I hope then by starting a new thread about high-speed train, I won't go bad as the previous one, I spotted this article about high-speed trains on Reason magazine
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/04/reasontv-3-reasons-obamas-high
Just for fun, corrected for grammar/spelling.
Hmmmmm, where to start? Oh, yes. When will the Federal and state governments stop labeling 110 mph as "high speed rail"? Here in the Northeast, it's 125-180 mph. The Empire Line will be 125 mph, the Northeast Corridor in 5-10 years will be 180 mph and the Keystone Line will be 140 mph eventually. Also, the Keystone and Northeast Corridor lines don't require subsides. Outside the Northeast, I only see a few lines in the Midwest being 125-180 mph and California lines will be 220 mph. Florida's network is a joke, and I think it was a political move. The Cascades Corridor is being upgraded to handle new 110-130 mph Talgo trains. Other then that, high speed rail is a joke in North America. Even Canada can't seem to do it right -150 mph diesel or gas turbine trains?
I'm not surprised to see that its going nowhere. North Americans wont accept the fact that trains are cheaper and better for the environment. It seems that trains seem to be only popular for freight now (which is a very good thing in my opinion, its keeping that freight off the road!), I find that North America is slowly taking the steps toward moving back to trains, however the recession only will slow it down. I wouldn't worry about high speed rail yet, being actually high speed. You have to remember that Europe is smaller than America and has multiple countries to fun a vast high speed rail network where America has to pay for it themselves.
But nonetheless, I made (well making) a map of what Canada's High Speed Rail network could look like, nowhere near to being done yet though, only have gotten to Toronto. (linkie (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=115372954072197567399.00047338fa434bd42ef20&z=6))
Just remember that high speed rail will come to America eventually, not in the near future of course.
QuoteAlso, the Keystone and Northeast Corridor lines don't require subsides.
Depends how you define it. If you include amoritization for equipment, it was found that the NEC required a small subsidy this past year.
Europe doesn't have THAT many high speed rail lines. For example, most German high speed lines are upgraded existing lines (ausbaustrecke) with speeds up to 120 mph. Germany possesses only a few (7 sections) that allow speeds over 150 mph. Only two sections allow speeds up to 185 mph.
It's a similar story in France, where they also have high speed trains running on both existing regular railroads, and new alignments that allow higher speeds. Spain and Italy also have networks, and other "networks" are planned in other countries, but few are really fast. They are mostly a substitute to the airplane, not the roads.
A major disadvantage is that HSR is way too expensive to build a dense network, so the brunt of the population have additional travel times of 1 hour or more each way to get to a HSR station in the first place. For example, if I want to go to Paris, I first have to get to the train station in Zwolle, then take a train to Amsterdam or Rotterdam (direct connection) to get on a HST, then travel to Paris in 2.5 hours and then to my final destination. Driving is equally fast if you're not in the middle of rush hour.
Another disadvantage is that the car is far more convenient and cheaper if you travel with multiple persons or with a larger amount of luggage. The cost of driving the car there does not increase with every added person, but you have to pay for extra tickets. So that is why I think it mostly substitutes air traffic, not road traffic.
But, the most important thing is, rail is never profitable. Farebox recovery ratios of the operational costs are usually between 25 and 60% (sometimes higher), which does not take into account the financial burden of the initial investment. HSR is extremely expensive to construct, and also not cheap to operate.
The main problem with rail is, that if you increase the ticket prices to achieve a farebox recovery ratio of 100% or higher, the price of those tickets become unacceptably high. That is why rail transport is never cheap. Yes, maybe for the traveler, but not for the tax payers. Additionally, some countries have students travel for free or significantly discounted. The government compensates the transit authority for this. This means the transit authority can actually break-even or even make a profit, but that is partially financed by tax money.
For example, nearly all Dutch transit authorities make a profit or break-even officially. Yet the government spends € 4 billion per year on transit. If transit was really profitable, the government didn't need to spend those 4 billion annually (60% of the transportation budget). There is a significant difference between operational profitability, and actual profitability.
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2010, 09:17:57 AM
QuoteAlso, the Keystone and Northeast Corridor lines don't require subsides.
Depends how you define it. If you include amoritization for equipment, it was found that the NEC required a small subsidy this past year.
If you can travel with any kind of discount (or even for free), that means the transit authority compensated by the government. These are indirect subsidies and account for a large amount of transportation spending. The government pays for these user fees, which account for regular income for transit authorities and are not seen as direct subsidy.
I think your comment on HSR being substitutes for air travel is spot on. There was an article in the Oregonian about Russia upgrading existing rail between St Petersburg and Moscow to HSR for the purpose of competing with air travel.
I'm not sold on a High Speed Rail network in the UK, at least not on a French new-lines model. Of course, with 200km/h as a bottom end of HSR, Britain has had HSR for ages, and ought to have more like that, plus some new lines, which might as well allow faster speeds. Allowing trains on the East Coast and West Coast mainlines to do the 140mph that they are built for, but not legally sanctioned to allow would help slightly, maybe.
Here the problem is more capacity, not low speeds and long journey times (OK, some parts could do with higher speeds, but London-Glasgow/Edinburgh can be done mostly at 125mph nowadays). Electrification is another priority, though we have diesels that run at 125mph, even the ones that are 30 years old. Upgrading the Chiltern route, to give a second 125mph electrified route to Birmingham would help, especially if you build a bypass line, serving the airport, allowing trains from Manchester, Liverpool, Scotland or North Wales to use either route.
It's worth pointing out that, while privatisation has meant a much higher subsidy level on rail in the UK over BR days, many franchises pay huge premiums to run the services as they do actually make a lot of money and don't need the subsidy (other than infrastructure, though the franchises pay the infrastructure company to use the rails and stuff, covering wear and tear). There's a net loss for the rail industry, but there's a large number of profitable routes.
Interesting read, but it didn't factor in the basic alternative to air travel. I do think commuter trains and local mass transit are more important than cross-country transit. I do like the idea of regional bullet trains, though. The California High Speed Rail network looks nice, but it frankly should be a low priority given its economic status.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/23/amtrak-planning-major-push-to-operate-true-high-speed-lines/ (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/23/amtrak-planning-major-push-to-operate-true-high-speed-lines/)
Looks like Amtrak is finally pushing for a Northeast Corridor overhaul , which is needed.
After 4 months of operation, the Dutch high speed rail line only manages to achieve an occupancy rate of 15%, which is below the national average of 29%. It currently operates between the two largest cities of the Netherlands; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, a distance of approximately 60 kilometers or 40 miles. It runs with a one hour frequency, but an increase of frequency is proposed, as 60 kilometers is more like a commuter distance than a real HSR distance.
The Fyra is the domestic shuttle service that runs between Amsterdam and Breda, the Thalys is the international HST that runs to Paris. I take it occupancy rates for Thalys will be higher than Fyra.
The Dutch HSR is 147 kilometers (90 miles) long (85 km / 52 mi is actually high speed rail) and has cost € 7.2 billion ($ 9.6 billion).
The one that's being planned between Tampa and Orlando simply won't work. Why you ask? Too many stops in between, and people keep asking for more.