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?
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.