Interesting.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/17/high-speed-trains-are-killing-airplanes/
Interesting indeed…if you build it, they will ride.
Whuddisay about HSTs on the Amtrak funding thread? If ya wanna compete with da airlines ya gotta put the d*** train where the planes are goin’…and puttem’ on their own d*** track…just that no one here has the willpower to do it. We’ll all be reduced to horse and buggies before we get a real serious HST program in this country [X-)]
Yeah I know, go back to my corner…[;)]
Could that possiboy be because of the distances across Europe and why the corridor is successful here? Totaly irrelevant to 98% of the USA.
The local Wis-DOT person who address our local advocacy group pointed this out months ago, but he added that countries that put in these trains also favor the train by reducing the level of air service of the city pairs in question.
Not a stupid policy – you just spent all of this coin on a train, so your state-run or national-flag airline cuts back on the air mode to you get some payoff from that investment.
And by the way, the EU breakdown on modes assigns about 15 percent of all passenger miles to common-carrier modes, about evenly split between air-rail-and buses. Yes, those terrible leg-cramping intercity buses have 50 times the traffic level of our Amtrak. The breakdown here is 10 percent common carrier with the lion share being airlines. And by the way, of the common-carrier mode split in Europe, air is the mode showing real growth in recent years.
No one is claiming that no one would ride HSR in the U.S… It is just that over a certain minimum distance, and taking into account all of the subsidies, air is by far the low cost mode of common-carrier transportation, and for a single-occupant car trip, it is lower cost than private auto were one to factor in all of the mileage-dependent costs of driving. This was all laid out in Trains magazine editorials and articles in the early 1960s. Trains and cars are of comparable cost, with the role of the subsidy of the train ride to counteract perceptions that the cost of driving is merely the out-of-pocket gas costs.
Whenever the question of political will comes up, there is this notion that here is poor red-haired child Amtrak with around 1 billion in annual subsidy, and over there is the richly treated and favored Federal highway program, funded at around 40 billion/year. The trains in Europe are funded at about the same rate of our Federal Highway program. The Lautenberg Lott bill is to take Amtrak from around 1 billion a year up to around 3 billion a year and do this for 5 years to
Could be.
Madrid-Barcelona 269 miles
Paris-Lyon 243 miles
Paris -London 213 miles
Paris-Brussels 165 miles
Paris-Amsterdam 266 miles
Naples-Milan 410 miles
Turin-Venice 229 miles
Shinkansen system: Tokaido Shinkansen 514 miles (375,000 passengers per day).
Sanyo Shinkansen 554 miles, Tohoku Shinkansen 593 miles.
US:
Boston-New York 215 miles
Washington DC-New York 209 miles
New York-Pittsburg 321 miles
Chicago - Detroit 239 miles
Chicago - Minneapolis 354 miles
San Fancisco - L.A. 341 miles
Seattle-Portland 147 miles
Amtrak Hiawath service 86 miles (about 500,000 passengers . . . per year). Michael, I think you have proven the point, that there is a little bit difference in scale between the traffic densities you get with a prosperous country of about 1/3 the US population placed in the thin corridor-like coastal zone on a country that is essentially a large volcanic rock in contrast with the dispersal of population, especially in “fly-over” country.
Shinkansen is the busiest passenger high speed rail in the world, and I included the number not to mean that it was typical of non-US passenger rail, but that it was an extreme number.
Well, I am thinking out loud here, because I don’t have an opinion either way – I have to generate the data from scratch.
Europe:
City Population Distance
Madrid 5 million – Barcelona 3.2 million, 269 miles
Lyon 1.8 million – Strasbourg 702,000, 238 miles
Paris, 2.6 million – Lyon, 243 miles
Paris – Brussels, 1 million, 165 miles
Paris-Amsterdam, 743,000, 266 miles
Turin 908,000 – Venice 271,000, 229 miles
Naples, 1 million – Milan, 1.3 million, 410 miles
USA:
Chicago 3 million – Twin Cities 3.5 million, 354 miles
Chicago-Detroit, 911,000, 239 miles
San Francisco 800,000 – LA 3.8 million, 341 miles
New York 8.2 million – Pittsburg 334,000, 321 miles
Washington DC, 600,000-New York, 209 miles
New York – Boston, 600,000, 215 miles
Seattle 3.2 million – Portland 568,000, 147 miles
Without beating it to death, I guess I am seeing similar market sizes with similar corridor lengths.
Even here in the central valley we are considered “flyover country”. Why? How many cities of 300,000 population have only one airplane five days a week. We are centrally located and are a freight hub to the bay area and the rest of the valley and cannot even keep a single air cargo flight. Our airport is capable of operating the llargest aircraft flying and is equipped with GCA for low visibility landing and takeoff. The one flight we have five days per week flys back and forth to Las Vegas.
Yet we have eight Amtrak trains a day operating through two different Stations. giving us access to Las Vegas , and all points in California via Amtrak California, Amtrak USA to Chicago and Seattle. The problem we have right now is that Amtrak California does not have enough equipment to supply the demand by the traveling public. We are putting a bond measure on the ballot for high speed rail between Sacramento/San Francisco -Los Angeles/San Diego on the November ballot and this time it probably will pass. Even though the two sides can’t decide on the route it will actually take.
I have been a proponent of HSR in the state of California for many years, but it is not meant to be a national system in this country as like others have said there is to much flyover country without enough population to support HSR. I’m not suggesting that we should abandon long distance services but if we are going to continue operating them, then lets get the additional equipment necessary to maintain it. I for one firmly believe the ridership is there it has been the lack of equipment and Amtrak’s reservation system that has been at fault for some of the poor showing in increased ridership on Amtrak Long Distance Routes. The Superliner equipped passenger trains have not carried additional cars as there are how many awaiting repairs behind the Beech Grove Shops. Until that problem is addressed and the Amtrak reservation system telling people that sleeping car space is sold out three months in advanc
This is probably obvious, but what I see in the linked article is that the high speed trains increase the effective market reach of rail passenger service. I suspect that the average passenger is willing to accept as an outside time travel limit a 2 hour to a 2 and 1/2 hour train ride as a trade-off to air travel. For the typical US passenger train outside the NE Corridor, that implies a travel distance at an average speed of 40 mph of 80 miles. On the high speed trains, this means the average “tolerance” corridor extends to between 250 and 300 miles. That explains the prevalence of European routes between 200 and 300 miles: enough distance to reach major population centers, and beat the airplane by the time the passenger drives to the airport, parks, enplanes 30-45 minutes before takeoff, etc. etc.
As opposed to a given available market that can be exploited at the slower speeds, the high speed market is available to a much larger population, and a larger percentage of the population willing to use the trains because of the increased convenience factor. Perhaps in marketing terms, it is not that high speed passenger rail systems are not feasible, rather, they are the only feasible alternative to air travel of moving large numbers of people over key distances who are willing to use the service.
Looking at capacity, the Shinkansen systems certainly show the potential. As I have pointed out here previously, Amtrak carries, on the Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle/Portland, the equivalent in boardings and arrivals of one small country airport at Kalispell, Montana. Not even a blip on meeting the transportation needs of the nation. It is the National Transportation Equivalent of National Public Radio.
The United States plainly has corridors of potential very similar to those in Europe. I picked these U.S. corridors pretty much at random, but compared to existing European high speed rail corridors, and comparing city pairs with
The converse of the 2.5 hour train ride is that due to delays due to security, check-in, etc. the best competing mode must have at least a 2.5 hour trip time for commercial air travel to make sense. This is assuming that the time to travel to the station is equivalent to the time to travel to the airport. Yet another assumption is that the number and/or timing of the departures are similar - more frequent trips can easily make up for a slightly longer trip time.
With the load factors and the type of trains Amtrak runs, the systemwide energy usage is 2700 BTU/passenger mile. The figure I have seen for automobile travel is 3300 BTU/passenger mile.
My Toyota Camry, driven at legal highway speeds, averages about 3500 BTU/vehicle mile. With two people in it, it comes to 1750 BTU/passenger mile or about a 50 percent improvement in energy efficiency over Amtrak.
Intercity buses at their load factors run about 900 BTU/passenger mile or three times better than Amtrak. Intercity buses in Europe have 50 times the market share they Amtrak has here.
So what does Amtrak have to contribute to alleviate the high price of gas apart from receiving subsidy money to cover its costs?
I read somewhere, perhaps 10 years ago, that there is a big difference between how Europeans and Americans do the first and last mile. That for HSR to really work, you have to have:
- Appropriately spaced population centers of significant size.
AND
- strong suburban/urban transit supporting the terminals and stations.
In the US, we have many candidates for #1, but few outside the NEC with #2. (Chicago and SF are the notable exceptions)
With the trend toward better suburban and urban transit in many US cities, perhaps the soil is being tilled for sucessful intercity service.
For example, in the NE, could you imagine what the parking decks would look like if all the passengers riding out of NYP, 30th St and Union Station drove there?
I haven’t really thought this through too much, but at some point, for Amtrak wouldn’t you want to consider utiliizing the marginal BTU/pax mile instead of the average? This would certainly make Amtrak much more attractive than a car.
That’s a darn good question. I have been a critic of our local bus system, installed at the insistence of the “Green” crowd, because the actual performance of the buses utilizes substantially more fuel per person carried, and because of the diesel engines, is far more of a lethal polluter than the equivalent number of passengers carried by car. And talk about the “Emperor’s New Clothes” – the imposed narrative in support of “transit” is so strongly grounded by misguided perceptions of “efficiency” and “environmentally friendly transportation” that notwithstanding every metric that says the fundamental premise is a lie, the buses keep running at a huge subsidy cost.
It’s difficult to find numbers for the cost efficiency of high speed rail. The substantially greater passenger numbers no doubt offer significant differences compared to an Amtrak LD train, but running those high speeds through the Davis Formula suggests very, very high energy costs. On the other hand, these high speed trains are being compared to airline flights under circumstances in which a person wouldn’t be jumping into their Toyota twice a day for a 250 mile jaunt each way. Considered too is the fact that both the auto and the airplane are using oil-based fuels, and it’s hard to get much more energy inefficient than an airplane …
Davis Formula: 70 mph index value of 100, at 250 mph, index is 714 in terms of relative resistance. That is, if it takes 100 gallons of fuel to move a train a given distance at 70 mph, it takes 714 gallons to move the same train the same distance at 250 mph. I don’t know that 250 mph is within the relevant range of the Davis Formula, but this is suggestive as to why the article posted at the onset of this thread talks about
Well, in Holland, where the cities and the rail passenger system are pretty well integrated, you rarely see a car parked at the station, but rather, hundreds of bicycles. People who use the transit have adjusted their lifestyles and locations to be able to use the system. That takes time, but an advantage in that context is that the average European moves 2-3 times during their lifetime, whereas the average American moves 7-8 times during their lifetime. Again, this relates to the “Build it and they will come” theory – and I think Americans might adapt more quickly and readily to high speed rail service when and where it becomes available than any other country.
At the risk of having my head handed to me, I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak would do a lot better if it gave up on long-haul service entirely and concentrated its assets and energy on the short- to medium-haul market, no runs longer than 400-500 miles with reasonably frequent service, not unlike what’s evolved in California. Work on operating a reasonably frequent service (3-4 trips a day in each direction) at first, and increase the average speed and frequency once a viable market has been established.
Welcome to the headless bunch! [xx(]
The LD trains seem to be a political necessity. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if enough corridors emerged and grew such that the LD trains only had to pay their way incementally and became a relatively insignificant portion of the over network?
Seems like Amtrak is going to get a chance to become relevant. Hope they don’t blow it.
Yes, the LD trains are a political necessity. But who is driving the politics?
If it were simply a question of people out in Montana lobbying to keep “their” lifeline Empire Builder and whoever the Senators from Montana having political influence because there are two of them and also two Senators from New York, I would accept this as part of the Virginia Compromise that gave us the Constitution.
But what about from “people who should know better”?
Our local advocacy community has long been supporting the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which would bring service connecting Madison, WI to Chicago. As a group we had our hopes up in the recent past, and we have our hopes up again with Lautenberg Lott, but we have to see on this. We had our hopes dashed under the Bush Administration, not just because the MRRI was not forthcoming, but the President went on the warpath against Amtrak as part of budget tightening drive shortly after getting reelected.
But what were we talking about among ourselves just before the shoe dropped of President Bush putting the big squeeze on Amtrak? What was the burning concern? Mind you this was a “happy time” when we thought we were getting MRRI, that it was only stalled in Committee or something. Our burning concern was “save the Three Rivers.”
Yeah, yeah, we need to preserve the Amtrak network to maintain the integrity of the National System to allow for a turnaround in the fortunes of rail passenger service brought about by future increases in gas prices, highway, and airport congestion. But if we are for the MRRI, we are for duplicating the success of the NEC in the flatlands of the Midwest. But if we are for perserving the Three Rivers, and oh yes, we gripe about the Sunset in our meetings, what does that say we are for?
This is only a hunch, but what the advocacy community is about is how much fun one has riding trains across the expanses of this gre
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
Yes, the LD trains are a political necessity. But who is driving the politics?
If it were simply a question of people out in Montana lobbying to keep “their” lifeline Empire Builder and whoever the Senators from Montana having political influence because there are two of them and also two Senators from New York, I would accept this as part of the Virginia Compromise that gave us the Constitution.
But what about from “people who should know better”?
Our local advocacy community has long been supporting the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which would bring service connecting Madison, WI to Chicago. As a group we had our hopes up in the recent past, and we have our hopes up again with Lautenberg Lott, but we have to see on this. We had our hopes dashed under the Bush Administration, not just because the MRRI was not forthcoming, but the President went on the warpath against Amtrak as part of budget tightening drive shortly after getting reelected.
But what were we talking about among ourselves just before the shoe dropped of President Bush putting the big squeeze on Amtrak? What was the burning concern? Mind you this was a “happy time” when we thought we were getting MRRI, that it was only stalled in Committee or something. Our burning concern was “save the Three Rivers.”
Yeah, yeah, we need to preserve the Amtrak network to maintain the integrity of the National System to allow for a turnaround in the fortunes of rail passenger service brought about by future increases in gas prices, highway, and airport congestion. But if we are for the MRRI, we are for duplicating the success of the NEC in the flatlands of the Midwest. But if we are for perserving the Three Rivers, and oh yes, we gripe about the Sunset in our meetings, what does that say we are for?
This is only a hunch, but what the advocacy community is about is how much fun one has riding trains
Part of the problem with the advocacy community is that they have been stuck in a 1940’s-1950’s mentality from well before the establishment of NARP. They don’t seem to have realized that while the traveling public may gripe mightily about the state of air service, the public is willing to put up with it because of the time advantage over just about anything else. People will not ride the “Southwest Chief” from Chicago to Los Angeles because of the extra amenities when American Airlines can get them there much faster. An American Airlines 767 is still more comfortable and appreciably faster than the DC7 that flew the same run prior to 1958.
Another thread has lamented the passing of the classic parlor car from the scene, I seriously doubt that today’s road warrior traveling business class on the Acela even cares. From what I’ve read, the legroom and seat pitch are not that different from the average airliner, Amtrak in this case is selling what the market wants. Unfortunately, the advocacy community fails to realize that long-distance passenger trains are not what the markets wants, and haven’t been since at least the day the first 707’s were assigned to domestic flights.