What will Amtrak do with $800M?

[GG-1]

Aloha

Bet this upset some of you, but maybe Amtrak should not get stimulus money, but Congress, Should provide some real Capitol Investment as stewards for our National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

Please don't tell me I am being Ideological, I know that

Mahalo

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

High speed is for city pairs roughly 350 miles apart or so. We have plenty of those. Not just on the east coast, either. Its not transcontintental service, nor commuter rail. At a generous $30 million per mile, we should easily pay for a new one every year, at least outside of the ultra high expense California and NE corridor. (well, realistically, four built over a period of five years). Thats only $10-$12 billion dollars per year or so.

What fraction of Congress is going to vote to approve just one project which consists of one corridor which will serve less than 5% of the US population?

 

[birdy]

High speed is for city pairs roughly 350 miles apart or so. We have plenty of those. Not just on the east coast, either. Its not transcontintental service, nor commuter rail. At a generous $30 million per mile, we should easily pay for a new one every year, at least outside of the ultra high expense California and NE corridor. (well, realistically, four built over a period of five years). Thats only $10-$12 billion dollars per year or so.

What fraction of Congress is going to vote to approve just one project which consists of one corridor which will serve less than 5% of the US population?

I fundamentally disagree with your premise Joel, that there is only local support for these projects because the benefit is regional. Look at the "Big Dig" project in Boston, aka the "worst case scenario" In my part of the world, Teddy Kennedy is like The Devil. The Big Dig was a very local project conducted at the height of the neo-con movement. The project did not go particularly well. Yet, the "boondoggle" accusations and the demonizing did not go very far, and people would make weekend trips to watch the construction. After two hundred years, Americans have a track record. We are happiest in these five circumstances: 1. Fighting pirates. 2. Building railroads, 3. Pouring concrete. 4. Exploring things. 5. Showing up the foreigners. The fact is, we hunger for this. It might as well be in our DNA. But the general public and even the posters on this board have been convinced that this is an impossible dream.

To answer your question, I expect it would be a party-line vote. That's OK. The Dems are on the right side of this (I hope) and should reap the political benefit, and the Republicans are on the wrong side and should suffer the pain of a wrong political bet.

As a practical matter, funded at a measly $10 $12 bil per year (which, as I have pointed out could theoretically be raised from only 400 taxpayers without even causing discomfort to them), you could start work on three or four projects. The FRA already has some proposed corridors, but I would look to put them in the places where there is already grass-roots support. right now, that's Charlotte-Atlanta, San Antonio-Houston (via Austin) Minneapolis-Chicago (via Milwaukee). You would have to federalize the permitting and condemnation process to expedite things, but you could start pouring concrete in a couple of years if you were serious. The beneficiaries of the first few projects would be pleased, of course, and once that starts, then there is clamor from other parts of the country. It really isn't that expensive for us. The main limiting factor is that we have allowed our industrial base to atrophy in favor of the financial base and we just don't have big project capability the way we used to.

Anyway, I've got to hang up now and fax my senator.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I fundamentally disagree with your premise Joel, that there is only local support for these projects because the benefit is regional. Look at the "Big Dig" project in Boston, aka the "worst case scenario" In my part of the world, Teddy Kennedy is like The Devil. The Big Dig was a very local project conducted at the height of the neo-con movement. The project did not go particularly well. Yet, the "boondoggle" accusations and the demonizing did not go very far, and people would make weekend trips to watch the construction.

The Big Dig was a highway project. We've had other highway tunnels built in the US, too; I think New York City and Hampton Roads Bay are examples. I'd be sort of surprised if the Big Dig was even the only federally funded highway tunnel project being worked on for its entire duration.

If you want to use the Big Dig as a metaphor for high speed rail construction, it might make sense to compare the Big Dig to a high speed rail route from California to Texas or Kansas.

As a practical matter, funded at a measly $10 $12 bil per year (which, as I have pointed out could theoretically be raised from only 400 taxpayers without even causing discomfort to them), you could start work on three or four projects. The FRA already has some proposed corridors, but I would look to put them in the places where there is already grass-roots support. right now, that's Charlotte-Atlanta, San Antonio-Houston (via Austin) Minneapolis-Chicago (via Milwaukee).

I'd been thinking Milwaukee ought to be a separate spur from Chicago, but as I'm looking at it, maybe not. Madison to Chicago via Milwaukee probably only adds 60ish miles, which is probably about 15-20 minutes at 220 MPH.

Also, why should an Atlanta HSR project terminate at Charlotte? Atlanta to DC is 700ish miles, which if the track is built for 300 MPH most of the way, should be able to be covered in about three hours.

The Treasury has some capacity to just print more money. The real question is, are there workers who can operate the shovels? In addition to those who may be unemployed now, I think we should be looking at whether there are truck drivers who could be reallocated to track construction, first to work towards getting long haul freight in intermodal containers off the highways for the intercity portions of the trip and onto rails, and once that's done, they could work on high speed passenger track. Also, I believe most of the soldiers currently in Iraq probably have the abilities needed to construct track.

 

[wayman]

After two hundred years, Americans have a track record. We are happiest in these five circumstances: 1. Fighting pirates. 2. Building railroads, 3. Pouring concrete. 4. Exploring things. 5. Showing up the foreigners. The fact is, we hunger for this. It might as well be in our DNA. But the general public and even the posters on this board have been convinced that this is an impossible dream.

So clearly, we need to re-frame the dialog about building railroads.

Evil foreign rail pirates may already be already exploring our nation!

Their pirate trains may even be carrying weapons of mass destruction!!! *gasp*

How can America defend herself? We need to build railroads to fight pirates!

New railroads will bring us pirate treasure!

Etc.

 

[Sue in KY]

After two hundred years, Americans have a track record. We are happiest in these five circumstances: 1. Fighting pirates. 2. Building railroads, 3. Pouring concrete. 4. Exploring things. 5. Showing up the foreigners. The fact is, we hunger for this. It might as well be in our DNA. But the general public and even the posters on this board have been convinced that this is an impossible dream.

So clearly, we need to re-frame the dialog about building railroads.

Evil foreign rail pirates may already be already exploring our nation!

[snip]

Yah, and pouring enough concrete to show up all the rest of the foreigners in the world.

(Thanks for making me laugh out loud, and I loved all the piratical photos! AARRRRR!)

 

[Larry H.]

Joel,

Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.

New York City is the largest metro area in the US, and Chicago the third largest. That has got to be a major travel market. 300-350 MPH would be about the right ballpark to get the train travel time down to about three hours, which would be great for reducing airport congestion, being able to use clean energy sources on that route, etc. If you want to watch the scenery go by, you can still take a commuter train or the Empire Builder or catch an airplane and rent a car to get to a tourist railroad; I don't see either of those going anywhere near 300 MPH in my lifetime.

 

[AlanB]

Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.

New York City is the largest metro area in the US, and Chicago the third largest. That has got to be a major travel market. 300-350 MPH would be about the right ballpark to get the train travel time down to about three hours, which would be great for reducing airport congestion, being able to use clean energy sources on that route, etc. If you want to watch the scenery go by, you can still take a commuter train or the Empire Builder or catch an airplane and rent a car to get to a tourist railroad; I don't see either of those going anywhere near 300 MPH in my lifetime.

I would disagree with that Joel, I don't think that 300 MPH is necessary at all. Frankly if Amtrak could just speed things up a bit, provide more sleepers on the LSL, and depart at say 6:00 or 7:00 PM in both directions and arrive by 8:00 AM guaranteed, I think that they could easily triple their ridership on that route. Instead of a business person needing to get up super early, or fly in the night before and take a hotel room, they could work through the day, board the train, have dinner, sleep, wake up shower, do breakfast, and arrive into the cities in time to do business that day.

And all of that could be achieved with far less money, simply by adding a second or third track in places, speeding up some of the slow spots, and removing the interferance and therefore the padding.

Would higher speeds be nice, yes to some extent. But I still don't think that Amtrak needs to be 1 on 1 competative with the airlines in terms of speed. They need to come closer than they do now, and they need to provide a superior environment, but I don't think that they have to match the airlines for speed.

 

[haolerider]

Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.

New York City is the largest metro area in the US, and Chicago the third largest. That has got to be a major travel market. 300-350 MPH would be about the right ballpark to get the train travel time down to about three hours, which would be great for reducing airport congestion, being able to use clean energy sources on that route, etc. If you want to watch the scenery go by, you can still take a commuter train or the Empire Builder or catch an airplane and rent a car to get to a tourist railroad; I don't see either of those going anywhere near 300 MPH in my lifetime.

I would disagree with that Joel, I don't think that 300 MPH is necessary at all. Frankly if Amtrak could just speed things up a bit, provide more sleepers on the LSL, and depart at say 6:00 or 7:00 PM in both directions and arrive by 8:00 AM guaranteed, I think that they could easily triple their ridership on that route. Instead of a business person needing to get up super early, or fly in the night before and take a hotel room, they could work through the day, board the train, have dinner, sleep, wake up shower, do breakfast, and arrive into the cities in time to do business that day.

And all of that could be achieved with far less money, simply by adding a second or third track in places, speeding up some of the slow spots, and removing the interferance and therefore the padding.

Would higher speeds be nice, yes to some extent. But I still don't think that Amtrak needs to be 1 on 1 competative with the airlines in terms of speed. They need to come closer than they do now, and they need to provide a superior environment, but I don't think that they have to match the airlines for speed.

I would agree with the need to focus on getting the damaged equipment back on the tracks, getting orders in for new equipment and then being able to focus on the ability to add routes, increase frequencies and be able to better serve the traveling public. The demand for high speed rail is not as great as needed right now; however that being said, there are quite a few states and cities doing initial planning for the future - the long term future.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I would disagree with that Joel, I don't think that 300 MPH is necessary at all. Frankly if Amtrak could just speed things up a bit, provide more sleepers on the LSL, and depart at say 6:00 or 7:00 PM in both directions and arrive by 8:00 AM guaranteed, I think that they could easily triple their ridership on that route. Instead of a business person needing to get up super early, or fly in the night before and take a hotel room, they could work through the day, board the train, have dinner, sleep, wake up shower, do breakfast, and arrive into the cities in time to do business that day.

Is there any city pair anywhere in the world with an 8-10 hour train route where the sleeper train has at least 25% of the market share for that city pair? Or even 5%?

My other question is: what about Boston to New Orleans? If an AU gathering were happening in New Orleans, and I could board a sleeper at South Station on a Thursday evening, and arrive in New Orleans on a Friday morning, and then board a sleeper on the Sunday evening and get back to South Station Monday morning, I'd basically have to be away from Boston for one weekday to attend the Gathering. With the current schedules, I'd basically have to miss five weekdays of being in Boston to spend the same amount of time in New Orleans if I was traveling between Boston and New Orleans by train.

Trippling ridership on the CHI-NYP trains isn't terribly exciting if Amtrak's market share would still be under 5-10% for the Chicago-New York City city pair.

 

[wayman]

Is there any city pair anywhere in the world with an 8-10 hour train route where the sleeper train has at least 25% of the market share for that city pair? Or even 5%?

Sure, I'd bet heavily that the slow sleeper night-train between Paris and Marseilles has well over 25% of the market share. Nobody but nobody flies within France and more than three consecutive hours driving an automobile is inconceivable to many Europeans. So that leaves the TGV, which is faster and more expensive than many travelers need/want; the day train, which is cheapest but takes an entire day, which is ok for budget travelers; and the night train, which is somewhere in the middle, lets you leave after dinner and arrive by breakfast and have a comfy night's sleep in a berth, and works well for both individuals (who can share a room with five strangers) or families (who can take a whole six-bed compartment).

8-10-hour sleeper train for the win.

 

[zoltan]

-10-hour sleeper train for the win.

European sleepers are wonderful!

And for this reason: they are affordable. As you say, they are not the most expensive option, whereas an Amtrak sleeper always is.

And that brings me to where I think the money needs to be: More sleepers for the existing trains.

At the moment, Amtrak sleepers are a pretty elitist thing; the general traveler going from A to B can't afford a sleeper; only those on expense accounts or those with money for an Amtrak holiday. While these people are important, with more sleepers, it would no longer be necessary to price off demand, and therefore the price of sleepers could drop, and bring the cost within reach of the general American - perhaps making his or her journey by sleeper cheaper than flying (which isn't that damned cheap).

I would also say that some passengers do prefer a long daytime trip to an overnight trip, particularly as it's quite unpleasant traveling overnight if you can't afford a sleeper, very unpleasant in fact, and if you haven't slept in your seat you lose a day anyway in recovering. So I'd say if the money was available for it, you could justify a second schedule:

- Houston to San Antonio at a vaguely sensible time.

- Leaving Penn Station very early and arriving at Chicago at midnight or a bit after, via the LSL route.

- Leaving Penn Station very early, DC about 10:00, and arriving at Atlanta by midnight, then proceeding to offer an overnight service from Atlanta to New Orleans.

- Extension of the Palmetto to Tampa, to provide a daytime service to Northern Florida.

Finally, if Amtrak were able to commence operation on one route on which service doesn't exist already (though I think this takes us beyond the existing $800M funding) it would be this:

- Corridor service between New Orleans and Mobile, AL, with two or three extra stations at reasonably sized places like Gautier, MS, with one daily extension to Orlando, bearing in mind particularly that this region has huge potential for recovery, being still not what it was before Katrina.

I would also mention frequent commuter rail service between Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro, NC, but while this corridor really ought to have commuter rail service, I would say that funding of this should rest mainly on the state of North Carolina.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And for this reason: they are affordable. As you say, they are not the most expensive option, whereas an Amtrak sleeper always is.
And that brings me to where I think the money needs to be: More sleepers for the existing trains.

At the moment, Amtrak sleepers are a pretty elitist thing; the general traveler going from A to B can't afford a sleeper; only those on expense accounts or those with money for an Amtrak holiday. While these people are important, with more sleepers, it would no longer be necessary to price off demand, and therefore the price of sleepers could drop, and bring the cost within reach of the general American - perhaps making his or her journey by sleeper cheaper than flying (which isn't that damned cheap).

I would also say that some passengers do prefer a long daytime trip to an overnight trip, particularly as it's quite unpleasant traveling overnight if you can't afford a sleeper, very unpleasant in fact, and if you haven't slept in your seat you lose a day anyway in recovering.

If we had a 30 car long LSL, and you took the total fuel costs of the train and divided it by the number of sleepers plus coaches (exclude the lounge, diner, and baggage cars), then divided the per-car fuel consumption among the passengers with a bedroom assumed to account for double the fuel consumption of the roomette (since I think the bedroom has about double the floor area), how would the per passenger mile fuel consumption of a roomette compare to the per passenger mile fuel consumption of a coach seat on an airplane? As long as you're running diesel locomotives, I'm not sure there's much argument for making roomettes as cheap as coach airline seats if it turns out that the roomettes don't save fuel. Get the trains powered by something we don't import, and then the picture may change.

And it will still be necessary to price sleepers based upon demand, but the low bucket prices could certainly drop a lot given a bunch more equipment.

 

[birdy]

Well, TGV type trains have an actual average speed of about 100 mph with stops and all. That limits their range to about 350 miles. But that's a huge amount of air traffic displaced. My hypothetical Atlanta-Charlotte, Chicago-Milwaukee--Minneapolis, and San Antonio-Austin-Houston routes would take about 150 passenger planes per day out of the sky. But unquestionably, they win head to head competition with air lines in that range. What they do to passenger car traffic on the same route is an open question. The technology is 1980's. We aren't talking Maglev. Passenger loadings grow very smartly on TGV, 10% or so per year, compounded. One of the "advantages" to being 25 years behind the times is that at least there aren't a lot of surprises about what you can expect.

Remember, there is a considerable hidden savings in the program in the avoided cost of building new airports. The Fedex chairman Smith was on a talking head program Sunday alluding to this. by getting rid of some of the short-haul air traffic, we devote the airports to what they do best, which is long-haul air traffic. If you take the San Diego to Phoenix, and San Diego to San Francisco traffic out of the pattern, even creaky old Lindbergh field in San Diego gets a new lease on life--A new, inconvenient, multi-billion dollar airport doesn't have to be built. A really important side benefit.

Of course, a few hundred extra million can be spent fixing up Amtrak. It would be well worthwhile, a trivial expense and it could be done immediately. Also, not every route lends itself to high speed. But adding sleeper cars to Amtrak is not the same as a program.

Believe me, the public hungers for this. Just dial up the Talking Points Memo center-left blog. The non-railhead lefties there are spontaneously talking about this.

Its a good thing the Neo-Cons weren't around in the old days. the interstate highways would be chip-seal two lane asphalt and Hoover dam would have been rammed earth.

P.S. I like the pirate photos. I'm thinking of a way to use high speed trains to get the Somali pirates. I'll let you know first, when I figure it out.

 

[jis]

Is there any city pair anywhere in the world with an 8-10 hour train route where the sleeper train has at least 25% of the market share for that city pair? Or even 5%?

Oh just to pick random examples ....

Moscow - St. Petersburg with the 5 overnight sleeper expresses each some 20 cars long probably is a good bet where the sleepers have 25% of the market.

New Delhi/Delhi to Kolkata (about 900 miles 17 hours by the fastest trains) in India with around 6 trains of which 4 involve a single night (the other two involve two nights), each 16 to 20 cars worth of sleepers probably carries a considerable proportion of passengers considering that there are only about 12 - 15 flights flown using 737s or 320s between the two cities per day, and through travel by road is negligible.

I am sure there are other such city pair examples in India and quite likely in China.

The world looks very different from the US in many ways, specially when viewed more locally rather than from the US

 

[Larry H.]

I tried to point out some time ago that Sleepers or "Pullman Service" as it used to be considered here was only about one half more than the price of a coach ticket till someone decided that having a sleeper was a tuned to becoming royalty. When I did the comparisons it showed that you now are charged 18 times for a room what the cost would have been before amtrak took over in comparison to the coach ticket. This is not a mistake, its easily seen when studying old fare schedules. Somewhere along the line we lost what the Europeans still enjoy, a reasonable price for using a sleeper. What makes it worse the incredible loss of amenities that might have endeared the somewhat higher cost, but when your removing the lounges, first class diners, many of the nice surroundings and then raising the prices though the roof, well its beyond belief to me. I know it isn't to others.

 

[zoltan]

Remember, there is a considerable hidden savings in the program in the avoided cost of building new airports. The Fedex chairman Smith was on a talking head program Sunday alluding to this. by getting rid of some of the short-haul air traffic, we devote the airports to what they do best, which is long-haul air traffic. If you take the San Diego to Phoenix, and San Diego to San Francisco traffic out of the pattern, even creaky old Lindbergh field in San Diego gets a new lease on life--A new, inconvenient, multi-billion dollar airport doesn't have to be built. A really important side benefit.

I very often make this point regarding the construction of a third runway at London Heathrow Airport.

This will cause huge environmental damage, demolition of homes and noise and annoyance to local residents, and for what?

The runway won't be as long as the others, and not sufficient for the size of planes that undertake long haul flights. What the runway will do is get the domestic and European short haul flights out of the way of those flights.

But is that the only way to get such flights out of the way? How about getting those markets onto rail instead? Build a high speed line to bypass the speed restricted sections of one of the present main lines to the North of England and Scotland, and get the current high speed rail service to Paris and Brussels to run through to other European cities direct.

And then all the monetary costs and environmental costs of that third runway are avoided.

The same is quite true of many places in the United States. In both countries, planners need to follow the examples of some parts of Continental Europe, and instead of thinking "this many people want to travel this way, how do we provide them with capacity?", thinking "why are these people traveling this way, and is there another way they could travel instead?".

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I tried to point out some time ago that Sleepers or "Pullman Service" as it used to be considered here was only about one half more than the price of a coach ticket till someone decided that having a sleeper was a tuned to becoming royalty. When I did the comparisons it showed that you now are charged 18 times for a room what the cost would have been before amtrak took over in comparison to the coach ticket. This is not a mistake, its easily seen when studying old fare schedules. Somewhere along the line we lost what the Europeans still enjoy, a reasonable price for using a sleeper. What makes it worse the incredible loss of amenities that might have endeared the somewhat higher cost, but when your removing the lounges, first class diners, many of the nice surroundings and then raising the prices though the roof, well its beyond belief to me. I know it isn't to others.

And I often make the point that sleepers are currently cheaper than they ever have been! Only the highest bucket prices approach the overall cost for 2 people to travel by sleeper, and that's not including the fact that meals are included!

Amtrak coach is subsidized and much cheaper than ever, by a long shot. Before Amtrak started playing with fares and lowering prices, and so on, in mid 1971- according to the November timetable, a ride to Chicago in coach cost $51.25, and $98.11 in a roomette, one person. Keep in mind neither price includes meals. In today's cost that was $259.69 (as of 2007- its probably even more now) for coach and $497.14 for a roomette.

Today, that same fare for Chicago is $80-157 for coach ($179.69-102.69 less) and $257-494 for a roomette ($240.14 - 3.14 less). So even at the highest bucket, the prices are cheaper than they were 38 years ago. AND THEY INCLUDE MEALS. Priced for the rich and elite? My gluteus maximus!

And guess what? If you wanted to put 2 people in roomettes back then, ya needed two of them at $497.14 today's money each. I think the Bedroom back then cost more, but I don't have the bedroom pricing handy. So to travel with two people in first class accomodation then cost $994.28 today's money. But today? Well you need one (1) roomette and two (2) railfares. For a cost range of $337-577 which is between $417.28 and $657.28 less

Don't get me wrong- I'd love sleepers to be cheaper. But don't fall into the trap that sleepers are more expensive then they once were. They are, in fact, cheaper. It's just that sleepers are a little cheaper than they used to be, and coach is a lot cheaper than it used to be.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think it's also interesting to try to put the additional runway vs trains question in terms of amount of urban land consumed.

If there are existing rights of way from the edge of a city to the city center that have space for more trains/tracks, it may be possible to build HSR without taking any urban land at all.

Are there any cases where a reasonable HSR project in the USA would require taking even 5% of the amount of land that a new runway would require at an airport that's already using all of its land?

And then there's noise. People seem to hate airport noise; I live several miles from Logan Airport, and one of my elected officials occasionally mentions Logan Airport noise complaints in her email newsletter to her constituents. I'd think that's a NIMBY argument in favor of some HSR construction: perhaps get those who object to airport noise to agree to support HSR if it includes an agreement to reduce the number of flights from a given airport. This also has the potential to benefit air travelers and probably even airlines by having the airport schedule require fewer cancelations during marginal weather.

It even ought to be possible to deliver benefit to Senator McCain's constitutents by building some high speed rail for shorter haul traffic. Getting more Southwest long haul flights into Reagon National Airport seems to be on his agenda, at least according to the Wikipedia article which is somewhat lacking in sources

 

[Ryan]

It even ought to be possible to deliver benefit to Senator McCain's constitutents by building some high speed rail for shorter haul traffic. Getting more Southwest long haul flights into Reagon National Airport seems to be on his agenda, at least according to the Wikipedia article which is somewhat lacking in sources

"long haul flights to the southwest" is what I think you mean.

DCA is the only airport here in DC that Southwest doesn't serve.

 

[jis]

I think it's also interesting to try to put the additional runway vs trains question in terms of amount of urban land consumed.

The real problem eventually boils down to figuring out how to price and monetize the environmental costs fairly. Once we can figure out how to do that perhaps through institution of various cap and trade schemes, then one can do an aplles to apples comparison of the costs of the various modal alternatives.

If there are existing rights of way from the edge of a city to the city center that have space for more trains/tracks, it may be possible to build HSR without taking any urban land at all.

Folks that are serious about the net environmental costs often go for building the high speed line right on top of the existing right of way on elevated structures, notwithstanding the slight unsightliness of the same. The other alternative, the more expensive one is to dig it under an existing ROW, as was done with the HSR approach to St. Pancras station in London for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Either of those two require zero additional land. The same can be applied to any highway ROW too provided it is reasonably straight and missing any sharp curvatures.

 

[Neil_M]

Sure, I'd bet heavily that the slow sleeper night-train between Paris and Marseilles has well over 25% of the market share. Nobody but nobody flies within France and more than three consecutive hours driving an automobile is inconceivable to many Europeans. So that leaves the TGV, which is faster and more expensive than many travelers need/want; the day train, which is cheapest but takes an entire day, which is ok for budget travelers; and the night train, which is somewhere in the middle, lets you leave after dinner and arrive by breakfast and have a comfy night's sleep in a berth, and works well for both individuals (who can share a room with five strangers) or families (who can take a whole six-bed compartment).

What sleeper train from Paris to Marseille?! The only sleeper option now to Marseille is to get the Paris to Nice/Ventmilglia sleeper as far as Toulon, then double back. The only non TGV options now is the few loco hauled Paris to Lyon trains to Lyon then change trains there. The cost saving over the TGV would be next to minimal. In 3 hours on the slow train you might just be at Dijon. On the TGV you will be slowing for Marseille.....

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think it's also interesting to try to put the additional runway vs trains question in terms of amount of urban land consumed.

The real problem eventually boils down to figuring out how to price and monetize the environmental costs fairly. Once we can figure out how to do that perhaps through institution of various cap and trade schemes, then one can do an aplles to apples comparison of the costs of the various modal alternatives.

You don't have to figure out the costs in dollars of each kind of environmental cost to start working this out. Noise, greenhouse gas emissions, land consumed, etc, are all numeric quantities that can be put into a simple table to compare potential projects.

There's also the cost of using fuel that's not available domestically in sufficient quantities, which may not be an environmental cost, but it's one that we're reluctant to pass onto the consumer.

If there are existing rights of way from the edge of a city to the city center that have space for more trains/tracks, it may be possible to build HSR without taking any urban land at all.

Folks that are serious about the net environmental costs often go for building the high speed line right on top of the existing right of way on elevated structures, notwithstanding the slight unsightliness of the same. The other alternative, the more expensive one is to dig it under an existing ROW, as was done with the HSR approach to St. Pancras station in London for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Either of those two require zero additional land. The same can be applied to any highway ROW too provided it is reasonably straight and missing any sharp curvatures.

While it's not likely politically acceptable at the moment, another option is to subtract a highway lane from the automobiles and give it to the trains. That is certainly an effective way to increase passengers per hour in congested areas.

 

[wayman]

Sure, I'd bet heavily that the slow sleeper night-train between Paris and Marseilles has well over 25% of the market share. Nobody but nobody flies within France and more than three consecutive hours driving an automobile is inconceivable to many Europeans. So that leaves the TGV, which is faster and more expensive than many travelers need/want; the day train, which is cheapest but takes an entire day, which is ok for budget travelers; and the night train, which is somewhere in the middle, lets you leave after dinner and arrive by breakfast and have a comfy night's sleep in a berth, and works well for both individuals (who can share a room with five strangers) or families (who can take a whole six-bed compartment).

What sleeper train from Paris to Marseille?! The only sleeper option now to Marseille is to get the Paris to Nice/Ventmilglia sleeper as far as Toulon, then double back. The only non TGV options now is the few loco hauled Paris to Lyon trains to Lyon then change trains there. The cost saving over the TGV would be next to minimal. In 3 hours on the slow train you might just be at Dijon. On the TGV you will be slowing for Marseille.....

Er, you're right, I meant Nice. It's been so long since I did this... it was the night train from Nice to Paris, which I took I think in 1994.