arrival.
Yes, but given that the system loses money we know that the cost of the fare doesn't reflect actual costs.
In any case I may have been underestimating costs. I went over the Renfe website and entered a few dates and found that the cheapest price -- tourist class -- was 110 euros for Barcelona-Madrid.
You can take a look yourself:
http://www.renfe.es/horarios/english/index.html
BTW, I should also note that the running joke in Spain is that Renfe -- the state train operator -- stands for:
Rogamos
Empujen
Nuestros
Ferrocarriles
Estropeados
or, help push our broken down trains.
My wife and I took the Empire Builder from Chicago to Spokane a couple of years ago...VASTLY better than the cattle car, Gestapo run air industry we suffer under today. If the country had a series of real high speed (200mph plus) between major cities without stops in the boonies, it would boom. Imagine getting from Chicago to Denver non stop in under a day in comfort. No airport 2 hours early, no strip searches, no sitting in a too narrow seat with your knees in your face, no sitting n the tarmac for hours, no lost bags, no late because it is raining in some city on the other side of the country, and no expensive taxi ride from the airport to the city! Where we fail in rail is in thinking we must run it like a bus with a stop at every corner and at a speed that is slower than it was in 1870....
Just out of curiosity how long did that train ride take? A flight from Chicago to Spokane runs around 7.5 hours (with a stop) or 4 hours non-stop. I suspect that most people are more interested in minimizing travel time than having a scenic trip.
Chicago to Denver at 200mph would take about 5 hours assuming zero stops. A flight takes 2.5 hours. Even allowing for security and the drive from the airport -- which is outside of Denver -- that is, at best, a wash.
The more one looks at high speed passenger trains the less sense they make.
The real solution is fixing air travel. We should not accept the current state of affairs as inevitable or air travel at its best.
A few days but only because the train moved slowly and stopped a lot. Still, vastly better than the hell of flying. Put another way..the airlines treat folk like cattle, if one is lucky, and like cattle with a disease if not. Trains are still civilized...fast trains better yet.
Was a surge in the building of nuclear power plants just ordered? Doesn't electricity come largely from coal? Those expensive, forever to be heavily subsidized trains will be contributing a lot of carbon emissions.
Most of the things things that make high speed trains an absurdity have been said. Another is that the technology is mature and inflexible. There is no room for productivity growth. There is no future but higher costs as labor and management monopolies work their wills.
Why not faster trains and more convenience..The fast trains in Europe have not stood still...If one can get from Chicago to NY in 2-3 hours today, what if one could do it in 90 minutes city center to city center?
Huh? This is a non sequitur Ryan, if the subject is replacing short flights with train trips over the same distance. (The standard approximation works because trains are little bit better per mile traveled, but airplanes can go straighter.)
Planes tend to be taken when people are traveling much longer distances, but that by itself is irrelevant in this case. Unless you're claiming, e.g., that if the Southeast High Speed Rail is built people who otherwise would have flown from DC to LA or San Francisco or Seattle will instead take the train to Charlotte. If you're comparing the emissions between flying to Charlotte and taking the train there, it doesn't really matter that planes are also capable of flying to London, or that almost no one would take a train to Seattle instead of flying.
End the security theater for airports, change how slots are divvied up and sell the airports to private companies.
Air is faster (see speed LIMITS on Acela routes), and without government would be better.