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?
$30 or so? I can easily drive to SF from LA on ¾ of a tank, which would be about 30 bucks. Why pay more than that? I get parking in SF might be terrible and costly, but depending on whom you are visiting driving is really the way to go.
This is how much south west airline charges to fly there in less time. This is 5 th grade math government.
Yes, trains are cool, Europe (and much of Asia) knows it, and 500 miles for about 100$ is a good deal - i know the arguments about the population density from the economic point of view, they are correct, but i think California is a right place for trains.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
That's a silly question, since it depends on what airfare for the equivalent trip is. In truth, what I'll probably do is go to ${AirfareSearchSite} and ${RailSearchSite} and compare on a trip-by-trip basis. That would probably include factors uncorrelated to the modality -- like which particular departure times are convenient for me.
It's beyond me why you would want to answer this question in the way it was asked -- as if there was some magical price for the trip as opposed to a comparison with other substitutes.
[ And, of course, the comparison is not just on the fare. Total travel time (including the connection on either end) is a factor, as are possible delays (SFO gets slowed by fog) or comfort (train legroom?). But again, it's a comparison not an absolute ... ]
Put a bunch of numbers on a dartboard, from $50 to $250. Throw a dart. Whatever it hits...thats it. Trying to determine a ticket price for a service that may or may not exist 15 years from now is, as said in the article, "spitballing".
What will happen to gas and airline prices between now and then? Will elec cars be more prevalent? What cost multiplier will be applied to actually building the thing?
More importantly...will it actually get built? What rare riparian environment will be discovered in the proposed path, that will cause it to be tied up in enviro court for years? Or in NIMBY court?
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.
driving is *much* cheaper. And you have your own vehicle instead of having to rent or pay taxi fare.
After 9/11, the time spent travelling is almost the same, too.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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?
I just drove the I-5 all of the way from LA to San Francisco yesterday as I'd brought a carful of test equipment to an engineer there. I didn't fly because of the freight I had, but in general train transport is better for carrying a lot of baggage. Less handling, less fees for freight.
Also, planes can't compete when there's a good high-speed rail, because of their logistical complications. Airports are usually far from town and require their own train to get to. Nobody takes a plane instead of Eurostar. While Southwest will survive on its many other routes, their SFO to LAX route is doomed.
Having traveled extensively in Europe, and having enjoyed never having to use a car and rarely needing a plane because their trains are so fast, cheap, and efficient, 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. Americans are total retards about this, they can't ever have any excuse.
Bruce Perens.
"How much would you be willing to pay to take a fast train between L.A. and San Francisco?"
Guess that depends...how much faith do you have in guessing what our economy is going to do in the next decade?
A global economic meltdown and subsequent bank bailouts were the highlights of the last decade, so feel free to sit around and pull theories clean out of your ass as to the value of the [insert new global monetary standard here] in 2028.
Currently, the lowest price I can find on plain old Amtrak service from Baltimore to New York is $77 if I leave next week. (Less than half the distance between LA and SF.) Cut that train trip time in half, and I'd pay the extra cost over a Bolt bus.
Sadly based on past statements regarding high speed rail I would imagine that their ticket prices and revenue projections are highly optimistic. The initial numbers said that the project would cost around $36B, cost estimates have since increased to at least $68B. At the same time the projects ridership numbers have been practically disproved, a peer reviewed study suggested a ridership of between 23.4 to 31.1 million where the "official" numbers were 65.5 to 96.5 million. I love the idea of some level of public transport but it needs to be economically viable.
...shouldn't the price of the ride be based on the cost of delivering the service? What if it turns out to cost $300/person to transport someone from LA to SF on the new rail system?
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.
Why not just high speed boats? A hydrofoil can go very fast, around 100mph, without infringing on anyone's precious real estate.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
Voters were told in 2008 that the project would cost $39 billion. Now Gov. Brown says it will cost $69 billion. And it's still over a decade away. Under the bond measure the state isn't allowed to subsidize the operation of the project. It must be covered by the fares. Since there is so much uncertainty about the cost of the project it makes no sense to try to guess the cost of a ticket.
Flying is a pain in the ass.
How do you know this won't end up being an equivalent pain in the ass?
For me, the answer to the posited question is "it depends". If I can just walk on, the way I currently just walk onto my commuter train, then I'd easily pay at least as much as air fare. If I'm going to have to take off my shoes, get groped, and walk through a backscatter scanner... I won't pay anything - I'll drive instead.
I used to think flying was a bit of a treat, but now I only choose it if it's the only possible way of getting to my destination. Nowadays I just choose to drive most of the time, even though it takes longer - I don't waste any time even considering the flight option.
#DeleteChrome
A fair assessment.
Your imagined high speed train ride is pure fantasy. There will be a TSA checkpoint (high-speed rail will be a terrorist target), trains will run only a couple times a day, so here comes a couple hours wait time for the next train, and you are still going to be surrounded by strangers and your luggage will have to be checked. Oh, and this 'getting work done while I'm on the train' fantasy? Are you going to pay extra for a seat with a work surface?
Oh no, I'm sure trains in the future will be fantastic, completely unlike today's trains.
Ken
If the DHS/TSA have anything to do with it I'm sure that the lack of groping and 'security' delays on the train will be an obstacle that suitable laws will overcome.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I very much doubt you will avoid the TSA groping.
You seriously think the TSA is going to miss an opportunity for more security theater just because its a train??
Right now you might not need a TSA groping to get on a train but theres still time.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
What will it cost to build out the needed road and airline infrastructure? What is the cost in terms of pollution and lost productivity by continuing to rely on cars and airplanes?
To talk about the cost of a project without comparing alternatives is meaningless.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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.
Sounds like what this guy said about living in London and commuting to his job in Paris at 25:10 in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
mfwright@batnet.com
On the low end, they estimate 18 million riders a year. Ok, dividing 18 million by 365 days leaves you with almost 50,000 passengers a day. Divided by two, that's about 24,000 passengers SF->LA, and 24,000 passengers LA->SF each day. If they run 24 trains s day, leaving each hour, that means 1,000 passengers per hour, every hour, every day.
Seems unlikely.
Maybe they'll run trains every two hours, but then they gotta stuff 2,000 people on each train 12 times/day, every day.
Ken
If airlines of 2026 lose 20% of their passengers to a competing service that charges 87% of airline ticket prices, then airlines will not continue to charge those prices.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You actually wind up in the part of the city you actually want to be in, rather than way out in the outskirts of town
You obviously know jack fucking shit about the United States.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
2. This HSR will become immensely unpopular after it's first accident or terrorist attack. Using the kinetic energy of a fast train to kill and maim will prove too tempting a target for wacko terrorists, homegrown or overseas.
3. Who ever heard of basing ticket prices on what other transportation costs? This is a recipe for endless taxpayer subsidy. Ticket prices should be based on the operating costs and bond expenses. If we do this, this HSR will be prohibitively expensive.
4. California is different from Europe and Japan. Our *intra-city* public transport is not as nice, requiring the use of a car at one's destination (LA, SF).
5. Feelings towards this HSR project are not a litmus test for Democrat/Republican. It is a litmus test for those who pay heavy taxes and wish to see their money spend wisely, versus those who pay little in taxes and consequently are not as concerned how this money is spent.
So what do all those people flying from one place to another in the US do? If you need to drive in your destination then you'll just rent a car like you would have if you flew.
The Paris Lyon route, the first high speed rail route in Paris, is on mostly flat, low population density, seismically inactive ground, ie., the type of land cheap to build high speed rail on. I believe France got a construction cost of ~$40 million per km of double track high speed rail on cheap, flat land. California has a lot of mountains, is seismically active. Jerry Brown expects HSR to cost $70+ billion? The Northeast Corridor has rivers, cities, and multiple screwed up state government to deal with. The third high speed rail corridor of choice was Chicago, and Detroit, but Detroit has been in a Depression for the last few decades. So, it is no wonder the United States does not have real high speed rail. Obama's proposal for 80% of America's population to have high speed rail is a bad idea.
Southern Florida has bad land to build on, and a hurricane could wipe the expensive HSR line out. I think Dallas-Houston will be the best place for HSR, because the population is high enough, geography is good for construction, and the state govt might keep the BS down.
Wondering why nobody puts some freight onto the high speed lines. I would think that the courier companies would like an hourly train leaving between major cities instead of flying all of their parcels. The costs wouldn't be that much since you would have to build the track for the passenger service so it would just be the incremental costs for the service. Of course passenger traffic would have the right of way which would be the opposite of traditional rail service in North America. I'm not suggesting that it would be for containers running across the continent (though that would be an interesting experiment).
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.
Sounds like what this guy said about living in London and commuting to his job in Paris at 25:10 in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The Eurostar is one of the few services in Europe where there *is* a security check and a requirement to arrive 10-30 minutes beforehand (it's 10 with the expensive ticket, 30 otherwise, and they're actually very accommodating if you're late). California shouldn't need this, as there's no international / undersea borders.
For other trains, 2 minutes is a bit short. For a long-distance journey, I aim to be waiting at the correct platform 5 minutes before the scheduled departure time, or a bit more if it's an infrequent (>20m) service.
Why would anyone pay for the train when they will be able to ride in their self driving car with greater convenience, lower cost and almost as quick. 14 years is a long time in hardware and software development. Robotic cars (busses?) will be widely available by then. When you eliminate the idiots driving on the roads traffic will flow much better than today so travel should be faster. You will still need local transport when you get to destination city. You can rent a car or pay for a taxi both up the cost or bring your own.
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.
LAX to SJC via air: $330 roundtrip, $165 one way
~90 minutes in the air each way, ~30 minutes boarding, ~30 minutes TSA (but you generally give ~60 minutes in case of emergency).
So 3 hours each way by air (the Uber/Taxi at the end would be about the same for the train).
so you dont think youll get groped to ride this train?
------ hi mom
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.
Because I've done it in Europe for years. This isn't a new mode of travel.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I'm not sure about California, but going between Austin and Houston and New Orleans I'm able to drive 80 or 90 mph. (Posted speed limits are between 60 and 75, but we're talking actual speed not theoretical speed.) The roads would allow me to maintain a faster speed, but I don't go higher in the interest of fuel economy. If my car had a fifth gear to go into, I probably would.
LA-er: why do I want to go up to cold, snooty SF/Silicon Valley/Marlin?
SF: why do I want to go to flaky LA/Hollywood/OC?
PER-HAPS this white elephant will be built. But there is absolutely no guarantee. Will bankrupt California be in a position a decade from now to still be pouring money into this hole? Current estimate is $68 billion. Thus if the Boston Big Dig has taught us anything, assuming you were a complete moron and didn't know it already, $68 billion is a hopeless pipe dream that will be no better than 50% of the final cost ASSUMING everything goes letter perfect.
If it were to be completed my guess, which is FAR better than theirs but still only a guess, is for $225 billion with construction completed in 2042. 400% over budget on money and 100% over budget on time. That sounds historically accurate.
One has to wonder what sort of road they could build for $200 billion, or even $100 billion. I envision I5a I5b I5c I5d; each of them 12 lanes with automatic switching so each 50,000 cars would travel a different road. Couple this with I5e and I5f dedicated to self driving cars traveling at 150 MPH and the california bullet train looks like a bigger dinosaur than the F-35-never-to-fly-in-combat USAF boondoggle.
And all this leaves out the fact that in the next 50 years there will probably be some big earthquake that damages the line. Creating a huge infrastructure item with a single point of failure is just plain stupid. Say it all works. It won't. But say it does. Say they ignore primary transportation and funnel all the gas taxes into this thing to the point they have to close I5. Now when anything from earthquake to terrorists to sinkhole breaks it for 6 months, or maybe 18, what the hell are you going to do?
You've never taken the Acela from DC to NYC or Boston.
What were you saying about knowing shit about the USA?
Trains are obviously a terrorist target worldwide, but the only one I know of in Europe with a security checkpoint is between London and Paris/Brussels (where there is a passport check anyway). If someone wants to crash a train, it's *far* easier to drive a road vehicle onto the tracks, and probably more deadly and disruptive to target a busy commuter train (example).
Trains should be something like every 30-60 minutes, if the service is to be useful. Compare http://traintimes.org.uk/londo... or (so I'm not picking such major cities) http://traintimes.org.uk/brist...
Seats have airline-style fold-down tables (but larger), except the facing ones that have real tables. It's generally possible to pre-book the type you prefer — 4 seats around a table is nice for a family, but on a peak-time train will be used by business travellers. There will be power sockets, WiFi, a drinks trolley.
Well depending on which figure you use, the real cost is between $87 and $219 and those are IRS numbers. It's probably more.
Don't forget, it's not just gas. It's insurance, gas, taxes, wear and tear on the car. And if you're driving something like a Ferrari, I'd expect the cost to be more like $500.
Quite right. But if you are taking your family to San Francisco, the cost is still $219, while the cost of the train is now $344. That is what keeps me driving instead of taking the airlines. It is far cheaper for me to drive to any destination reachable by car if I take my family. It also takes less time by car for anything less than about 500 miles.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The fare may be at $86 at first, then when they realized that they are losing money to self driving vehicles and people that want to be able to sight see and go when they want to go instead of when the train is scheduled they will do something about it. Most likely putting tolls on the connecting highways and keep on increasing them until they get the traffic they expect on the rails. Then of course the train fare will be increased to make more money as the fare setting authorities see the power and market value they now have.
Most autobahns on Germany have speed limits, pretty low limits actually, around 120km/h.
Autobahns are build in a meander way to connect as many towns/cities to the Autobahn. So they don't give you a 'straight line' from Munich to Hamburg.
A fast car does ~200 km/h, but you won't do that constantly. A very fast car does 250 km/h. A high speed train in Germany does 325 km/h in France they do 375 km/h - that is 233 mph.
There is no car that beats on a serious distance a train, sorry, not even a slow train.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
How much more convenient could flying around the state be if they spent $68 Billion making it better? They could build 10 new airports for that amount. They could buy off the TSA special interests and end the security theatre. They could add enough flights to guarantee hourly transit during peak times, so you wouldn't have to book a ticket and arrive early, you'd just show up and get on the next flight. And if there were too many people, they'd just fly a spare plane from the nearest airport, less than 30 minutes away.
If they even spent half the $68 Billion on air travel improvements, you'd end up with a faster, more convenient trip for a lower fare (including subsidy) than rail.
At that price we could put the money into a giant trust and hire limousines to drive people to their destinations.
I'd rather they reallocate those funds for basic road repair, such as re-painting lane lines and fixing potholes. CA roads have gone to shit since the recession.
Table-ized A.I.
How much would I be willing to pay? That depends. Is TSA going to be there groping or nuking me?
I can foresee asymmetric travel. In the mornings, you'd have people going north, and in the evenings, people going south, more than the reverse. It's easier to get around the SF Bay without a car than it is to get around L.A. without a car. Thus, a lot of the people coming south are going to drive, because even if a train can get them 90% of the way there, they still have a last mile problem.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
It's the dickheads in the far left lane doing 55 that make it miserable.
That is why I go by rail not air in Europe China, Japan, Korea - even though it is often more expensive than air.
The key will be whether we can avoid the PITA issues in California HSR. If they want TSA, cheked luggage, 1 hour prior check-in and advanced reserved seats for reasonable prices, then I'll just fly. The flight itself is so short that the discomfort really isn't an issue. Its all the end effects that matter.
The whole train was conceived as an infrastructure boondoggle to get federal money into the state coffers.
That is the only reason california even did it. Had the feds not offered them money they wouldn't have touched it. And then you have the usual backscratching where contracts are thrown at campaign donors etc.
Look, we had two means of getting from LA to SF and both was largely superior to the train concept.
1. Airplane. It is a lot faster and for anyone doing a regular commute at that sort of distance... time is money. People that aren't getting their transport paid for by their company or aren't making more than enough to pay for the plane flights out of petty cash are not commuting between LA and SF on any regular basis. If you are just visiting for the weekend or something then the travel cost is not that bad considering that it is not a frequent expense.
2. A god damn fucking car. Let me give people that don't know shit about california a bit of insight here, the drive from LA to SF can be absolutely beautiful if you take the scenic route. Really a great trip and I recommend it for anyone that wants a good time. Beautiful country. Great food. Very nice accommodations. If you want to get from point A to point B faster... then take the highway that goes through the imperial valley. The land is flat and boring... and mostly full of farm fields... but it is a straight uninterrupted highway connecting point A with point B.
Either option is superior to the train.
Airplanes are faster and cheaper than the bullet train. Remember, the train doesn't actually cost 83 dollars a ticket. That is the subsidized rate. The government is DISCOUNTING the ticket to attract your business with YOUR tax dollars. If you actually look at what the train ACTUALLY costs you'll find that it is costing MORE per passenger than an airplane. This is while being slower. Which makes it a stupid form of travel.
Cars are the most economical and most interesting way to go because you can make detours and travel the most scenic way. And even then you're just paying for gas. I can jam six people or so in my car and travel between the cities on 30 dollars of gas. The bullet train can't even begin to compete with that economy.
So what the train offers is speed... and its slower than the plane while being a lot more expensive.
The bullet train is stupid. It was a scam pushed by corrupt politicians and the various people in my state that supported it are mostly unimaginative twats that thought a technology developed in the 70s and only found to be marginally economical under the most extreme of conditions made any sense connecting SF with LA.
Dumb.
A better idea if you want something new and wiz bang is Musk's HyperLoop. That at the VERY least is new and interesting. It might even be cheap and fast. But the "bullet train"... it might make sense in Japan but in Cali? No.
What was further ignored is that in Cali the most successful rail route is not between SF and LA but between LA and San Diego. It is one of the few Amtrak lines in the US that actually make a profit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why is the TSA necessary on trains? Once a plane takes off, it's the wild west because it's disconnected from civilization and the authorities, and any terrorist can take control of the plane, take it elsewhere and kill the passengers.
A train, on the other hand, can be centrally controlled and stopped remotely by a central authority. Moreover, a train is sectioned many bogies and trying to takeover all bogies is quite difficult. You can have armed plainclothesmen inside trains if you want to deal with such people.
The Eurostar is one of the few services in Europe where there *is* a security check and a requirement to arrive 10-30 minutes beforehand (it's 10 with the expensive ticket, 30 otherwise, and they're actually very accommodating if you're late). California shouldn't need this, as there's no international / undersea borders.
For other trains, 2 minutes is a bit short. For a long-distance journey, I aim to be waiting at the correct platform 5 minutes before the scheduled departure time, or a bit more if it's an infrequent (>20m) service.
Every Spanish HST has a security check-through. And Spain is the most HST-intensive country in Europe.
Having said that, security checks like the Spanish ones I can handle. You practically have to wake the guy up to check you. And there's no requirement to arrive early, although it's clearly not advisable to wait till the last minute.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
So what do all those people flying from one place to another in the US do? If you need to drive in your destination then you'll just rent a car like you would have if you flew.
People that fly from city to city:
And in 13 years "High Speed Rail" passengers will do exactly the same thing.
Ken
I can see NYC to LA costing $80. but in state trips should be far, far cheaper by train. How about LA to San Francisco for $6.?
Some of the "actual cities" in the U.S. span dozens or even hundreds of kilometers (e.g., Houston, Atlanta, LA, even Chicago). Even some of the urban areas near Cleveland, Ohio, an older and more compact city than most in the U.S., are 100km or more apart. (E.g.: Oberlin to Mentor). These areas are simply not navigable without a car, no matter how fast you manage to get in or out of whatever you consider to be the "central area." Part the reason is not just suburban sprawl but the fact that originally many of these areas were once collections of separate, distant smaller towns that eventually grew together.
Nonaggression works!
Why they aren't building this to Las Vegas I have no idea. They'd make more money than god, the thing would be full 24/7.
-
From what I can tell, the Acela is kind of a ripoff. I just looked into the train from DC to NYC. Acela is 250 bucks, and takes a little under 3 hours. Or I can take the normal train for like a quarter of that, which only gets me there like 20 minutes slower. That seems like a pretty good tradeoff...
LA->SF, on the other hand, is way further away, so a high speed line would definitely be worth it at, or even perhaps a tiny bit above, the cost of an equivalent flight - trains are way more comfortable, and tend to leave out of more conveniently central locations, or at the very least, tend to leave at locations more conducive to using *existing* public transportation.
If it is successful then it will not be a better experience for long if TSA or competing interests like airlines have anything to say about it.
Going a little off topic, we did not need a 4th ammendment anyway:
T.S.A. officials respond that the random searches are “special needs” or “administrative searches” that are exempt from probable cause because they further the government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks.
The teams, which are typically composed of federal air marshals, explosives experts and baggage inspectors, move through crowds with bomb-sniffing dogs, randomly stop passengers and ask security questions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...
Because I've done it in Europe for years. This isn't a new mode of travel.
Europe is Europe. In America, tempting targets get subjected to security theater to deter terrorism. Currently, passenger rail is not a tempting target... but if it was..
300km/h isn't fast? That's nearly 190mph...
I cannot speak to a desired ticket price, but I am convinced that building the high speed rail link is several magnitudes cheaper than maintaining the CA highway system. Folks get bent out of shape when talk comes to spending once a few billions on sustainable rail projects, but find it quite OK to spend billions each year on keeping the highway system from falling apart. So what if that rail link needs subsidies? The Interstate system needs subsidies as well because tolls alone (if they are charged) cover only a fraction of the direct and indirect cost. Improving regional and even cross-country high speed rail will put the US into a good position for the future. It is also _the_ tool to reduce airspace congestion. A while back I read an article that only three years of Interstate maintenance spending would fund all planned and thought about projects for passenger rail in the US, that includes big projects like closing the Boston gap. Instead politicians decide to keep wasting money on an unsustainable and pollution fostering car/truck focused infrastructure. How about closing all the left lanes on Interstates and putting rails down to run trains? Right of way is not an issue and the rail links will be able to handle tremendously more transport of goods and people than cars/trucks can at a fraction of the energy needed. Sounds like too much of a great plan, right? Is that why nobody wants do it?