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?

Comments

Re:$30

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:$70 max

[PineGreen]

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.

Re:No

[AuMatar]

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.

Re:$30

[Thagg]

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.

Re:More than $100

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:More than $100

[Alex Zepeda]

So do HSR stations.

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.

isn't going to benefit the good people of Monterey or Boise very much.

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.