Slashdot Mirror
Examining Costs and Prices For California's High-Speed Rail Project
The L.A. Times features a look at the contentious issue of a publicly funded high-speed rail system for travel within the state of California, which focuses especially on an obvious question: how much would it cost for passengers to ride? This isn't a straightforward answer, though, partly because the system isn't expected to be operational for another 13 years, and the estimates vary wildly for what would be a trip of more than 400 miles that touches on some of the U.S.'s most expensive real estate. From the Times' article:
"The current $86 fare [for an L.A. to San Francisco ticket] is calculated in 2013 dollars based on a formula that prices tickets at 83% of average airline fares to help attract riders. The rail fare is an average that includes economy and premium seats, nonstop and multi-stop trains, as well as last-minute and advance purchase tickets. A premium, same-day nonstop bullet train trip would cost more than $86.
But compared with current average prices on several high-speed rail systems in Asia and Europe, $86 would be a bargain, equating to about 20 cents a mile or less, the Times review found. The analysis was based on a 438-mile route in the mid-range of what state officials expect the final alignment to measure."
How much would you be willing to pay to take a fast train between L.A. and San Francisco?
Track priority will probably not be an issue since current tracks that Amtrak shares it the freight rail are not "high speed". But not driving, being able to nap or work, that's worth the price. High speed in Europe is comfortable, and reasonably priced.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
No, this isn't good math.
Eurostar train tickets between London and Paris are usually more expensive than flying low-cost airline. People splurge on train in preference over air, not the other way round.
True, train take s 2.5 hours of moving and fligth 45 minutes of flying. But I can get to Kings X in 10 minutes on tube and be there 20 minutes before departure and on the other end I am at Gare du Nord, smack in the centre.
When flying, it takes me 1 hour min to each airport, then I need to pay the terrorist task by queing for another hour. Then we fly and then it is again 1hour min from Orly or CDG to get where I want.
In Europe and Asia, the average population density in cities is typically much higher than the US, where the cities typically have as large a population, but are more spread out. (Fun fact, the only US city that ranks in the top 50 for population density world-wide is.... Union City, New Jersey!)
As such, in the US, car ownership is almost a necessity unless you live in a city like New York with a large area mass transit system. Living in, for example, London or Tokyo, you have to be either borderline suicidal or a regular commuter to areas outside the city, for car ownership to be viable, given the high cost of ownership and maintenance of a car, parking, fuel, and so on. Or you have to be a creature of habit. Seriously, the idea of driving across London at a slower pace than you could walk the same distance actually appeals to some people!
In that kind of environment, the most economical option is often to take the train to your chosen destination (it is quicker, less stressful, and you can kick back with a beer, and avoid the airport security theater and molestation by a TSA agent *cough*pervert*cough*). If you really need to drive, hiring a car at your destination is again usually cheaper than taking your own vehicle all the way.
Flying is a pain in the ass. You need to go to an airport, get groped, wait an hour until you can board, sit in an uncomfortable seat, get fed a tiny drink if you're lucky when they want to feed it to you, use a bathroom that's tiny and uncomfortable, and wait for another 40 minutes for your luggage afterwards.
A train is just a much better experience. You can show up 2 minutes before departure, get on without a strip search, get a nice big seat, have a dining car, can get up and walk around at will, and just grab your luggage on the way out.
For a short (say 200 mile distance) its actually just as fast as flying when you figure in airport waits. For 400 its slower than an a plane, but a much less stressful experience. And with 180 mph bullet trains you can actually get to same coast cities in a reasonable time. I'd take one any day of the week over a plane for anything under 600 miles.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
but i think California is a right place
Been to any big CA cities? There full of thug-life gang bangers. White people won't use these things.
High speed rail in Europe usually costs a premium or is heavily subsidized. And usually it isn't "high speed" unless you live in some of the most expensive zip codes on the continent, because everybody else needs to use slow feeder trains and leave a lot of time for connections.
DreadPirate, you are really not calculating correctly. I know it sounds cheap, but it isn't. If you can get there for $30 in gas, that's 40 miles per gallon -- not bad. Still, that's 7.5 cents/mile.
Say you bought a used car for $10,000, and can drive it for 100,000 miles. That's 10 cents a mile. More than gas.
Oil changes every 5,000 miles at $40? That's another penny a mile.
Tires at $300 every 30,000 miles? Another penny a mile.
Let's not talk about what your time is worth (you might really enjoy the drive), or insurance (not too dependent on miles driven) -- but still, that's about 20 cents a mile, or $80.
Most people don't really like to think how expensive driving is, but it isn't cheap. We have been taught that it's all about the gas, but it just isn't.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Either you're one of those super-privileged people who live close to the center of London and Paris, or you need to add 1-2h at either end to get from your suburb to the high speed rail station.
Kings-X St Pancras has truly huge suburban, urban, intercity and tube connections. I don't think Stevenage counts as super-privileged, but you know, tastes vary. From Stevenage, which isn't event he same city the difference isn't much more. Leave a train in hand ( + 30 minutes), 40 minutes to Kings-X, then hop on the eurostar and off you go.
Or from anywhere in south London served on the thameslink route.
Or you know, you can keep on denying reality and insist that flying from somewhere near London to Paris on a low cost airline doesn't suck compared to the train. Or you can take the word of people who have done both multiple times.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So do HSR stations.
u wot m8.
HSR stations are usually in the middle of cities, they (unlike most airports) are NEVER far from towns. Unless you consider, for example, Bruxelles Midi to not be right in the sodding middle of Brussles, or St Pancras to be in the middle of London.
No doubt you greatly enjoyed being ferried around in comfort and style between some of the most expensive zip codes in Europe at a subsidized low price, thanks to money taken from Europeans who will never get to use those trains.
You believe I live next to St Pancras, or next to Gard do Nord?
You don't have the faintest idea how these things work.
We have excellent rail service in the US, far better than Europe, for what it is actually good for: freight.
We have excellent rail services in Europe, far better than the US for what it is actually good for: mass transit.
Unless you enjoy sitting in massive traffic jams. If that float your boad then I guess that's cool too and I shouldn't judge.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
American rail is made more expensive by urban sprawl, but not quite in the way most people think. If you compare somewhere like South Florida to Germany or Italy and look at how many people are likely to be within 5 miles of a given station, we really DON'T look all that different. Well, except Miami has a lot more skyscrapers sprawled across the entire metro area (even Broward has gotten into the act... witness "Tao" -- two 30-story towers built next to Sawgrass Mills mall whose balconies literally overlook the Everglades).
Anyway, the BIG difference between Florida or California and Europe is that in Europe, once you get out of the city... it tends to become rural & stay that way for a while. In contrast, if you were to build brand new tracks from Miami to West Palm Beach within 5 miles of I-95, you'd LITERALLY be plowing through a hundred miles of solid low & medium-density suburbia almost every inch of the way. In contrast, a comparable route in Europe would pass through at most a half-dozen cities, and run mostly through areas that were farmland or forest.
If that is what they build then you have a whole set of other problems.
Go and clone the Japanese Shinkansen though and none of what you say if true. FFS all the shinkansens I have been on in recent years even have standard powerpoints for you to plug your laptop / other charger in.
What you need to compare when justifying subsidizing HSR is not whether HSR reduces congestion on highways, but whether it is the best way of reducing congestion for that amount of money.
Most of the long haul stretches are not particularly congested; it's going through major cities that causes the congestion. A series of bypasses of major cities along the major highways would be much more effective in reducing congestion than spending the same amount of money on HSR.
I don't know about the LA end of things, but the San Francisco end of the HSR station is intended to be smack in the middle of downtown San Francisco. This would it in the same station as Greyhound (national bus transit), AC Transit (local bus service in the East Bay), SamTrans (local bus service in the Peninsula), and Muni (local bus service in SF, including the arterial N/S and E/W lines). This station is also short walking distance to BART (regional light rail), Muni Metro (local surface and subway streetcar service). Of course, CalTrain (regional heavy rail) doesn't stop there, although there is an effort at getting the HSR authority to follow through on extending the CalTrain tracks to the new station.
Compare this to SFO or OAK which are only served by BART. BART itself offers very poor connections to other lines (except for Muni in downtown SF). BART from OAK now levies a $12 round-trip surcharge for their half billion dollar cable car to the airport (while screaming that they need $5b to fix their existing tracks). BART from SFO levies an $8+ round-trip surcharge and their ballyhooed intermodal station at Millbrae is a joke (no direct service from SFO most of the time).
HSR to downtown SF would be a pretty large improvement in convenience to anyone living in SF or Alameda counties.
So. What. In terms of population served, LA or SF on their own dwarf Monterey and Boise. I think you'll find that air service to either of those towns pales in comparison to that of SF and LA.
The revolution will be mocked
You're (apparently) a computer scientist living within commute distance of central London; of course you are privileged relative to most Brits.
You seem to revel in your ignorance. Go live in Elephant. It's a total shithole and pretty cheap. It's closer than I live. Among the many busses, trains and tube you can even walk into central London from there pretty quickly. Contrary to what you believe, London is a complete city and contains people working in all sorts of jobs. Fun fact: pretty much everyone in London commutes to their jobs including all the low paid cleaners, office temps, and even golf sign holders. Are you really going to claim they're among the privilidged few?
You're absolutely right that trains are the most pleasant way to travel around Europe (and I have likely been doing it a lot longer than you). What you have failed to explain is why large numbers of taxpayers who do not benefit from HSR should subsidize it.
Because they do benefit from it. Infrastructure leads to a functional country which improves the GDP. It's the same reason I benefit from living in a functional country which means I'm happy to have my tax fund motorways around Liverpool even though I've never been and I'm not likely to go there in forseeable future. Hell, I'm happy to have my tax money fund roads on Orkney. And guess what? I've never used the Millwall tunnel. Should I bitch and moan about how my tax is funding drivers in some place I never drive?
And before you climb of your awfully high horse, you may wish to consider how the net flow of money is out of London to the rest of the country which means I do (and am in fact happy to) effectively subsidise the rest of the country.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Depending on country, high speed trains run every hour, or every second, splitting direction after certain distance to either A or B. .A is on even hours and everything that goes to
So everything before the split is every hour, and every thing that goes to
b on odd hours. To still reach A on odd hours you change train at the split point.
Even not so popular routes like mine from Karlsruhe to Paris go every second hour, with a short change to 3 hour gaps around 12:00, and back to 2:00 later.
There are no checkpoints.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.