Bloomberg article: Watch Out, Airlines. High Speed Rail Now Rivals Flying on Key Routes

DfwRevolution · Sun May 06, 2018 12:12 am

FlyHappy wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

Its neither pompous nor nonsense.
What "more valuable infrastructure projects" have actually been undertaken in the US (particularly outside of the Northeast) with all that un-sucked money?
All I can identify are fairly local "pork barrel" projects carved out by legislators in return for political favor.

Yes, it is totally pompous and nonsensical. The United States has world-class infrastructure. Our nation's ability to quickly, reliably, safely, and economically transport people, goods, and services over vast distances is truly without rival. How we achieve that matters little. The notion that our infrastructure is "crumbling" is largely advanced by the American Society of Civil Engineers with their annual Infrastructure Report Card. It's no surprise that a trade group associated with the construction industry always says we need to spend more on construction. "Barbers say short hair is IN!"

What has been done because we didn't sink money in high-speed rail? Countless things. The U.S. invests 2.5% of GDP in infrastructure annually. Most infrastructure investments are not high-profile, high-visibility super projects. That's to be expected. Most people are oblivious to infrastructure investment because it's boring and mundane stuff.

You and I said "infrastructure", yet you respond only in the context of transport. You invoked "crumbling", and I did not.

OK.

FlyHappy wrote:
2.5% GDP spend on infrastructure is nothing to be proud of . Military is 3.5% Healthcare is 15% . still, GDP isn't that great a metric to base this on.

Then amount would make you proud? What we spend on military or health care has no bearing on whether a given infrastructure projects clears its necessary hurdle rate.

Reminder: Infrastructure is an overhead cost. Infrastructure is not intrinsically good. If Economy A can produce the same amount of goods and services as Economy B, but do so with less infrastructure, then Economy A is objectively a more capital efficient society.

FlyHappy wrote:
Factually, the US is politically unable to move forward on many federal projects that have clear public benefits; that you don't believe rail is one of them is fine, but it is not pompous or nonsense to point it out.

Wrong. Factually, the U.S. is politically able to spend 2.5% of GDP - nearly half a trillion dollars - on infrastructure every year. You are cherry-picking "federal projects" and missing the big picture that we spend huge amounts on projects that benefit the public. The reality is that most infrastructure projects go unseen by the public because they are not headline-grabbing super-projects. And that's OK.

FlyHappy wrote:
Please don't insist the US infrastructure in power distribution, urban mass transit, freight rail and internet is "world class". It isn't.

Urban mass transit is a means to an end. Freight rail is a means to an end. Our mobility is world-class. How we achieve that doesn't particularly matter.

And I can pick any country that has world-class infrastructure in aggregate and find criticism with a few particular sectors. But doing so is just misleading. The comprehensive state of U.S. infrastructure is the envy of the world.

FlyHappy · Sun May 06, 2018 12:43 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:

Yes, it is totally pompous and nonsensical. The United States has world-class infrastructure. Our nation's ability to quickly, reliably, safely, and economically transport people, goods, and services over vast distances is truly without rival. How we achieve that matters little. The notion that our infrastructure is "crumbling" is largely advanced by the American Society of Civil Engineers with their annual Infrastructure Report Card. It's no surprise that a trade group associated with the construction industry always says we need to spend more on construction. "Barbers say short hair is IN!"

What has been done because we didn't sink money in high-speed rail? Countless things. The U.S. invests 2.5% of GDP in infrastructure annually. Most infrastructure investments are not high-profile, high-visibility super projects. That's to be expected. Most people are oblivious to infrastructure investment because it's boring and mundane stuff.

You and I said "infrastructure", yet you respond only in the context of transport. You invoked "crumbling", and I did not.

OK.

FlyHappy wrote:
2.5% GDP spend on infrastructure is nothing to be proud of . Military is 3.5% Healthcare is 15% . still, GDP isn't that great a metric to base this on.

Then amount would make you proud? What we spend on military or health care has no bearing on whether a given infrastructure projects clears its necessary hurdle rate.

Reminder: Infrastructure is an overhead cost. Infrastructure is not intrinsically good. If Economy A can produce the same amount of goods and services as Economy B, but do so with less infrastructure, then Economy A is objectively a more capital efficient society.

FlyHappy wrote:
Factually, the US is politically unable to move forward on many federal projects that have clear public benefits; that you don't believe rail is one of them is fine, but it is not pompous or nonsense to point it out.

Wrong. Factually, the U.S. is politically able to spend 2.5% of GDP - nearly half a trillion dollars - on infrastructure every year. You are cherry-picking "federal projects" and missing the big picture that we spend huge amounts on projects that benefit the public. The reality is that most infrastructure projects go unseen by the public because they are not headline-grabbing super-projects. And that's OK.

FlyHappy wrote:
Please don't insist the US infrastructure in power distribution, urban mass transit, freight rail and internet is "world class". It isn't.

Urban mass transit is a means to an end. Freight rail is a means to an end. Our mobility is world-class. How we achieve that doesn't particularly matter.

And I can pick any country that has world-class infrastructure in aggregate and find criticism with a few particular sectors. But doing so is just misleading. The comprehensive state of U.S. infrastructure is the envy of the world.

As tempted as I am to debate the meaning of my words or yours, I won't. Because -

DfwRevolution wrote:

The comprehensive state of U.S. infrastructure is the envy of the world.

This.
Just because you're the biggest kid on the block, or have the biggest house on the block, doesn't mean you're envied by all.
"American Exceptionalism" as you've reflected in your own way, cannot be reasoned with. It deserves an eye-roll.

zeke · Sun May 06, 2018 12:51 am

PEK-PVG flight is2.5 hrs not 4+ as depicted

zakuivcustom · Sun May 06, 2018 12:57 am

DarthLobster wrote:
Given the clientele I’ve seen on Amtrak, I’ll gladly stick with air travel.

Have you fly with Spirit or Allegiant or even Southwest lately? :stirthepot:

As for US HSR - it would work in some places (Chicago-hub Midwest network would work great IMO. Chicago-Indy down from 3 hr drive to about 1.5hr, Chicago-Detroit in 3 hr, Chicago-STL in about 2 hrs), or along the Tx-Triangle (Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Austin-Dallas). In the Tx HSR case, WN is actually a vocal opponent of that b/c they know it'll take away a large part those O&D traffic between, let say, HOU-DAL.

On the other hand, yes, building a nation-wide HSR network almost mean you'll lose money (Most PRC HSR routes doesn't make money, especially those to ultra rural SW/Western China that are nothing more than political projects). On the flip side, making everything about money is also why US has been falling behind when it comes to infrastructure overall. Hack, Shinkansen was call one of the "3 bakas (idiots in Japanese)", was way overbudget (The "father of Shinkansen", Sogo Shinji, has to manipulate the budget to even get the project started), and eventually bankrupted Japanese National Railway (Yes, there was other reason, such as bloated management and "greedy union"). But I don't think any Japanese can imagined what live would be like without Shinkansen.

chunhimlai wrote:
Tokyo - fukouka

A route that's 93% Air and 7% Rail. Osaka - Fukuoka, though, is closer to 85% HSR 15% Air. Other routes that Shinkansen more or less destroy air shares is Tokyo-Toyama/Kanazawa (HND-TOY is like 40% of pre-HSR, HND-KMQ something like 55%),

TWA772LR · Sun May 06, 2018 1:39 am

Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

stl07 · Sun May 06, 2018 1:43 am

What I love is that Ethiopia and Djibouti will soon have hsr yet the US only has one route that is only for business class, not even one for econ

flyingclrs727 · Sun May 06, 2018 1:56 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

If there aren't stops at secondary cities, it will be quite difficult to obtain rights of way. There are lots of land owners who want to fight eminent domain acquisition of rights of way for this project. If people living in between San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth perceive no benefit to themselves and their communities, they are likely to opposevthe whole high speed rail project.

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 2:49 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

Would be cool if they extended it up to OKC - but then what would we have to do if we took the train to Dallas or Houston? Rent a car. How stupid.

Kashmon · Sun May 06, 2018 3:06 am

can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

flyguy89 · Sun May 06, 2018 3:12 am

9w748capt wrote:
OKCDCA wrote:
Jamake1 wrote:
It’s a shame that none of those high speed rail markets are in the US.

WAS-NYC is still in the US last time I checked...

And no, it’s not a shame that we don’t have more high speed rail markets in the US. While the current US rail infrastructure was built to haul people and goods to open up the American west, there’s a reason today’s railroads and their predecessors got out of the passenger business, it’s extremely costly and unprofitable. A rail shipment in the US today averages $4,000 because that is what it takes per car to cover their infrastructure (which they wholly own and maintain), labor and other associated costs. High speed rail in the US would be extremely costly to build, just look at the California High Speed Rail project. It is BILLIONS of dollars over budget and at this rate will never be completed and even if it did the only way it could be maintained is through huge government subsidies. So stick with flying for the time being to get from A to B quickly in the US.

It's so costly and inefficient because we've built our cities around the car and not the person. The horribly inefficient design of modern American cities (look at our beloved OKC) is to blame. No wonder we're so fat. I'll never understand at what point our planners decided it was illegal to actually walk somewhere.

Lol what "planners?" It's not the Soviet Union, cities (including in Europe) develop organically for the most part with little central planning (Ever sat in Paris traffic?). As already mentioned in other posts, outside a couple select regions, American cities are smaller and much less densely populated than their European or Asian counterparts. The distances between cities in the US are also comparatively vast rendering HSR unfeasible for most route pairings. HSR works in Europe and Japan due to great population densities and short distances...and even then they largely require great public subsidies.

TWA772LR · Sun May 06, 2018 3:50 am

9w748capt wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

Would be cool if they extended it up to OKC - but then what would we have to do if we took the train to Dallas or Houston? Rent a car. How stupid.

The terminus for each city will be major mass transit junctions. They are being smart about that aspect. The Dallas site already has a DART rail station there, and Metro in Houston is planning a whole new transit bus transit center on their end; with the rail lines clearly aiming to the set-in-stone location.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

If there aren't stops at secondary cities, it will be quite difficult to obtain rights of way. There are lots of land owners who want to fight eminent domain acquisition of rights of way for this project. If people living in between San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth perceive no benefit to themselves and their communities, they are likely to opposevthe whole high speed rail project.

It doesnt matter what Austin and SA think because the the line is just Dallas and Houston at the moment. However i can see them expanding to both those cities from both Dallas and Houston, they are too big to ignore for this kind of connectivity, but thats for years down the road.

freakyrat · Sun May 06, 2018 3:58 am

Jamake1 wrote:
It’s a shame that none of those high speed rail markets are in the US.

https://www.chron.com/business/bizfeed/ ... 887823.php

freakyrat · Sun May 06, 2018 4:03 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Texas Central Rail is making good strides, the company that wants to do HSR between Houston and Dallas.

However, if you notice, all the board members are Texas A&M grads, even their intern is an A&M student. They are even putting a stop in the middle of nowhere as a "college stop" thats conveniently located between College Station (where A&M is) and Huntsville (where Sam Houston State University is, my alma mater). I love the concept and the project, but theres a maroon stink that i dont like about it.

If there aren't stops at secondary cities, it will be quite difficult to obtain rights of way. There are lots of land owners who want to fight eminent domain acquisition of rights of way for this project. If people living in between San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth perceive no benefit to themselves and their communities, they are likely to opposevthe whole high speed rail project.

Eminent Domain will not be necessary as the Texas Central High Speed Rail project is being built along a power transmission line easement.

mham001 · Sun May 06, 2018 4:21 am

DocLightning wrote:
HSR in CA *could have been* a wonderful thing and it could almost be completed by now. But in typical US fashion, you can't build anything like that anymore. The politics, myopic "environmental concerns" (AGW is far more important than a salamander somewhere), and the political manipulations that made the alignment take a very inland, circuitous route have made the project pointless.

I like how when something good happens in CA, it's all about 'CALIFORNIA!' but when things go bad its the 'US'. No, the current horrid situation going on in California, as well as your list of ailments, is very much a CALIFORNIA! problem.

But forget HSR, that is so yesterday. Hyperloop. There is nothing wrong with leapfrogging technologies.

BTW, when comparing costs, do not forget that a car can carry more passengers for just incremental more money. I can rent a car and carry 4 people SJC_LAX in 5 hours for less than $200/RT vs 4 hours and $800 by plane.

c933103 · Sun May 06, 2018 4:33 am

flyguy89 wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
OKCDCA wrote:
WAS-NYC is still in the US last time I checked...

And no, it’s not a shame that we don’t have more high speed rail markets in the US. While the current US rail infrastructure was built to haul people and goods to open up the American west, there’s a reason today’s railroads and their predecessors got out of the passenger business, it’s extremely costly and unprofitable. A rail shipment in the US today averages $4,000 because that is what it takes per car to cover their infrastructure (which they wholly own and maintain), labor and other associated costs. High speed rail in the US would be extremely costly to build, just look at the California High Speed Rail project. It is BILLIONS of dollars over budget and at this rate will never be completed and even if it did the only way it could be maintained is through huge government subsidies. So stick with flying for the time being to get from A to B quickly in the US.

It's so costly and inefficient because we've built our cities around the car and not the person. The horribly inefficient design of modern American cities (look at our beloved OKC) is to blame. No wonder we're so fat. I'll never understand at what point our planners decided it was illegal to actually walk somewhere.

Lol what "planners?" It's not the Soviet Union, cities (including in Europe) develop organically for the most part with little central planning (Ever sat in Paris traffic?). As already mentioned in other posts, outside a couple select regions, American cities are smaller and much less densely populated than their European or Asian counterparts. The distances between cities in the US are also comparatively vast rendering HSR unfeasible for most route pairings. HSR works in Europe and Japan due to great population densities and short distances...and even then they largely require great public subsidies.

Planners? The one who decide all the zoning rules, how interstate and other roads are built, and such. You have Housing and Urban Development department in the US at national level and also state and city level.

MartijnNL · Sun May 06, 2018 5:25 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
The United States has world-class infrastructure.

Keep dreaming!

DfwRevolution wrote:
The notion that our infrastructure is "crumbling" is largely advanced by the American Society of Civil Engineers with their annual Infrastructure Report Card.

Don't you think they are the people who understand the problem? This is not fake news. Apparently it is published every four years.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... a-d-2017-3

c933103 · Sun May 06, 2018 5:38 am

DarthLobster wrote:
Given the clientele I’ve seen on Amtrak, I’ll gladly stick with air travel.

That's the mindset that was held by those who were in charge of CAN airport in China was thinking and they put the train station away from the airport for that reason. Now they realized that those people who use a modernized rail transit is just the same type of population that would travel via airlines and would have great synergy, they are now trying to expand the rail terminal to the airport.
And that's not to mention, the concept of "the clientele i've seen on Amtrak" is a pseudoconcept with most of the clientele supposed to be the people of America other than a few like tourists, that if you feel there are problem with them then you are having problem with population of America. If you feel that those who travel on planes are "better people" than those who travel on rail, maybe you would have to think why America is managed to make these "better people" travel on airlines instead of trains.

MaksFly · Sun May 06, 2018 5:52 am

One market which is now well worth riding the rails is the Sapsan high speed train from Moscow to St Petersburg. The trip is now either 3:35 or 3:45

While the flight is only less than an hour, the issue is getting to the airports that require travel by car or train anyway.

TWA772LR · Sun May 06, 2018 6:05 am

MartijnNL wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
The United States has world-class infrastructure.

Keep dreaming!

I was able to drive from Houston to Denver on pristine Interstates, US Highways, and back county farm-to-market roads with no problem whatsoever. Great infrastructure allows you to become a superpower. Our airports (maybe not aesthetically) are world class as well operationally as well as our seaports. We have the worlds largest GDP per capita and we are a very spread out country. We wouldnt be able to function without the infrastructure we have.

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 6:19 am

Kashmon wrote:
can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

WIederling · Sun May 06, 2018 6:59 am

michman wrote:
Drivers pay for road construction through fuel taxes. Air passengers pay 7.5% excise tax, plus $4.20 segment tax, plus $4.50 PFC's. Show me the fees in Amtrak tickets that pay for the subsidies from the government? Oh that's right, there aren't any. As usual, the rail fans make unsubstantiated claims with no supporting facts or evidence.

How high is that fuel tax? ( how much revenue for the state/union?)
My understanding is that dedicated fuel taxes in the US are negligible.

And it shows. road infrastructure was created back when "infrastructure building via deficit spending" was large.
A model the rabid proponents of "the market fixes all" would sneer at today. though they still like to
make profit by using up those resources. :-)

.. and even upkeep is barely managed. All the bridges rusting.

gatibosgru · Sun May 06, 2018 7:17 am

SAO-RIO is a set that is close enough that a highspeed rail would work nicely to connect the two.

But CGH-SDU is pretty damn convenient too.

aviationaware · Sun May 06, 2018 7:54 am

The problem with high speed rail competing with airlines is that high speed rail is not profitable and depends on subsidies.

Case in point, the Tokaido Shinkansen is profitable. But the entire JR Shinkansen network (even when you take just the JR Central Shinkansen network, of which the Tokaido is a big chunk) loses money. The same can be said about the french TGV network - the Paris-Lyon TGV runs at a profit, but the network in its entirety runs at a deficit. That's all after considering infrastructure cost, which in many countries is borne by the government, not the railroad company (even if that is owned by the government).

The problem, of course, is that high speed rail infrastructure has a very low utilization rate, much lower than, say, an airport runway. That's a profitability killer par excellence.

Meanwhile, the private airline companies have to compete with state subsidized high speed rail. As an example, the Spanish AVE trains are a money sink, but have reduced the MAD-BCN air traffic substantially. Spain went from an airline monopoly on the route to liberalization straight back to state controlled pricing within about 20 years.

Now California is planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a high speed rail of their own, a price point which makes it impossible for it to ever return a profit. Yet private airline companies will have to compete with it on the LAX-SFO route. That's absolutely shameful.

flyguy89 · Sun May 06, 2018 8:20 am

MartijnNL wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
The notion that our infrastructure is "crumbling" is largely advanced by the American Society of Civil Engineers with their annual Infrastructure Report Card.

Don't you think they are the people who understand the problem?

...and also the people with the most to gain from pushing the narrative. They're a lobbying group like any other.

9w748capt wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

Actually, tax revenue to the federal Highway Trust Fund fully covered expenditures until as recently as 2008. Between excise taxes, gas taxes and state-level annual license fees or vehicle taxes, drivers have historically shouldered the vast majority of the tax burden for road construction and upkeep.

WIederling wrote:
michman wrote:
Drivers pay for road construction through fuel taxes. Air passengers pay 7.5% excise tax, plus $4.20 segment tax, plus $4.50 PFC's. Show me the fees in Amtrak tickets that pay for the subsidies from the government? Oh that's right, there aren't any. As usual, the rail fans make unsubstantiated claims with no supporting facts or evidence.

How high is that fuel tax? ( how much revenue for the state/union?)
My understanding is that dedicated fuel taxes in the US are negligible.

At the federal level it's 18.4 cents/gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents/gallon for diesel and these constitute 86.6% of the budget for the Highway Trust Fund. There's also sales and excise taxes on heavy trucks and vehicles which also contribute to the fund. In addition to this, states also levy their own gas/diesel taxes which vary but average around 31 cents/gallon. Tax revenues had historically been sufficient to cover spending until 2008 due to the steadily improving fuel economy of vehicles putting pressure on tax revenues. What we'll ultimately likely see is a phase-out of the gas tax and implementation of mileage based taxation.

Wlederling wrote:
.. and even upkeep is barely managed. All the bridges rusting.

Not really. Only about 4% of bridges in the US carrying significant traffic (10,000 daily vehicle crossings) were deemed structurally deficient (meaning in need of some level of repairs) in 2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1FK0J0

Key highlights from the article:
- About 9 percent of highway bridges were considered structurally deficient in 2017. But only 4 percent of bridges carrying significant traffic, at least 10,000 daily vehicle crossings, were deficient. That does not mean an imminent danger of collapse, just that repairs are needed.
- For those with more than 200,000 crossings, roughly the nation’s 1,200 busiest bridges, that figure drops to under 2 percent, or fewer than 20 bridges.
- The share of all bridges deemed structurally deficient has been falling for decades, down from 22 percent in 1992 and 12 percent in 2009.
- America’s road network, which includes its bridges, was ranked third among the largest advanced economies by company executives, behind Japan and France but superior to those of Germany, Britain, Canada and Italy, according to the World Economic Forum’s latest global competitiveness report.
- The United States comes only slightly behind Japan and France in rankings of overall infrastructure quality.

LAX772LR · Sun May 06, 2018 8:25 am

FlyHappy wrote:
planecane wrote:
How long until terrorist fears or reality related to trains causes the need for the same "security" process?

Never.
Trains are not nearly as vulnerable to the same level of threat (both real and perceived) as air travel.

Not "as vulnerable" doesn't mean that a single lunatic can't rather easily kill dozens, if not potentially hundreds, of people.

I'm almost surprised that after London, Madrid, Tokyo, etc, we still don't have airport-like security for trains.

Guess a few more have to die before the tombstone agencies (er, I meant transportation agencies) make the jump.

mxaxai · Sun May 06, 2018 8:58 am

aviationaware wrote:
The problem with high speed rail competing with airlines is that high speed rail is not profitable and depends on subsidies.

Case in point, the Tokaido Shinkansen is profitable. But the entire JR Shinkansen network (even when you take just the JR Central Shinkansen network, of which the Tokaido is a big chunk) loses money. The same can be said about the french TGV network - the Paris-Lyon TGV runs at a profit, but the network in its entirety runs at a deficit. That's all after considering infrastructure cost, which in many countries is borne by the government, not the railroad company (even if that is owned by the government).

The problem, of course, is that high speed rail infrastructure has a very low utilization rate, much lower than, say, an airport runway. That's a profitability killer par excellence.

Meanwhile, the private airline companies have to compete with state subsidized high speed rail. As an example, the Spanish AVE trains are a money sink, but have reduced the MAD-BCN air traffic substantially. Spain went from an airline monopoly on the route to liberalization straight back to state controlled pricing within about 20 years.

Now California is planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a high speed rail of their own, a price point which makes it impossible for it to ever return a profit. Yet private airline companies will have to compete with it on the LAX-SFO route. That's absolutely shameful.

Hundreds of billions is a bit much, no? Just for comparison, a new - and complicated due to mountains - HSR track in Germany costs some 60 million € per km. For the 540 km between Los Angeles and San Francisco that would equate to US$ 40 billion. Add some US$ 5 billion for, say, a hundred train sets or more and add a margin of 50% in case major unexpected expenses show up and you're still under US$ 70 billion.

One other thing to note: US cities were built around the car and the ability to expand. European cities are historically grown in times when transport was not as easy, thus the roads tend to be narrow, sometimes winding, and not optimized for cars. Both European and Asian cities struggle with a lack of room to expand and high population densities. Thus, rail is one solution to cope with the ever increasing demand for mobility. Rail can be put underground easily and offers high throughput per square meter, high reliability and high safety. And once you have a good urban rail network, connecting cities by HSR is the logical next step.

Its capacity is also much higher than aviation could ever achieve: Typical trains have some 500 - 1000 seats, larger than most aircraft. Each train can replace 5 narrowbodies.

WIederling · Sun May 06, 2018 9:01 am

LAX772LR wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
Trains are not nearly as vulnerable to the same level of threat (both real and perceived) as air travel.

Not "as vulnerable" doesn't mean that a single lunatic can't rather easily kill dozens, if not potentially hundreds, of people.

You could go on a killing spree with guns. But you can do that anywhere.
But you can not really crash a train from inside. ( you could hack the external routing/safety infrastructure though, but that is not fixable by passenger screening.)

You can't change course for a high value target. no rails :-)

"Standing still" for a train is safe. Hollywoods notorious "runaway train" is impossible by design.
( break a coupler and the pneumatic comes active via air loss, no driver to massage the "Totmanknopf" : halt
cross a red signal : INDUSI ( or its more modern siblings ) emergency brakes the train to a halt.

Afaics from inside a train you can't do anything dangerous to that train.

Bobloblaw · Sun May 06, 2018 10:40 am

9w748capt wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Freedom is relative. With a car you don't have the freedom to have a drink whenever you fancy. You are often restricted when it comes to parking you vehicle. Cars are expensive, both in purchase and in operation. You can't work, have dinner in the restaurant, watch a movie, browse the internet, go to the toilet or speak on the phone while driving. You have to keep focusing on driving, and avoiding idiots who don't.

Freedom is having choice. American cities are sread out because that is how Americans wanted it (BTW been to YYZ or SYD lately? YYZ is now like DFW). Central planners prefer we live in small compact apartments within walking distance to public transit. Only people dont want that. Only coercion can make the population like like that.

That's not true at all. More and more people want walkable communities instead of boring, cookie-cutter McMansions. We've been brainwashed for decades into thinking that the "American dream" was having to drive literally everywhere. It boggles my mind every time we leave the US and realize that pretty much anywhere else in the world, one can take care of life's necessities without a car, but in most places in the US you can't even go buy a potato without getting in your car. No wonder we're so damn unhealthy - and lazy. I love with people whine about "lack of parking" - no there's no lack of parking, there's just you being too fat or lazy to walk a block.

And let's not forget that the roots of suburbanization and "white flight" had it's origins in racism, pure and simple. It's not that "everyone" wanted to live in the suburbs, it's just that only whites were afforded the privelege.

Let people choose how and we're to live. You also need to put aside your post modern views on the suburbs. If racism was the reason for the rise of suburbia, then why do we see suburbia in places like Canada and Australia?

Bobloblaw · Sun May 06, 2018 10:46 am

9w748capt wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

You clearly don't understand the concept of subsidies and taxes. Yes taxes pay for roads and taxes provide revenues for subsidies. Where do you think the subsidies come from if not taxation???

kalvado · Sun May 06, 2018 11:18 am

WIederling wrote:

"Standing still" for a train is safe. Hollywoods notorious "runaway train" is impossible by design.
( break a coupler and the pneumatic comes active via air loss, no driver to massage the "Totmanknopf" : halt
cross a red signal : INDUSI ( or its more modern siblings ) emergency brakes the train to a halt.

Afaics from inside a train you can't do anything dangerous to that train.

One can only hope... As a matter of fact, shit happens. Really big shit... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Még ... l_disaster

flyingturtle · Sun May 06, 2018 12:06 pm

Here, rail has killed off most of the GVA-Paris, ZRH-Paris and BSL-Paris flights. I think the rest of them are still offered because of the connections at CDG and ORY.

David

Lufthansa · Sun May 06, 2018 1:00 pm

I have to say you have to compare apples with apples.
Here in Australia, and indeed it would be similar in Canada etc and even in somewhere like South Africa on it's Busiest route between CPT and JNB the Cost benefit analysis doesn't add up.

To truely get high speed to work you need dedicated track. Or at least track that can be decimated at part of the day away from freight and other slower moving trains. otherwise you have to speed limit your high speed trains.

Here in Australia we have an old British designed system with a narrow gauge track and.... amazingly that gauge varies around different parts of the country. We had a good look at building HSR between Brisbane - Sydney - Melbourne with a possible stop in Canberra on the way. Cost estimates came in at something like $100Billion. The trains themselves aren't that expensive per seat relative to airplanes but when you consider I can easily build a very nice new airport with a big runway for something like 1-2 billion.... and buy a 737 for about 45 million..... it starts to be very hard to justify that kind of cost. Primary issue? The distance between things. Put it this way. The same cost of funding it would buy about 2 200 737s which at a guess.... id say is larger than the entire US fleet. And something a country of 24 million people will never be able to use. Canada would face a similar situation. And even small countries like New Zealand.... once again the Mountainous terrain, lack of population density etc would make it difficult to justify the huge expense. The US has a couple of routes where it could probably work. But perhaps a better use of this technology is high speed links to airports with traffic congestion? The train won't need to be as fancy or reach as higher speeds, and the cost of building dedicated track is far cheaper.

Years ago Shipping lines and airlines learned to work together. This may be....with changing in technology another case of that.

Siddar · Sun May 06, 2018 1:13 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
It's a shame that there is high speed infrastructure in place to serve those areas, avoiding pollution and congestion to be spread around with the current "only car/only plane" mindset that is anchoring US infrastructure in general into the XIX-XX century.

As an American taxpayer, I am glad we have never sunk money into high-speed rail. Thrilled even. High-speed rail does not make sense outside of the Northeast U.S. and it would suck money from more valuable infrastructure projects.

Saying U.S. infrastructure is "anchored in the 19th and 20th century" is just pompous nonsense.

As a Californian and US citizen I have some bad news for you. Their throwing huge amounts of both state and federal taxes at a highspeed line between LA and SF. The cost estimates are completely opposite of what article claims. This is obvious propaganda peace for highspeed rail. It fails to consider all the other place the average airport connects to as well.

N717TW · Sun May 06, 2018 1:28 pm

sagechan wrote:
OKCDCA wrote:
Jamake1 wrote:
It’s a shame that none of those high speed rail markets are in the US.

WAS-NYC is still in the US last time I checked...

And no, it’s not a shame that we don’t have more high speed rail markets in the US. While the current US rail infrastructure was built to haul people and goods to open up the American west, there’s a reason today’s railroads and their predecessors got out of the passenger business, it’s extremely costly and unprofitable. A rail shipment in the US today averages $4,000 because that is what it takes per car to cover their infrastructure (which they wholly own and maintain), labor and other associated costs. High speed rail in the US would be extremely costly to build, just look at the California High Speed Rail project. It is BILLIONS of dollars over budget and at this rate will never be completed and even if it did the only way it could be maintained is through huge government subsidies. So stick with flying for the time being to get from A to B quickly in the US.

Kinda like the huge government subsidies that drivers get and that built the US aviation system? Regional HSR in the US makes a lot of sense, bloated construction costs need brought down though. HSR for 200-500mi large city to large city runs make a lot of sense.

Or like the gov't subsidies of the air traffic control system or the publicly build airports. Or we could look at the military funds that built or started the development of the airport (e. g. ORD, MCO, AUS) or continue to pay for them as joint-ANG bases (e.g. MSP, BNA) or CLE with its NASA facilities. There were numerous WPA projects that built airpots (LGA, DCA). You don't see airlines floating out huge debt programs to construct very much--most of it is the airlines agreeing to pay rent so that the airport authority can issue the debt. Plus the fact that nearly every airport in the US benefits from the lower interest rates from using state or municipal-backed bonds. Not to mention the gov't money that has been spent to develop aircraft technology including 747 itself. Of course, the entire airline industry got off the ground because of post office subsidies back in the 20s and 30s.

All going back to to the main point: a strong and efficient transportation system is good for the Country and its makes sense for us to invest in it in a way to makes it cost effective to run.

Finally, we shouldn't look at this as a Planes vs. Trains situation. An integrated transpiration system makes for a stronger country. Relying too much on highways and aviation isn't good long term for the country. And frankly HSR probably only makes sense in 5 or 6 places in the U.S. If I was a smart airline I would look at ways to invest in it and integrate it into my airline network. It in many ways its the future of the 100-150 mile hop from the hub. CO did this with Amtrak to small extent connecting PHL and New Haven to the network. Think of what it would mean if the High Speed Rail from Wisconsin went through ORD, if the Texas lines had a major station in DFW (or IAH) or if San Diego-LA stoped at LAX. If you create a more efficient way to feed the hub, you crate more benefits to everyone.

XAM2175 · Sun May 06, 2018 1:28 pm

Lufthansa wrote:
Here in Australia we have an old British designed system with a narrow gauge track and.... amazingly that gauge varies around different parts of the country.

A small nitpick that doesn't detract from your overall point, but still - there are three mainline track gauges used in Australia:
* Narrow gauge (1067 mm / 3 ft 6 in), "standard" for Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania.
* Standard gauge (1435 mm / 4 ft 8.5 in), "standard" in New South Wales and for new and majorly-upgraded interstate lines.
* Irish broad gauge (1600 mm / 5 ft 3 in), "standard" in Victoria.

The national standard gauge network has been fleshed out over the years and now serves all mainland state and territory capitals for both freight and passenger trains, though most regional lines are still configured to the gauge they were originally built.

It is worth however noting that loading gauges (the permissible size of the rail vehicle above the tracks) are a different matter - they are generally proportional to the track gauge, but as a point of difference to the notion of British design the Australian standard loading gauge for standard-gauge track is in fact larger than that used in the UK (though smaller than that used in the US).

The bigger hurdle for using existing Australian lines is that their designs predate the notion of fast passenger service and generally had a fair amount of cost-consciousness involved, which leads many of them to take fairly inconvenient alignments using lightweight track.

This can to some extent be gotten around, but only so far. QR, for example, introduced tilting trains on the North Coast Line and managed to set a still-standing world record for a narrow-gauge train of 210 km/h (130 mi/h) in 1999 on existing line, but to realise any real benefit would require major upgrades to the track.

sagechan · Sun May 06, 2018 1:37 pm

N717TW wrote:
sagechan wrote:
OKCDCA wrote:
WAS-NYC is still in the US last time I checked...

And no, it’s not a shame that we don’t have more high speed rail markets in the US. While the current US rail infrastructure was built to haul people and goods to open up the American west, there’s a reason today’s railroads and their predecessors got out of the passenger business, it’s extremely costly and unprofitable. A rail shipment in the US today averages $4,000 because that is what it takes per car to cover their infrastructure (which they wholly own and maintain), labor and other associated costs. High speed rail in the US would be extremely costly to build, just look at the California High Speed Rail project. It is BILLIONS of dollars over budget and at this rate will never be completed and even if it did the only way it could be maintained is through huge government subsidies. So stick with flying for the time being to get from A to B quickly in the US.

Kinda like the huge government subsidies that drivers get and that built the US aviation system? Regional HSR in the US makes a lot of sense, bloated construction costs need brought down though. HSR for 200-500mi large city to large city runs make a lot of sense.

Or like the gov't subsidies of the air traffic control system or the publicly build airports. Or we could look at the military funds that built or started the development of the airport (e. g. ORD, MCO, AUS) or continue to pay for them as joint-ANG bases (e.g. MSP, BNA) or CLE with its NASA facilities. There were numerous WPA projects that built airpots (LGA, DCA). You don't see airlines floating out huge debt programs to construct very much--most of it is the airlines agreeing to pay rent so that the airport authority can issue the debt. Plus the fact that nearly every airport in the US benefits from the lower interest rates from using state or municipal-backed bonds. Not to mention the gov't money that has been spent to develop aircraft technology including 747 itself. Of course, the entire airline industry got off the ground because of post office subsidies back in the 20s and 30s.

All going back to to the main point: a strong and efficient transportation system is good for the Country and its makes sense for us to invest in it in a way to makes it cost effective to run.

Finally, we shouldn't look at this as a Planes vs. Trains situation. An integrated transpiration system makes for a stronger country. Relying too much on highways and aviation isn't good long term for the country. And frankly HSR probably only makes sense in 5 or 6 places in the U.S. If I was a smart airline I would look at ways to invest in it and integrate it into my airline network. It in many ways its the future of the 100-150 mile hop from the hub. CO did this with Amtrak to small extent connecting PHL and New Haven to the network. Think of what it would mean if the High Speed Rail from Wisconsin went through ORD, if the Texas lines had a major station in DFW (or IAH) or if San Diego-LA stoped at LAX. If you create a more efficient way to feed the hub.

I morw or less agree with you here. My point in the quoted text was to a comment about rail subsidies versus roads, which are also highly subsidized. My preferred policy would be for 100% of ongoing maintenance and smaller improvements to long distance transportation infrastructure be paid for by users (road tolls, airline PFC charges, rents and carriage charges, etc) Im ok with subsidizing some capital projects as needed.

londonistan · Sun May 06, 2018 1:39 pm

khowaga wrote:
ZKOJH wrote:
Interesting where do they get the numbers from -

Example PEK-PVG by Plane is less than 2 hrs flying time - and the train is now around 4.5 hrs long.

They’re including the time you have to arrive to the airport in advance, clear security, and hang around the airport before your flight actually leaves (“dwell time” they call it).

Correct me if I'm wrong/out of date but I always thought "dwell time" refers to the time a TRAIN dwells at the railway station/stop

Elementalism · Sun May 06, 2018 1:41 pm

9w748capt wrote:
OKCDCA wrote:
Jamake1 wrote:
It’s a shame that none of those high speed rail markets are in the US.

WAS-NYC is still in the US last time I checked...

And no, it’s not a shame that we don’t have more high speed rail markets in the US. While the current US rail infrastructure was built to haul people and goods to open up the American west, there’s a reason today’s railroads and their predecessors got out of the passenger business, it’s extremely costly and unprofitable. A rail shipment in the US today averages $4,000 because that is what it takes per car to cover their infrastructure (which they wholly own and maintain), labor and other associated costs. High speed rail in the US would be extremely costly to build, just look at the California High Speed Rail project. It is BILLIONS of dollars over budget and at this rate will never be completed and even if it did the only way it could be maintained is through huge government subsidies. So stick with flying for the time being to get from A to B quickly in the US.

It's so costly and inefficient because we've built our cities around the car and not the person. The horribly inefficient design of modern American cities (look at our beloved OKC) is to blame. No wonder we're so fat. I'll never understand at what point our planners decided it was illegal to actually walk somewhere.

What does gutting city trains have to do with HSR between city pairs?

frmrCapCadet · Sun May 06, 2018 1:56 pm

The US great grandfathers* built much of the infrastructure we now enjoy (abuse, and do not maintain). It is time to spend some money - wisely and a lot more previous poster imagines. Look at the tax rates we paid in the 40s, 50s, 60s - that infrastructure was not built with tweets and texts - it took taxes.

*and great grandmothers - . Rosie the Riveter didn't just work, she also paid taxes

Draken21fx · Sun May 06, 2018 2:26 pm

Why did we turn this one into a USA thread?

I remember there are several threads opened in the past about rail vs air travel.

I believe in some places there is even code-sharing of planes and trains. Air France comes to mind.

Traveling by train is booming pretty much throughout Europe at an expense of planes and rightfully so. BCN-MAD and AGP-MAD are pretty much dead due to high speed trains in Spain. I suspect the same will follow in countries like Poland which are expanding/improving their railway network. KRK-WAW will be the first victim. Another example is Greece where the majority of the traffic is ATH-SKG, if they manage to get the train journey down to 3h (around 500km), which is more than manageable, they will kill the majority of flights. In general distances up to 1-1,5h flying in Europe should be substituted by trains and, although I do like planes, I would have to say rightfully so for a variety of reasons.

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 2:56 pm

Bobloblaw wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
Kashmon wrote:
can't really call HSR a success when its mostly subsidized around the world....

Peoples obsession with backward outdated mediums of transport that is not self sufficient is hilarious....
The US is just fine without those trains....

You're kidding right? You know what else is subsidized? Every effing mile of road that you drive your gas guzzling SUV on! Are you dumb enough to think that your taxes actually pay for the roads you drive on? You're freaking kidding right? When the government spends trillions to build unnecessary roads and you get to drive on them for free, that's not a subsidy? Who are you kidding?

You clearly don't understand the concept of subsidies and taxes. Yes taxes pay for roads and taxes provide revenues for subsidies. Where do you think the subsidies come from if not taxation???

You really think that your taxes cover the expenses of the millions of miles of unnecessary roads and freeways? You think they're free to maintain? You think that American drivers are actually paying the real usage cost? Hell no they're not. So when the tax revenue falls short of the expenses and the government steps in to fill the gap, what do you call that?

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 3:04 pm

Elementalism wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
OKCDCA wrote:
WAS-NYC is still in the US last time I checked...

And no, it’s not a shame that we don’t have more high speed rail markets in the US. While the current US rail infrastructure was built to haul people and goods to open up the American west, there’s a reason today’s railroads and their predecessors got out of the passenger business, it’s extremely costly and unprofitable. A rail shipment in the US today averages $4,000 because that is what it takes per car to cover their infrastructure (which they wholly own and maintain), labor and other associated costs. High speed rail in the US would be extremely costly to build, just look at the California High Speed Rail project. It is BILLIONS of dollars over budget and at this rate will never be completed and even if it did the only way it could be maintained is through huge government subsidies. So stick with flying for the time being to get from A to B quickly in the US.

It's so costly and inefficient because we've built our cities around the car and not the person. The horribly inefficient design of modern American cities (look at our beloved OKC) is to blame. No wonder we're so fat. I'll never understand at what point our planners decided it was illegal to actually walk somewhere.

What does gutting city trains have to do with HSR between city pairs?

Because HSR - and any mass transit really - doesn't work if you need a car at either end. If there aren't adequate local transit options when you step off the HSR in Dallas or Houston or wherever, then why would you take the HSR? Especially in the DFW area - no wonder DART usage has been far below capacity - why would you take the train when there are 20 lane freeways (many of them un-tolled), plus free parking everywhere you go?

apodino · Sun May 06, 2018 3:07 pm

This is a very interesting thread. I grew up in the Northeast and train service was something that is not neglected up there, and in fact is a way of life for a lot of people. But even in that part of the country, Nimbyism has slowed development of rail lines into something even more, and there is still a heavy reliance on the Automobile. New Bedford and Fall River MA are two populated cities in MA with no rail link, and this has tried to be addressed forever, but the rail line would run through wealthy communities such as Easton and Raynham and they continue to oppose this. Also because of an unwillingness to electrify key commuter lines up there, Back Bay Station has some of the worst air pollution you will find anywhere. It has gotten so bad that Amtrak pulled their employees out of the station, and people with lung diseases are advised to avoid the station. So even in areas where politicians are more receptive to rail service it is not exactly an easy thing to pull off.

As a Texan now, I would love it if we had a nice mass transit system that covers the metroplex. DART only covers the Dallas side, and it is way too infrequent in my opinion. Rapid Transit is not Rapid if it only runs every 30 minutes as some DART lines do. High Speed Rail in Texas could really work, as Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and DFW are all areas that could be linked easily and have enough people to make it work, not to mention cities in between such as Kileen and Waco. People want this to happen, but usually Southwest has opposed this, and this ties back to the original thread. Some of Southwests bread and butter routes have been DAL to HOU and SAT and this is something HSR would threaten. (It would affect AA to a lesser extent, but AA has a lot of connecting traffic on these routes as well).

Aside from that, this country is really so spread out that High Speed rail doesnt make sense in a lot of places because the advantage of air travel gets lost pretty quickly. Aside from the Northeast and Texas, there are only a couple of areas I could see it working in. And keep in mind too that without other infastructure at the ends, such as subways or bus terminals or regional rail, the effectiveness of such a system is diminished. The other areas I could see would be California, but that project has been so mismanaged I dont think it will end up working the way it was sold to the public. Central and South Florida is another area, and if Orlando had some rail service linking Downtown, the airport, International Drive, and Disney World it would do very well. Aside from that, Chicago to Minneapolis, Detroit, Indianapolis and St Louis, and lastly Seattle to Portland. Outside those areas, I am skeptical that high speed rail could work.

One last point for thought. In air travel, a government entity usually maintains the runways, taxiways, and all the infastructure that airplanes uses. Ditto with highways. In Rail Travel, the railroad maintains it all. If we went to a system where the rails were maintained by a government entity, and then different railroads were able to use those, that could help with the cost issue to railroads a bit. If I am not mistaken, this is how its done in the UK these days.

williaminsd · Sun May 06, 2018 3:48 pm

9w748capt wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Freedom is relative. With a car you don't have the freedom to have a drink whenever you fancy. You are often restricted when it comes to parking you vehicle. Cars are expensive, both in purchase and in operation. You can't work, have dinner in the restaurant, watch a movie, browse the internet, go to the toilet or speak on the phone while driving. You have to keep focusing on driving, and avoiding idiots who don't.

Freedom is having choice. American cities are sread out because that is how Americans wanted it (BTW been to YYZ or SYD lately? YYZ is now like DFW). Central planners prefer we live in small compact apartments within walking distance to public transit. Only people dont want that. Only coercion can make the population like like that.

That's not true at all. More and more people want walkable communities instead of boring, cookie-cutter McMansions. We've been brainwashed for decades into thinking that the "American dream" was having to drive literally everywhere. It boggles my mind every time we leave the US and realize that pretty much anywhere else in the world, one can take care of life's necessities without a car, but in most places in the US you can't even go buy a potato without getting in your car. No wonder we're so damn unhealthy - and lazy. I love with people whine about "lack of parking" - no there's no lack of parking, there's just you being too fat or lazy to walk a block.

And let's not forget that the roots of suburbanization and "white flight" had it's origins in racism, pure and simple. It's not that "everyone" wanted to live in the suburbs, it's just that only whites were afforded the privelege.

You're wrong about a lot here (not a surprise), but let's start with your woefully ignorant statements about the suburbs... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ne/340576/

Zoedyn · Sun May 06, 2018 4:13 pm

A picture is sometimes worth a thousand words
The maps below speak volumes of differences and similarities btwn China and the US, keeping in mind both being largest economies/aviation markets in the world

XAM2175 · Sun May 06, 2018 4:56 pm

9w748capt wrote:
Because HSR - and any mass transit really - doesn't work if you need a car at either end. If there aren't adequate local transit options when you step off the HSR in Dallas or Houston or wherever, then why would you take the HSR? Especially in the DFW area - no wonder DART usage has been far below capacity - why would you take the train when there are 20 lane freeways (many of them un-tolled), plus free parking everywhere you go?

Which is a fair reason to give for an existing or planned HSR system being unviable, sure, but I'd don't believe it should be a reason to avoid rail projects or to denigrate their viability. Instead, why not try to remove the "last-mile" limitations? That's one of the other big points in the success of intercity rail networks in Europe - I can step off an ICE from Hamburg or Hannover or Leipzig or any one of a dozen other places at Berlin Hauptbanhof and pretty much straight onto a huge integrated network of shorter-distance trains, trams, and buses. The same goes for Paris, for Geneva and Zurich, for Vienna, and so on and so forth.

Even in the UK, where complaining about the state of the rail network is a national obsession, a train from Glasgow or Edinburgh or Cardiff or Birmingham, etc etc, is but one or two connections in London away from over a million possible residential and commercial destinations and the only cars involved are the ones passing you on the street.

Australia too - not for trains but for air services. Brisbane and Sydney have same-seat heavy rail connections between their airports and city centres connecting to extensive train and bus networks, and Melbourne's SkyBus service terminates in Southern Cross Station but a few score metres from heavy rail and trams. Indeed the only real complaint about these airport link services is their price, though the MEL one does suffer from traffic interaction.

And remember also - comprehensive and efficient last-mile networks in cities benefit everybody, not just HSR passengers.

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 5:01 pm

XAM2175 wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
Because HSR - and any mass transit really - doesn't work if you need a car at either end. If there aren't adequate local transit options when you step off the HSR in Dallas or Houston or wherever, then why would you take the HSR? Especially in the DFW area - no wonder DART usage has been far below capacity - why would you take the train when there are 20 lane freeways (many of them un-tolled), plus free parking everywhere you go?

Which is a fair reason to give for an existing or planned HSR system being unviable, sure, but I'd don't believe it should be a reason to avoid rail projects or to denigrate their viability. Instead, why not try to remove the "last-mile" limitations? That's one of the other big points in the success of intercity rail networks in Europe - I can step off an ICE from Hamburg or Hannover or Leipzig or any one of a dozen other places at Berlin Hauptbanhof and pretty much straight onto a huge integrated network of shorter-distance trains, trams, and buses. The same goes for Paris, for Geneva and Zurich, for Vienna, and so on and so forth.

Even in the UK, where complaining about the state of the rail network is a national obsession, a train from Glasgow or Edinburgh or Cardiff or Birmingham, etc etc, is but one or two connections in London away from over a million possible residential and commercial destinations and the only cars involved are the ones passing you on the street.

Australia too - not for trains but for air services. Brisbane and Sydney have same-seat heavy rail connections between their airports and city centres connecting to extensive train and bus networks, and Melbourne's SkyBus service terminates in Southern Cross Station but a few score metres from heavy rail and trams. Indeed the only real complaint about these airport link services is their price, though the MEL one does suffer from traffic interaction.

And remember also - comprehensive and efficient last-mile networks in cities benefit everybody, not just HSR passengers.

I'm 110% with you!!! I couldn't agree with your post more. I was just explaining why HSR is less viable in the USA (outside of Chicago and the Northeast). I would love nothing more than for us to ditch our obsession with driving everywhere and actually build our communities in a way that enabled us to - gulp - walk! Walkability (or lack thereof) is the biggest hindrance to successful mass transit in the US.

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 5:03 pm

williaminsd wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:

Freedom is having choice. American cities are sread out because that is how Americans wanted it (BTW been to YYZ or SYD lately? YYZ is now like DFW). Central planners prefer we live in small compact apartments within walking distance to public transit. Only people dont want that. Only coercion can make the population like like that.

That's not true at all. More and more people want walkable communities instead of boring, cookie-cutter McMansions. We've been brainwashed for decades into thinking that the "American dream" was having to drive literally everywhere. It boggles my mind every time we leave the US and realize that pretty much anywhere else in the world, one can take care of life's necessities without a car, but in most places in the US you can't even go buy a potato without getting in your car. No wonder we're so damn unhealthy - and lazy. I love with people whine about "lack of parking" - no there's no lack of parking, there's just you being too fat or lazy to walk a block.

And let's not forget that the roots of suburbanization and "white flight" had it's origins in racism, pure and simple. It's not that "everyone" wanted to live in the suburbs, it's just that only whites were afforded the privelege.

You're wrong about a lot here (not a surprise), but let's start with your woefully ignorant statements about the suburbs... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ne/340576/

Hahaha 2010 - I'm surprised you didn't go back further. A lot has happened since 2010 if you weren't aware. Shall we get into an internet linking war? Let me know.

9w748capt · Sun May 06, 2018 5:05 pm

slickvik wrote:
RogerMurdock wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
We understand it just fine. We prefer the option of private transportation, where we can leave when we want, travel with whom we want, stop where ever we want... Do. What. We. Want. It's that whole freedom/choice thang. Frankly, sounds like you're the one with comprehension challenges...

I think you're confusing freedom and convenience. Private car transportation makes sense in much of the US because it is more convenient for many trips given the existing infrastructure. The reason for this is that transportation spending over the past 70 years has been heavily biased towards highways and enabling suburban and exurban sprawl as opposed to mass transit. This in turn goes back to automakers successfully marketing the private automobile and detached suburban single family home as the "American Dream."

In short, the "freedom" you're describing comes from land use and infrastructure decisions made in the past and heavily subsidized on an ongoing basis.

This is very true. There was a lot of collusion, between automakers, banks, insurance companies, and the government to create the "American Dream," of neighborhoods outside cities which required people to drive to them in conjunction with the ripping out of thousands of miles of existing streetcar tracks all around the country.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. It's incredible how people bitch and moan about subsidizing mass transit, but then again also bitch and moan about toll roads. And then also whine about how high their taxes are. What if every single road in the US was tolled? The NYC subway charges you every time you ride it right? So why shouldn't there be a toll charged to drive from your McMansion to the nearest Walmart 5 miles away so you can buy a head of lettuce?

c933103 · Sun May 06, 2018 5:37 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The problem with high speed rail competing with airlines is that high speed rail is not profitable and depends on subsidies.

Case in point, the Tokaido Shinkansen is profitable. But the entire JR Shinkansen network (even when you take just the JR Central Shinkansen network, of which the Tokaido is a big chunk) loses money. The same can be said about the french TGV network - the Paris-Lyon TGV runs at a profit, but the network in its entirety runs at a deficit. That's all after considering infrastructure cost, which in many countries is borne by the government, not the railroad company (even if that is owned by the government).

The problem, of course, is that high speed rail infrastructure has a very low utilization rate, much lower than, say, an airport runway. That's a profitability killer par excellence.

Meanwhile, the private airline companies have to compete with state subsidized high speed rail. As an example, the Spanish AVE trains are a money sink, but have reduced the MAD-BCN air traffic substantially. Spain went from an airline monopoly on the route to liberalization straight back to state controlled pricing within about 20 years.

Now California is planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a high speed rail of their own, a price point which makes it impossible for it to ever return a profit. Yet private airline companies will have to compete with it on the LAX-SFO route. That's absolutely shameful.

lol Running trains nonstop 18 hours a day is low utilization rate? That's far more frequently used than runway of most airports. And also are you trying to say high speed rail does not make money because companies use profit from high speed rail to maintain other socially important lines?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net