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?
I think the issue is more that the US turns HSR into a political point, so it gets mired in a nightmare of red tape. Whereas in other areas of the world, more or less, it gets built faster and without quite as much largesse.
Yes, but the high speed rail being built in California is not high speed. In fact, it will be the slowest train ever built that is titled "high speed." The moniker is purely political, not an actual description of the train. The current Amtrak is highly comparable to what is being built.
Seriously, this is a joke that it is being built. It is a jobs bill similar to SLS for Space.
Hyperloop is where America should focus and push. It is obvious that we can go not only 500 MPH in the tubes, but even higher speeds should be possible.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
in not having insisted on keeping and improving rail since the 40's. Americans are total retards about this, they can't ever have any excuse.
But why did these alleged retards not insist on improving rail?
Because the US is much, much bigger than Europe, and the land wasn't already owned by someone who could successfully defend their claim.
Thus, while Europe built *up*, we built *out*. Not only in cities, but suburbs. Because we want lawns. That requires space, and that means roads, not trains.
So, if you really want to blame a group for the US having sprawling metro regions, blame the Indians for not defending their territory (from us and the Spanish).
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Distance and time in Europe are much shorter. It's 3000 miles across one way and nearly 2000 the other. I just did a cross country with some zigs and zags and traveled 6,788 miles: Savannah to Seattle via Delaware and San Antonio. And you want me to take a train? Going from London to Paris is one thing. Going from LA to New York is quite another. That doesn't make me an idiot; it makes you one for not factoring that in.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
High speed rail in Europe usually costs a premium or is heavily subsidized.
As opposed to roads which are subsidized and air travel which is subsidized. Even walking is subsidized. That's the thing about infrastructure...
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.
Huh? You use high speed rail to travel between cities. I know this because I actually did it the other day.
15 minute walk to station with a wheely case. 15 minutes on suburban rail to St Pancras. 1 minute walk to Kings-X (same station really), then up to Newcastle at 125MPH. Then I rented a car.
I could have driven all the way and rented from London and it would have been cheaper. Would have sucked though and taken much longer. In fact some friends of mine did drive from fairly near london an arrived 2 hours late due to heavy traffic.
That includes the half hour I left for a connection on the way out. Since the suburban trains are regular, I didn't leave any time for a connection on the return. I had to wait for about 7 minutes on the platform for the train.
Either way even without traffic it was much faster and much more pleasant to take the train. With traffic, the difference is greater still. If you live in a country with ACTUAL hugh speed trains (200mph, not 125) then the difference is greater still again.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I marvel at the idiocy of our citizens, it's not the government's fault, in not having insisted on keeping and improving rail since the 40's.
Actually the US has the world's best rail system. But that system is for freight, not for passengers. You can't have HSR and freight on the same tracks, so the US railways chose freight.
The reason that rail is subsidised is because the benefits of their operation, to the governments, are not restricted to their fare price. Every passenger is a passenger not taking an alternative mode of transport. Given the level of congestion on the highways this can be the difference between moving traffic and grid lock. If you can get 15% of the traffic on that corridor travelling by train you are potentially looking at saving vastly more money because you don't have to upgrade the highways. This is especially true where the highways are running through heavily developed areas.
Finance charges means interest on debt. Most people buy automobiles on credit. You either get artificially low interest from an auto company, which means you paid too much for the car and the interest is hidden, or you get it from a credit union, a bank, or one of those non-bank debtors. It's a significant amount.
The rate of depreciation is connected with the resale price of the automobile rather than its service life. That is the book value of the property - what you would get for it if you sold it. You might keep it for 24 years and drive it 250K miles, but most of its resale value is gone long before then, and thus the depreciation schedule should be relatively short.
This illustrates a problem. Most people don't fully apprehend what their real costs are concerning something like an automobile. Most people are bored by accounting, after all. They would not, without a long walk through numbers and principles, make a well informed decision about something like rail vs. car.
Bruce Perens.