How Much Is Too Much for High-Speed Rail?

One other way to look at it is, how much is it worth to us to get a bunch of people who would really rather not be driving, off of the roads every day?

The northeast corridor has vastly higher population density, yet because of the passenger rail network that exists currently (mostly not even high-speed), road traffic is bad, but still not as bad as CA.

Some people are saying that we just need to reclaim the rights of way and rebuild the (non-high-speed) passenger rail network we had. Way cheaper and will still get people off of the roads.

I use a commuter rail service to get to work everyday; and while not the same thing as a high-speed line, I am apalled at the frequent problems that crop up with the MBCR (Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail).

I would much rather see more investment in commuter rail service than high-speed rail which probably would not get the traffic required to recoup the massive investment needed to get it operational. We have a "high-speed rail" line in the Northeast (Amtrak Acela) that, apparently, does make a profit; however, the tickets run upwards of $125 from Boston to NYC, one-way.

Improvements in the roads around here would certainly be welcome, since they seem to get trashed each year by the harsh winters, but I doubt the money spent on roads here would return the same yield as proper investment in our rail system.

I supported it intially, because it makes since for regional travel: San Diego, Orange County, LA, Vegas, San Fransico, Sacramento. the sort of trips you can and frequnetly drive, but not without checking the cost of airfare on first. Southern California to Vegas in 2-3 hours vs the 5-10 it currently takes? i think that would become a very popular route even it only undercut airfare by 20%

Problem is they want to turn it more itno a commuter setup with more stops than just regional hubs, and they want to start it in the middle of the valley between fresno and merced, where the frieght companies would love it, if they could use it, but is going to have little passenger demand.

I love rail and it sounds like a great project if the state had a nice budget surplus and was looking for something to invest it in.

However doing it now would be foolish and it would just end up being known as an example of government waste.

"Southern California to Vegas in 2-3 hours vs the 5-10 it currently takes? i think that would become a very popular route even it only undercut airfare by 20%"

See, this is the problem - it could be 4 1/2 or it could be 7 (don't know about 10...), but the problem is you don't know.

I think even if it were dependably 5 by rail, people would do it. This would not involve high-speed rail.

High speed rail in the US outside the DC Boston corridor is just stupid. The distances are way too long and the passenger traffic won't be high enough. Plus, for the most part our population centers are not dense enough that you will not necessarily be going to a place which is accessible by public transit from the main station so you'll end up renting a car anyway.

I ride commuter rail everyday to get to work (Metra in Chicago) and I am a huge fan of high speed rail in Europe and Asia with denser populations and better public transportation systems but it's a white elephant here. For business I go on Pan-European trips a few times a year and Asia at least once a year. In Europe, especially, I plan my travels such that I take two flights: arrival and departure. The rest of the time I take the train. Except for Trenitalia and Cisalpina (which actually doesn't exist anymore but the route is still bad), it works really well.

My commuter line is also the Amtrak route between Chicago and Milwaukee which was supposed to be developed into a highs peed line. Everyday as I am waiting for my morning train, a Chi-Mil train passes. I am not joking when I say three passengers would be a busy run. And this is at what should be a peak hour! I bet Scott Walker is feeling like the smartest man in the room right now.

The massive costs associated with building new track in this country is too large a barrier of entry. Our transnational rail network was, for the most part, built by migrant Chinese workers in the late 1800s. The cost of new track (here in NY, I'm sure it would be similar in CA) is about $1 million a mile. Justifying those costs is not easy, especially in economic times like these.

Additionally, the costs of riding the Acela between NYC and Boston is usually equal to or MORE than flying. Yes its more relaxing, but so is driving if you can sacrifice the extra 90 minutes. Unless the gov't wants to take on this project, or drastic cost reductions can be found it is never going to make sense to build high-speed rail because right now there is no cost benefit versus flying between all of the proposed locations.

I was a big fan of the idea of a high-speed rail network in this country up and down the NE corridor and out to Chicago - but with a cost in the hundreds of billions and a time frame of decades it would just be a never ending money pit. As stated by xander, the funds would be better used servicing and upgrading our existing rail network.

This country is just too big for a new rail network.

I don't think anything'll replace flying for cross-country trips. And for regional trips, seems busses are way more practical. And already, even the Vegas trip, for example, is littered with turn-around busses, party busses, etc. The concept of bus-travel just needs to be reimagined and remarketed...

Hey Erin, a big Bronx cheer to you for voting to waste my tax dollars. You're clearly part of the problem here with California's voting population. Anyone who even remotely looked at the specifics of the proposed high speed rail project could have seen it was a boondoggle from a mile away. Even if the economy wasn't in the crapper (which was clearly evident in 2008), it was a bad idea. Stupid, stupid, stupid. How about next time you educate yourself before voting? And that means doing more than listening to govt proponents of the project and their media shills.

I agree with posters like leftnose - highspeed, or even regular commuter rail outside of the Eastern Seaboard is wasteful at best.

buses are the way to go. used boltbus.com for a trip to philly from NYC last year. cheap, free wi-fi, driver didnt mind if we got sloshed.

bus service in korea is great, too. $30 bucks for a busan-seoul trip. takes about 6 hours, but it's less than half the price of the 2-hour ride in the high-speed ktx.

and the infrastructure (re: roads) for buses already exists. i think theres room for growth in intercity bus travel -- part of the reason grayhound et al kinda disappeared from the national consciousness was because bus service between cities didnt really do much for the multitudes of people that lived and worked and played in the burbs. but given the re-urbanization of the past decade or so, especially among young people that couldn't care less about owning a car, buses make more sense.

@ leftnose,

Comparing the Chi-Mil route to the SF-LA-SD (and possibly expanding to LV) route is apples to oranges. How long does it take to drive from Chicago to Milwaukee, like one and half hours? That's less than the time driving from LA to SD... So of course people will just opt to drive instead of going to the train station, waiting for the train, hop on the train, get off the train and get on another type of transportation to get to their destinations.

Also, even though Chicago is the 3rd largest metro area in the country, Milwaukee is 39 on the list, and without a major industry presence (compare to other metro areas). On the other hand, the SF-LA-SD route will cover four top-35 metro areas:

LA - #2
SF - #11
SD - #17
San Jose - #31

And three major industry hubs:

LA - Entertainment, aerospace/defense and manufacturing
SF - Financial
San Jose - Silicon Valley

Also, if this high speed rail program expanded to Las Vegas then you can include another top-35 metro area (#30) and arguably the top-one tourist spot of this country. The local traffic between LA and LV on the I-15 during the weekends is already amazing and that's not counting the people who fly.

Church+1000

I saw on the news yesterday that it would cost roughly $80 for a round trip ticket from LA to SF. Based on this number and 10,000 passengers per day (a wildly optimistic number, IMHO) it would take 337 years for this boondoggle to break even. Admittedly, I didn't account for inflation - maybe that would cut the breakeven period down to a century or so. How is this a good investment for taxpayers?

Why not just build a high quality paved road along the proposed rail route that can be used exclusively by high speed buses (80 - 100 MPH). This would be a fraction of the cost and passenger capacity could be added in smaller and much less expensive increments. Plus, if the project fails to attract enough passengers, it could be integrated into the interstate highway system...

@louiswei,

I wasn't comparing Chi-Mil to the CA route. All I was saying is that high speed rail isn't a panacea and isn't universally appropriate.

Also, the route was supposed to run St. Louis -> Chicago -> Milwaukee -> Minneapolis/St. Paul. How much sense does that make?

And, for what it's worth, there is quite a lot of industry in Milwaukee given its size. It's quite surprising!

+1 to louiswei.

It's my lunch hour and I've been thinking about this. I used to go to SoCal quite a bit for business but I haven't been there in 3-4 years.

I am going to assume that the line would run through Union Station in LA (makes sense because of existing rights of way in the important directions). That's basically downtown LA. What happens if I need to be in Fontana? Simi Valley? Burbank? Century City or Westwood? These are places I used to visit for work. If you're going for a business meeting, you can't very well take a bus and walk in the US. You'll look like a bum. You'd end up renting a car, especially in LA where public transport really sucks and taking a taxi would be more expensive than a rental.

In Europe, though, this is OK because public transpo is such an integral part of everyday life. In fact, most people appreciate the fact that you are being "adventurous" for an American and taking public transpo in a foreign country.

Now, say I am part of the target audience for this high speed line. I live in San Diego but need to run up to LA for the day. If I am going to have to go through the hassle and expensive of renting a car to get to my final destination, I'm just going to drive anyway. With the cost of the ticket and trouble of renting a car (waiting in line, declining dozens of difference types of insurance, checking the car for damage, making sure the car is full of gas on return, etc.) and worrying about train schedules it's just easier, and maybe cheaper, to drive.

LA - SF, I can't say as much as I am not sure how much daily traffic there would be and that's the lifeblood of high speed rail. Some of the Shinkansen lines in Japan run at over 100% capacity (ie there are standing passengers every run). and some of busiest sections (Tokyo Osaka) run at least every 10 minutes. That's what is necessary to make high speed viable.

Always thought it was a stupid idea, couldn't believe it actually got anywhere.

Why not just add another lane to the existing I-5, make it kind of like a high-speed carpool lane with minimal exits. Minimum speed 75mph? could make it a toll if the state really wants to get some money from it or something

I was a big supporter until the latest cost estimate. I’d still like it to happen – I’d use it quite often – but if we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it. I expect the greatest cost is using eminent domain to buy the wide right-of-way that something like this needs. Over- and underpasses are expensive too, and mandatory for high-speed rail. You’ve also got special interest groups, namely wealthy communities that won’t let the rail line go through their neighborhoods unless it’s in an expensive tunnel or they’re bought off some other way.

What we need to see is a cost comparison between the HSR project, adding the same capacity with new roads (expanding I-5, probably), and adding the same capacity through airport expansion. One or more of those HAVE to happen; the roads and airports are busy enough already and our population continues to grow.

But it’s not all about capacity. A rail option would be a useful backup when the other options don’t work. San Francisco Airport’s runways are too close together, so when visibility is poor (the famous fog) only one can legally be used. Delays ensue. (They extend into the bay, so it’d be expensive to fix it, and the landfill could turn to quicksand in an earthquake.) I-5 is the main road artery, but it goes through a mountain pass that’s prone to snow closures (the Grapevine). A third option would provide a measure of economic security. I’m not saying it’s worth it, but it could be. My wife’s working on a piece of the project and I trust her skills, at least.

This is stupid.
Buy more interstates and Ferraris.

@leftnose

There's the metro to Burbank -- two stops in Burbank. Not sure about Westwood -- I know there's one metro that goes from Union to the beach.

Anyways, you have a point that the last couple miles is the problem. I took Amtrak from Irvine to Union regularly when I could get a ride on either side. It's fantastic to sit back and relax instead of being stuck in gridlock. But without a car on either side, it would be brutal.

I think high speed rail makes sense in California. We have dense areas (OC/LA, SD, SF) with lots of nothing in between. Driving the 5 from LA to SF sucks, I'd much rather hop a train. And you spend more time in security than in the air if you fly. I don't want to be groped by TSA.

It would create a lot of local jobs, too. We have a lot of out-of-work construction workers. I'm all for it.

Here's a solution for the "last couple miles"...

Expand the train stations to be like airports with rental car services. I've had a few chances going to San Jose for one-day business trip and we just hop on a rental car after got off the plane. I am sure with the high speed rail in place, a lot of people will opt for it than airplanes on their one-day business trip between the metro areas.

It'd be even better for business trips starting or ending in downtown San Francisco - the terminal building is within walking distance of the financial district. The airport is actually pretty far south.

@louiswei

I think you're right. Union Station has a car rental booth, but it could be smoother. Set up a reservation in advance and have a kind of automated key dispenser so you can roll in any time of day and get a car.

I think HSR is a substitute for flying, and local rail/bus service is a substitute for driving. So model HSR after the airport experience (minus TSA), and it makes sense.

"So model HSR after the airport experience (minus TSA), and it makes sense."

+1.

That's pretty much my experience with the Asian high speed rails and I expect it to be the same here if this really happens.

The fact is that HSR works best in places with high population density. Like Europe and Japan. In addition, let's not forget the impact this will have on freight rail. America's freight rail system is arguably the best in the world, and while Europe has the TGV and the like (which my French teacher says is very cool) they have an abysmal freight rail infrastructure. Adding HSR is going to most definitely complicate the existing rail network and create new issues for freight rail.

Commuter rail is the best way to go. With the option of driving, as well as low cost airfare with mostly on time flights and the Megabus (in some areas), the cost of infrastructure required for proper HSR (not the half-assed HSR that is the Acela) make no sense outside a few densly populated places like the Northeast Corridor.

The fact is that HSR works best in places with high population density. Like Europe and Japan. In addition, let's not forget the impact this will have on freight rail. America's freight rail system is arguably the best in the world, and while Europe has the TGV and the like (which my French teacher says is very cool) they have an abysmal freight rail infrastructure. Adding HSR is going to most definitely complicate the existing rail network and create new issues for freight rail.

Commuter rail is the best way to go. With the option of driving, as well as low cost airfare with mostly on time flights and the Megabus (in some areas), the cost of infrastructure required for proper HSR (not the half-assed HSR that is the Acela) make no sense outside a few densly populated places like the Northeast Corridor.

As for the question posed in the title, the cost is largely irrelevant. As long as the engineering and construction work goes to Californians, and the materials are sourced here as much as possible, the money goes into the local economy and multiplies (construction workers buy new cars to get to work, etc).

The financial risks with public works projects are underbidding and no-bid contracts. I would love to see someone clean up the graft and featherbedding that comes along with these projects.

"I am sure with the high speed rail in place, a lot of people will opt for it than airplanes on their one-day business trip between the metro areas."

Not so sure about that. With the ever expanding use of video conferencing and the increase in cost of fuel, one day business meetings are declining. Who knows what that will be like in even ten years.....there is no demand for HSR on the West Coast.....the original ballot measure was based on lies and optimistic assumptions. It is a boondoggle pure and simple....Asian population density is much greater than on the west coast so that comparison is not valid I am afraid. The fact is that the ONLY rail line (passenger) that makes money in the US is the line between NY-Boston-DC etc. AMTRAC is a great example of what a huge failure passenger rail can be. The HSR is just another way for The 'Bamster to launder money to his contributers in his Crony Capitalist Companies.....like GE. Notice how NONE of the venture capitalists have come forward to invest in the Ca HSR project like was assured by the ballot prop? Its because its too expensive and will never break even. The entire thing is a LIE and has been from the beginning.

@ touringtest

IIRC, the Acela cars were made by Bombardier, a Canadian company. This was because the gubmint regulations for the cars were so ridiculous (and unlike those for nations that actually have a proper HSR network) that few companies were able to meet the demands.

"Adding HSR is going to most definitely complicate the existing rail network and create new issues for freight rail."

How? It's two separate systems and two separate rails, the HSR won't share the rail with existing lower speed trains.

Also, how's the commuter rail going to help if I want to get to San Jose/SF within 3 hours from LA? Like others have said, the environment in California is different than Northeast. We have 4 major metros within the 500-mile stretch with very little in between. The only way to make an one-day business trip from So Cal to Nor Cal (and vice versa) right now is by air; bus, car, and Amtrek are all out of the option. I can't speak for everyone out there but based on my own experience, even if the ticket price for the HSR is the same as my LAX-SJC flight then I rather hop on the train instead of arriving at least 1 hour for each flight.

"Not so sure about that. With the ever expanding use of video conferencing and the increase in cost of fuel, one day business meetings are declining."

Heard that 10 years ago but the fact is people still rather meet face to face if they have a choice. I agree with you on the fuel price going up, which is exactly why the HSR is a good alternative to flying. Last I checked, Boeing hasn't made an attempt to build a hybrid passenger jet yet...

The bottom line is that the HSR will replace regional flights. The fastest HSR in Japan has a top speed over 200 mph, even with two stops between LA and SF, you'll get there in less than 3 hours. Which is roughly how long it takes to fly IF everything goes smoothly at the airport, not to mention that the weather will have less effect on the HSR than airplanes.

@touringtest,

Your logic is broken. There are very few companies in the world that can build an HSR system. IIRC, the Korean system is French, the Taiwanese system is Japanese, the Acela is French and Canadian. The Chinese built their own system and it has a horrendous safety record. The German system had its share of teething issues as well (fatal issues as well, including wheels that came apart at speed). Chances are that the jobs will not go to Californians.

I'm with bodyblue on this. Distances are either too long and people will fly (SD to SF is probably right on the cusp of this threshold) or they're close enough that there is enough hassle, like renting a car at arrival, to justify driving (SD to LA).

Does it pay for itself?

I'm in favor of letting things carry their own weight. roads included.

@ teampenske3,

It's not just the train, you also have to build the whole system (stations, rail, electric equipment, safety equipment, terminals and the main control station), which means workers will come in and boost the local economy.

HSR is not like airplanes, you buy a plane then off your go...

This is exactly why I voted against it in 2008, even though I like the concept of high speed rail between the SF and LA.

@leftnose

My logic is broken? I said the cost doesn't matter to the extent that there is no corruption and the work is done locally. My logic is fine.

Bringing up a HSR industry in America won't be done overnight, but it's a worthy investment. We have to decide if we as Americans want to build things again or are happy only making absurd financial "products" that are little different than gambling where loses are paid by taxpayers.

And engineering includes civil engineering, as well as mechanical engineering. I assume CivE can't be outsourced to India, though I'm sure some MBA will prove me wrong.

The population distribution in California is ideal for HSR. Tight clusters with lots of empty space in between. If it were uniformly dense, then local rail would be better-suited.

Touringtest, some aspects of engineering can be outsourced, but in my experience it doesn’t work very well. My wife works at a civil/structural engineering firm doing work on part of the HSR project, and they’re located here (Oakland and San Jose). Construction is naturally local, as are all the materials used in concrete. A lot of steel comes from abroad, especially larger sections.

Incidentally, India doesn’t seem to be a powerhouse in CivE. I’ve seen drafting outsourced to Argentina, and steel detailing outsourced to the Philippines, and many of the foreign engineers who come to work here seem to be Turkish, Iranian, or Middle Eastern.

"The population distribution in California is ideal for HSR. Tight clusters with lots of empty space in between. If it were uniformly dense, then local rail would be better-suited."

Exactly.

One of the enemies to HSR is too many stops, which is exactly what will happen in a high-density environment like the Northeast. The ideal operating condition for HSR is to have as few stop as possible so the train can stay at cruising speed without too many interruptions.

Guess what, the SF-LA-SD route offers that exact condition.

The numbers aren't as different as you think. The $48B was the 20 year cost without any adjustment for inflation. The $98B IS inflation adjusted.

If you take the $48B cost reported in 2008 and plug it into an inflation adjuster with a 2033 end date (the same one as the $98B figure) the total is $87B. The new report also says that $20B is expected to come from private sources, reducing the public cost to $78B, or less than the inflation adjusted original estimate (although I don't know if that figure also included a prtion to be paid from private money).

At any rate, I'm not making any argument that the project makes sense (it doesn't im my opinion) but the $48B and $98B figures are apples and oranges and not directly comparable.

I've ridden the Amtrak to Milwaukee twice, most recently last February. Both times it was actually pretty full. I suspect the mid-day trains aren't heavily ridden, but the morning trains are reasonably full.

louiswei said...

"It's not just the train, you also have to build the whole system (stations, rail, electric equipment, safety equipment, terminals and the main control station), which means workers will come in and boost the local economy."

Come on Louis, this statement is so narrow that you know it isn't a valid assertion. You assume that just because government shells out a bunch of money, by definition it benefits the economy. The problem is that the money has to come from somewhere in the first place. Taxes, bond issues, etc. That means that money that might have gone to other productive uses - be they infrastructure (of far greater import IMO), new businesses, or simple household consumption are being diverted toward a project that will never, ever break even. What's worse, even compared to other infrastructure projects, this one will benefit far fewer citizens than many others such as airport improvements, increased traditional passenger/freight rail, or my favorite, improved road networks. That's a net _negative_ for the economy, and perfectly illustrates the fallacy that government spending is a economic stimulator - especially in the long term.

it all depends on the ticket prices for me. if you can go from south california to the oergon border for less then or around 20 dollars a person and possabillity of an unlimited pass for a sum of money or bulk ticket discount i think it would be worth it. 50 dollars a person would be very steep and i do not think many people could go for it. high speed rail would compete with: regular speed rail, personal cars, bus, and planes. i like the idea of how united high speed rail could make the citizens feel. it could bring small nearby towns together, allow for people to commute further distances, increase participation for political and comunity functions, reduce spending on school-busses during field trips. to me all of those possabilities would make me think it would be worth it at almost any price as long as it is economically feasable for the citizens to be able to use the trains as often as they want.

it all depends on the ticket prices for me. if you can go from south california to the oergon border for less then or around 20 dollars a person and possabillity of an unlimited pass for a sum of money or bulk ticket discount i think it would be worth it. 50 dollars a person would be very steep and i do not think many people could go for it. high speed rail would compete with: regular speed rail, personal cars, bus, and planes. i like the idea of how united high speed rail could make the citizens feel. it could bring small nearby towns together, allow for people to commute further distances, increase participation for political and comunity functions, reduce spending on school-busses during field trips. to me all of those possabilities would make me think it would be worth it at almost any price as long as it is economically feasable for the citizens to be able to use the trains as often as they want.

+1 church123!

bankerdanny just watched another run go past this morning. I didn't see one person on it.

bassrockerx, good luck on those prices. Take a look at what Acela tickets cost. SD - SF is a similar distance as Paris - Marseillle and that ticket with advanced purchase is about $200 round trip. Last minute purchase is over $300. Double both those prices for a 1st class seat.

A full fare ticket from my local station to downtown Chicago is $5/one way and that's a trip of 30 miles. A monthly, unlimited ride pass is ~$130 and that's cheap for commuter rail in the US. No way your numbers would ever happen.