A piece from the Times of London makes good points about the benefits of high-speed rail travel for business people. One British businessman put it this way:
"The good thing about trains is that I can use my laptop, make phone calls, receive e-mails, talk to my secretary and use nearly every moment of the journey for productive work. When I get off and jump into a taxi, I feel upbeat and ready to go, instead of grumpy and exhausted."
Of course, it's a lot easier to travel by train in Europe. By the end of this year there will be 3,700 miles of high-speed track in Europe and by 2020, 9,000 miles. That compares with exactly zero miles of true high-speed track in this country.
California has a chance to be the nation's leader in the construction of 21st century high-speed rail -- but only if we don't squander our advantage. The passage of Proposition 1A last fall put the state in front of other regions for federal money that is now flowing for high-speed rail. But indifference and outright hostility on the part of some members of the Legislature is putting that position at risk.
High-speed rail supporters can't assume that passage of Proposition 1A was the end of the effort. It was only the beginning. If we want to see the system built in Fresno and the rest of the state, we have to keep the pressure up.
Russ... maybe when "Duh Bee" folds you might think of relocating to Portland or Chicago, even Europe.You know...a place that has a train you can ride.I'm all about people being "Happy".
Russ: You seem pretty convinced that this rail is the way to go. I am not. First when goverment gets involved expect huge cost overruns. Second England is approximately 1/3 the size of California but about 50% more population. High speed rail and things like BART work well in small areas with concentrated population areas. Given our current financial mess, the cost to do a project like this, it appears at the least not to be practical to run it through the valley and speculative between Los Angeles and San Francisco. I have not seen the numbers but it would appear to be a very
costly system. Does anyone have an idea what they would have to charge for a ticket?
@ Jim: "Does anyone have an idea what they would have to charge for a ticket?"
Current estimates from the California High Speed Rail Authority put the cost of Fresno-San Francisco (one-way) at $32. Fresno-Los Angeles (one way) is estimated at $38.
Russ: A few more questions then. How many people a day are they expecting to use this? Are they trying to recoup any of the money they are investing? I don't know how many they expect to use it but for the billions of dollars involved that seems like a very cheap ticket.
@ jim -
2008 Business Plan:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/default.aspx
2008 Ridership Forecast:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20081118143005_Source%20Document%205%20Ridership%20and%20Revenue.pdf
As with any forecast, this one contains assumptions that may be challenged. The biggest uncertainties relate to the future price of gasoline/kerosene relative to average purchasing power and, to Californians' willingness to change their lifestyle. Both will also factor into the success of transit-oriented real estate developments, beefed-up local/regional transit services and bike lanes/paths for (folding) (electric) bicycles - the oft-forgotten third way toward building train ridership.
If the future operators of the system decide to offer trips at 50% of then-prevailing air fare (or gas prices for the trip), they could attract as many as 54 million passengers per year by 2030 for the starter line alone - an average of 150,000 per day. Most of these trips would be shorter than the full length of the SF-LA/Anaheim line. Indeed, trips between the Central Valley and either the Bay Area or the LA basin would outnumber those between the Bay Area and LA basin by roughly 3:2.
If the planned spurs to San Diego and Sacramento are also operational 2030, total trip number could go as high as 94 million, approaching the system's ultimate capacity of 117 million. A great deal hinges on connecting transportation services, since most people will still live or work beyond walking distance from the nearest high speed rail station.
Being from Sigmund Freud's city, I am a believer in "Freudian Slip" I refer to Russ Minick's earlier comment to the effect that it irked the hell out of him that foreign countries had those trains and we did not....I am positive that Mr. Minick is not of oblivious of the legitimate nature of the problems mentioned above. And as long as we spend $ billions monthly on war, we shan't be first in many things any longer. I know next to nothing about Asia, but I have my eye on Europe, and they engineer things which are hard to believe like the channel bridge over the river Elbe which joins the former East Germany with the former West Germany. A navigable bridge over a navigable River. It's something to see and still hard to believe.
"A great deal hinges on connecting transportation services, since most people will still live or work beyond walking distance from the nearest high speed rail station."
"Californians' willingness to change their lifestyle"
Statements that make you go hhhhmmmmm.
$32 for one-way to the Bay Area doesn't seem all that bad, if you consider the full cost of driving. The current IRS mileage allowance is 55 cents/mile, which is supposed to cover the cost of owning and operating a vehicle. So the 186 miles to SF costs me $102.30 when I drive. Even if I take a passenger the train is cheaper.
Of course if one assumes that owning and maintaining the car is unavoidable overhead -- not an unreasonable assumption for most people in Fresno -- then the 'marginal' cost of the trip is little more than the cost of a tank of gas. In that case, since I can drive to SF and back in my 4-cylinder Honda Accord on less than one tankful, the train is about 4 times more expensive for two people.
And of course you need to have a secure place to leave your car at the station, since the bus service in Fresno is inadequate to get you there. I imagine that parking will not be free either!
Most likely the decision to take the train rather than one's car will be based on the comfort and speed of the service -- not something to sneeze at. But I don't think it will be perceived as an inexpensive alternative to driving.
The rail systems: LA to Vegas and LA north through the valley are my 1st denominations for stimulus waste elimination.
Let Las Vegas pay for rail system from LA. We Valley folk have enough on our plate with LA to San Francisco.