The Return of Rail

[bobw]

By the way, I'm not sure the CDMA vs GSM-TDMA example is apt. The big advantage of CDMA is actually capacity per tower, not distance, which I understand is more a function of frequency. This advantage would be more useful to the Europeans than us, as their population density is generally higher. AT&T and T-Mobile decided that CDMA's advantages were outweighed by GSM's economies of scale and cooler phones. With Verizon and Sprint going with CDMA, we ended up with a polyglot split, and the jury is still out whether we benefit.

It's quite possible that I misremember (or misunderstood) what I heard about the CDMA/TDMA tradeoffs back in the '80s.

The difference in conditions between Europe and the USA holds, though. I know someone who is a product manager for cell phone equipment for a European company. When she started working with American customers she learned that the tradeoffs really are different here.

 

[Brent]

Governments do things for reasons other than economic. That's the point of government. It's dangerous when government plays in the game against private enterprise. It cheats. Let's restrict the government to its proper role as umpire.

I used to agree with this sentiment, but I'm not sure it works well overall. An umpire is supposed to be neutral. Governments, by the sheer size of what they can do, aren't neutral at all. You can think of a dozen examples: bus and subway systems compete against private taxis and town cars, the postal service competes against FedEx and UPS, road building competes against passenger rail, tax incentives favor one business over another, Medicare competes against health insurers, the Tennessee Valley Authority runs the entire electricity franchise in its region, etc.

Government ought not generally be in private business, but where one draws that line is really hard. Passenger rail will certainly affect private businesses, but many governmental actions do that, so the argument doesn't quite decide the issue. Instead, I think one has to look at the function of the project and ask whether it's the sort of thing only government can do. With rail the answer is yes: the scale of the projects, the investment time horizon, and the ability to condemn land all point to it being a government project. Even the original "private rail" buildout of the 19th century was essentially a governmental project -- tracks for land.

Of course, if you just don't like trains, then no matter what the costs won't be justifiable. But I think they're wonderful and necessary and quite worth the costs.

 

[bobw]

Of course, if you just don't like trains, then no matter what the costs won't be justifiable. But I think they're wonderful and necessary and quite worth the costs.

And so you illustrate my point.

 

[dpeilow]

There's no point in waiting three weeks and then going around the same arguments in the hope that they've been forgotten.

Isn't that the point? A government intervention to install high speed rail between the population centers may have undesirable side effects on the rest of the state.

So what you are saying is that all the routes outside of the planned HSR system are loss making. If they weren't, then there would be nothing to worry about.

As I have said above, we have a good HSR system in Europe, from Sweden down to Spain, but as yet it only covers a minority of routes. It hasn't stopped low cost airlines previously thriving in the good times and still winning out against the flag-carriers in the current economic climate (some have made losses in the last six months, but the incumbents have made bigger losses).

Airlines like Ryanair have been ruthless in culling unprofitable or unsubsidised routes and I'm sure SWA would do the same. If those routes weren't profitable, they would have gone by now. Therefore I am sure that they will survive, even if HSR takes others away. The airlines' gross profits may be hit a little, but the routes will still be there to serve people with no choice.

Governments do things for reasons other than economic. That's the point of government. It's dangerous when government plays in the game against private enterprise. It cheats. Let's restrict the government to its proper role as umpire.

Government needs to step in when there is market failure. If you think that air travel can continue to grow unchecked and all that matters is driving down the cost to the end consumer, then you probably don't think there is market failure. If you think that we need to move to lower-carbon transport and that the status quo of the airline industry and big oil is preventing that, then you probably think that intervention is necessary.

And so you illustrate my point.

And you seem to have missed or chosen to ignore the point in post #95.

• By your own words it is ok for governments to subsidise the capex for airports.
• By your lack of words I presume there is no disagreement over the government subsidising highways to the tune of tens of billions per year.
• We've heard no disagreement over the government subsidising 'essential' air routes.
• Yet, for some reason it is wrong for rail to receive any seed money, capex subsidy or operational subsidy.

I don't follow the logic.

 

[Brent]

Italy gets new private train to run in competition with the state-run system on at least one route:

New High-Speed Rail Service in Italy - In Transit Blog - NYTimes.com

The article doesn't say, but I'd guess the train will use state-built facilities, including tracks. As such, this idea doesn't seem all that different from Greyhound Bus using state-built highways to deliver passengers.

 

[Brent]

The NY Times looks at California' High Speed Rail project:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14Train-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=magazine

 

[vfx]

Phoenix does it right.

Video: Phoenix’s Brand New Light Rail Has 60% More Users than Expected : TreeHugger

 

[dpeilow]

France 24 | High-speed competition on the railways | France 24

 

[dpeilow]

China's Super-Ambitious High-Speed Rail Plans

China's economic stimulus package contains provisions for a $300 billion high-speed rail project that makes California's $10 billion high-speed rail plan look down-right wimpy. The country plans to have 16,000 miles of new track in place by 2020!

 

[doug]

China's Super-Ambitious High-Speed Rail Plans

It should be noted that much of that is possible due to the differences between our systems of government. People in some of the more affluent cities of the (SF Bay Area) Peninsula are protesting CA high speed rail projects because of NIMBYism. Whereas in China they can even relocate people as they see fit. (cf. the Three Gorges Dam project.)



.

 

[TEG]

There is also a matter of how much relative money each country has to spend.

The trade deficit doesn't help.

 

[dpeilow]

I don't think it's so much a case of money, but political will. Spain is also building a comprehensive network that will be the largest in Europe.

See How Much Would It Cost To Have A High Speed Rail Network Like Spain’s? » INFRASTRUCTURIST

But it’s interesting to consider it in the context of what Spain is doing. They’re planning to spend $150 billion over the course of 15 years (they’ve spent close to $30 billion already) building out a first-class high speed network knitting together the entire country. The plan is that pretty much everyone would be within 30 miles of a station.

...

Their GDP is about $1.4 trillion, a tenth that of the US.

...

But nobody is clamoring for an HSR link between Fargo and Boise. So what if we built a Spanish-caliber network just in the Eastern US and California? Together, these states have an area of about 1 million square miles, a $10 trillion economy, and a population of 207 million at a density almost exactly the same as Spain’s.

A very rough estimate then (again, just scaling out the example of Spain) would be $800 billion. Which would actually constitute it a smaller percentage of GDP than Spain is ponying up.

 

[dpeilow]

Interesting write-up of a talk in Washington

For those who may not know, the Japanese are the originators of modern HSR and Mr. Kasai’s company is the world’s most experienced HSR operator. The CJR’s Tokaido Shinkansen, or “bullet train,” that runs between Tokyo and Osaka is not only the world’s oldest high speed rail line, but also the busiest, carrying over 150 million passengers per year. In operation since 1964, the 317-mile Tokaido line now operates 309 trains per day with sustained cruising speeds of 168 mph (270 km/h), which enables passengers to make the trip in a reliable two hours and 25 minutes. During peak travel periods, twelve 1,323-seat trains leave Tokyo each hour and average an on-time performance deviation of only 30 seconds.

...

The Japanese pursued HSR for several logical reasons: limited available land forced a transportation policy that required minimal land use while providing maximum passenger throughput into cities, electric-powered transport reduced over-reliance on imported oil

...

CJR, which is one of six rail operators in Japan, refutes Washington’s conventional wisdom that no passenger railroad in the world makes a profit. Each year, Mr. Kasai’s well run railroad earns just under a 10% rate of return.

...

When asked why they were building this new line using maglev technology, Mr. Kasai explained that the CJR needed to be forward looking so that they can meet not only the needs of the present, but also the future. In spite of the fact that 80% of this new line will be in tunnels, Mr. Kasai explained that maglev is still the most cost effective technology for this extremely mountainous route. He should know, because the for-profit CJR is funding this entire line without Japanese government participation.

 

[doug]

I've taken that JR shinkansen line between Tokyo and Osaka (at least as far as Kyoto) a good few times. It's a great way to travel.





.

 

[SByer]

Ah, Kyoto station... vertigo and awe-inspiring design.

We also got to ride on the demo MagLev / LIM line to the World's Fair in '06, in addition to the shinkansen ride. Japan definitely knows how to do "rail" transit. We need to take heed.

 

[Brent]

We need to take heed.

I think the recent NY Times and Washington Post editorials calling HSR a waste must be from people who've never really experienced trains. We should send them over to France or Japan or Spain to have a careful look.

One of the arguments so often presented is that the U.S. population density is too low to support high speed rail. Yet, some people in Britain have argued that their density is too high to support HSR. Maybe the only "correct" way to see density is to examine the dense brains making the argument.

 

[TEG]

I've taken that JR shinkasen line between Tokyo and Osaka...

Isn't it Shinkansen?

I rode it too and was expecting more outrageous acceleration but found that it is just smooth / continuous that just keeps on building and building. When I heard them called "bullet trains" I was expecting slam you in your seat roller-coaster acceleration, but it is more like... Hmm... This isn't accelerating that quickly... OK we seem to be going well over 100MPH now I guess it is about to stop accelerating... Wait, it is still accelerating... And wait, there is still more... It doesn't accelerate like a sports car, but it sure handles like it is on rails!

 

[vfx]

I was expecting slam you in your seat roller-coaster acceleration, ...

Same with bungy jumping. People think you get a jolt at the bottom but it's such a slow and gradual slowdown that at the bottom you could pick up a golf ball or glass of water.

 

[doug]

NPR series on high-speed rail

NPR’s All Things Considered considers HSR in a series this week « Trains For America

Here's the first part:
States Make Pitches For High-Speed-Rail Money : NPR

 

[doug]