Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.

[GuineaPig]

Just doing a little research, and I found a very good reason why governments should invest more in rail lines than highways:

The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for commuter purposes (1,300 capacity/train, 30 trains/hour) is 39,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for high-speed purposes (1,600 capacity/train, 15 trains/hour) is 24,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of an eighteen-lane highway (nine lanes each way, 1.2 people per car) is 20,000 people/hour/direction.

Again, all well and good, but still does nothing to prove that people would actually use it anywhere near capacity.

The busiest stretch of highway in the world, the Highway 401 through Toronto, transports about 600,000 people per day.  It is 16 lanes wide.

The busiest stretch of railway in the world, the A line of the Paris RER, transports about 1.2 million people per day.  It is the width of one lane of highway.


People will use rapid transit if it's rapid, constant, and well integrated.

[yorost]

I loathe 401 in Toronto.  It can't possibly transport that many people, because traffic doesn't move.

[bosk1]

People will use rapid transit if it's rapid, constant, and well integrated.

(1) This is not rapid transit.  (2) You keep making statements like, "if it's good and efficient, people will use it."  How do you know?  You keep saying that, but you have no idea whether or not it is true.  Show me proof that people in California will use a HSR between San Francisco and L.A. in sufficient numbers to justify the cost.  That is the only thing that matters.

[Super Dude]

I mean, arguably speaking, don't we have to wait till it's there to really know? Sure you can do comparative studies of say the rails between Chicago and the ass-end of nowhere or a high-speed rail between two other major cities in the US, but there are so many factors that will be unique to the Cali high-speed rail that we really won't know until we try.

[bosk1]

I mean, arguably speaking, don't we have to wait till it's there to really know? Sure you can do comparative studies of say the rails between Chicago and the ass-end of nowhere or a high-speed rail between two other major cities in the US, but there are so many factors that will be unique to the Cali high-speed rail that we really won't know until we try.

Partially true, but that's not really what I'm saying.  Sorry if I wasn't being clear.  What I am saying is: I think you could at least gauge the interest and cost/benefit analysis by making a comparison between a similar line in the U.S. (by similar, I am talking about similar demographics and inter-city travel patterns) and by extensive surveys of actual potential users that provides the users' interest level.  Bottom line is, there is no data I am aware of that we can use to project to potential ridership of this line, so just saying "if it's good, people will like it," is not a valuable measuring stick in any way, shape, or form.

[GuineaPig]

Extensive feasibility studies are conducted on projects like this before any sort of government approval is given.  For example, there's a leaked study on HSR in Ontario/Québec at highspeedrail.ca.

[bosk1]

I'm not talking about what "are conducted."  I'm talking about what has been conducted that gives us reliable data to project sufficient usage.

[Super Dude]

I think GP was implying that though, that they have been conducted here in California.

[Scheavo]

Nothing in life is guaranteed Bosk, and there's no good reason to think American's are radically different than any other nationality of humans. Our suburban crawl is going to end, at some point, and the actual building of these highway speed rails could make investments around that rail more attractive. In the end, it's really not that costly per person; the numbers of billions get's misleading when there millions of people. 1

[bosk1]

No offense, but that's crap.  What you're saying still just boils down to, "I don't really have any evidence it will work, but it seems like a good idea, so we should just go with it and not worry about the cost."  Again, I'm not even necessarily against the idea, but it is astounding to me that when you really drill down and ask for proof that it is actually a good idea, nobody has anything to offer.

[Super Dude]

We're not really saying that, we're saying that all the research in the world won't tell you what actually going in and doing it will. We can study and deliberate this thing to death, but we won't really know if it's a success or a failure until it's been built and people use it or don't.

[Scheavo]

No offense, but that's crap.  What you're saying still just boils down to, "I don't really have any evidence it will work, but it seems like a good idea, so we should just go with it and not worry about the cost."  Again, I'm not even necessarily against the idea, but it is astounding to me that when you really drill down and ask for proof that it is actually a good idea, nobody has anything to offer.

No, I said it may not turn out to be a good idea. Businesses take chances when they invest, why should government not do the same?

Besides, there is some evidence to make us believe it might work, as we see other countries successfully employing it. It doesn't mean it will work, but why the hell are other countries NOT examples and evidence? The biggest thing difference is our suburban crawl - which, combined with the housing market, gas prices, and the economy, is something we need to address anyways.

[bosk1]

We're not really saying that, we're saying that all the research in the world won't tell you what actually going in and doing it will. We can study and deliberate this thing to death, but we won't really know if it's a success or a failure until it's been built and people use it or don't.

Of course we won't really know.  But far short of studying and deliberating it "to death," we can actually do what should be the normal amount research and due diligence to gather data that should give a more accurate picture of whether it will be a success.  We can built a fleet of solar powered hovercraft with pink fairy wings welded on the side that can shuttle people back and forth between Miami and Jamaica too, but just because it sounds cool doesn't mean it's a good idea until we've figured out whether there is sufficient interest in using it to justify the cost of building, running, and maintaining the thing.

No, I said it may not turn out to be a good idea. Businesses take chances when they invest, why should government not do the same? 

Actually, no.  Businesses that stay in business for any length of time and don't go bankrupt don't take blind chances.  They take educated chances after they've done sufficient market research and due diligence before taking on large expenditures.  The government should do likewise.

Besides, there is some evidence to make us believe it might work, as we see other countries successfully employing it. It doesn't mean it will work, but why the hell are other countries NOT examples and evidence?

That data isn't completely meaningless.  But by itself, it doesn't help.  It is only a small part of the picture.  As has been addressed earlier in the thread, it doesn't matter if similar HSR's work in 100 other places if the people in SF and LA say, "huh, that's dumb.  I'm not using it."  Even if those people are just being stubborn and stupid and have the worst reasons for not using it, that doesn't change the fact that the trains are still empty at the end of the day.  Again, we just don't have a complete picture of the data yet to know whether this is a good idea or not.

[El Barto]

Gotta say,  doing a study or two to ascertain who exactly might ride the thing just seems like common sense.  Something that needs to be considered here is that the main impetus for this so far seems to be political grandstanding.  That should really give people pause.  At this point,  does anybody other than a few politicians actually think this is a useful thing?  It might be the greatest thing on Earth, and it might be a complete waste of money.  I'd like to hear what some people without a vested interest in it's construction predict. 

[Super Dude]

Gotta say,  doing a study or two to ascertain who exactly might ride the thing just seems like common sense.  Something that needs to be considered here is that the main impetus for this so far seems to be political grandstanding.  That should really give people pause.  At this point,  does anybody other than a few politicians actually think this is a useful thing?  It might be the greatest thing on Earth, and it might be a complete waste of money.  I'd like to hear what some people without a vested interest in it's construction predict.

Where is this coming from? What about all of the supporters you find here or on the ballot?

[El Barto]

Even less informed than the politicians.

[Scheavo]

Actually, no.  Businesses that stay in business for any length of time and don't go bankrupt don't take blind chances.  They take educated chances after they've done sufficient market research and due diligence before taking on large expenditures.  The government should do likewise.

And they aren't doing that. There are reports on the issue, if you chose to read them, and you're ignoring of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

And a quick google search found me this . It's funded by transportation companies, so I'm sure it's biased to some degree. But it's still a study, and just the first one I pulled out.

And also, how much would such systems cost? Hundreds of billions? So, a few hundred dollars a person. It's not some big expenditures that's going to cause us to go broke.

[Super Dude]

Scheavo, could you possibly post a couple?

[Scheavo]

https://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/Pages/101028_HSR_Survey.aspx

Convenience and saving money were key factors for whether travelers would choose high-speed rail service over other modes of transportation.  When asked how important various factors would be in choosing high-speed rail service, survey respondents ranked the top four as follows: (91%) shorter travel times compared to driving to my destination; (91%) less expensive than flying to my destination; (89%) less expensive than driving to my destination; and (85%) integration with local public transit so I can avoid use of rental cars, cabs and parking fees. 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a nonprofit international association of more than 1,500 public and private member organizations, engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne passenger services, and high-speed rail.

https://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-09/business/os-ridership-high-speed-20110309_1_ridership-study-high-speed-train-train-systems

And the actual government site for California, with more than enough studies:

https://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.aspx

https://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Ridership_and_Revenue_Forecasting_Study.aspx

I mean, there's TONS of studies to go through there. You can't say they haven't been done. Who knows who accurate they are all, I'd be wary of some of them without knowing more of the specific details involved, but in the end, the studies go with the grain, and not against them. This is fully in line with what we should expect out of human nature,


And win.

[GuineaPig]

Traditionally high-speed rail lines have outperformed what they've been forecasted to do, with the notable exception of international services like Eurostar, and to a lesser extent, Thalys.

[GuineaPig]

I've been looking more into the way the proposals for HSR in California have changed, and I'm becoming increasingly concerned.  It looks like the majority of cost increases are due to pork-barrel demands from various municipalities, essentially seeking an influx of cash into local construction companies, and a refusal to cooperate between the agencies of the local rapid transit runners (like Caltrain and BART) and the High Speed Rail Authority.  The result is massively idiotic things like a 6.5 mile viaduct in San Jose.

What with proposed first service being pushed from 2020 to 2033, there's no reason not to cancel the project now with the idea of establishing a much cheaper, and saner, proposal.  I hadn't realized it was this bad.

I mean, for fuck's sake, just hand over the reigns of control to SNCF or DB, and have them run the project without listening to corrupt local governments, and have the state government force the hand of the local transit authorities.

[bosk1]

Exactly, GP.  That is a huge part of the cost issue and one of the main reasons why there are cost overruns on so many of these kinds of projects.  A reasonable amount of change orders due to legitimate construction-related issues that were not originally foreseen is to be expected.  Major cost run-ups for no good reason are an entirely different issue.

There are reports on the issue, if you chose to read them, and you're ignoring of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Okay, great that you finally (after 7 pages) found a few studies (very few of which relate to this project).  But honestly, the above quote shows just how little you attempt to read and understand the arguments that are being made.  If you are still that clueless about my position on the issue, I really don't have anything to discuss with you.

[GuineaPig]

Another reason why this project has devolved into insanity: a major part of the cost overruns is because they're now adding another 13 years to make this.  It would be much less expensive if they constructed it quicker, because it involves shorter-term construction (where costs have less of a chance of spiraling out of control) and the fact that assets won't have been depreciating for 20 years by the time it's up and running.

[bosk1]

That too.  I get Barry's point earlier in the thread about how there are always cost overruns.  But that doesn't mean cost overruns for bad reasons should just blindly be accepted.  Not to start a debate over "this country" vs. "that country," but here's an anecdotal example of the problem on a much smaller scale.  When I joined the military in 1988, after doing boot camp and school, I reported to my permanent base in the fall of 1988.  We lived in a barracks that had been condemned right about the time the Vietnam War ended, but right next door stood the steel framing for new barracks.  Not sure how long the construction had been going on by that time, but it was over 2 more years before they were done and we were able to move in (late Spring 1991).  All told, I think it took at least close to 4 years for those hourly contractors to complete a simple building project for the government.  Let's contrast that with a similar project I saw in Okinawa during the 6 months I was there in 1989.  When I arrived in Okinawa, they were getting ready to start construction on a new barracks that was, coincidentally, next door to the building we were in.  They had just started breaking ground when we arrived.  Six months later when we left, the building was done and there were people living in it.  There's just a different standard where contractors get paid by the project instead of by the hour, and in a government system that is much less tolerant to corruption and waste.

[Scheavo]

There are reports on the issue, if you chose to read them, and you're ignoring of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Okay, great that you finally (after 7 pages) found a few studies (very few of which relate to this project).  But honestly, the above quote shows just how little you attempt to read and understand the arguments that are being made.  If you are still that clueless about my position on the issue, I really don't have anything to discuss with you.

I've answered your objections about American's using it, I've answered your objections about studies being needed before we start an investment like that, and your still continue to refuse to accept that they exist, that American's are human, and that high speed rail is something this country needs to implement.

You really don't think there are studies on the specific train line somewhat involved in this discussion? I'm sorry I don't feel like goin through pages of google searches to prove to you something as obvious as the sky being blue.

[bosk1]

Scheavo, do you have anything to say that even remotely relates to what my actual position on the issue is? 

[Scheavo]

What exactly is your position? Because you seem to be changing it by the minute.

Actually, no.  Businesses that stay in business for any length of time and don't go bankrupt don't take blind chances.  They take educated chances after they've done sufficient market research and due diligence before taking on large expenditures.  The government should do likewise.

Again, I'm not even necessarily against the idea, but it is astounding to me that when you really drill down and ask for proof that it is actually a good idea, nobody has anything to offer.

I gave you those studies, that show they're as good of an idea as we can reasonable expect, so you're really just being confusing at this point. Maybe it's not I who is misunderstanding you, but you who are giving a very bad defense and explanation of your actual opinion.

[El Barto]

This is why I think blowing a gazillion dollars on HSR in Cali is a bad idea.  It's not that I think this guys goofy looking cars are going to be common place in 5 years,  but I think that a lot of the technology in them will be.  I don't think we're too far away from the point where the four inside lanes of a highway can accomdate six lanes of vehicles driving 60mph bumper to bumper.  Perhaps it'll be something completely different,  but there will be significant advances in the way we drive long distances,  and spending a small fortune to plant tomorrow's generation with today's technology is incredibly short sighted. 

[bosk1]

That is simultaneously awesome and frightening.

[Scheavo]

This is why I think blowing a gazillion dollars on HSR in Cali is a bad idea.  It's not that I think this guys goofy looking cars are going to be common place in 5 years,  but I think that a lot of the technology in them will be.  I don't think we're too far away from the point where the four inside lanes of a highway can accomdate six lanes of vehicles driving 60mph bumper to bumper.  Perhaps it'll be something completely different,  but there will be significant advances in the way we drive long distances,  and spending a small fortune to plant tomorrow's generation with today's technology is incredibly short sighted.

How do you prevent that from being hacked? One hacker could kill millions of people rather quickly.

[El Barto]

I'd be much more concerned about people hacking ATC networks,  power plant logic controllers,  GPS,  and dozens of other centralized systems that millions rely on.  The cars would be mostly decentralized. 

[Scheavo]

So individual computer/programs on each car that cooperate with each other? That might be interesting, but I'm not sure a lot of people are going to accept putting their lives in the hands of computer software - even though it'd probably be safer than we have now. Computer's aren't very good at handling novel situations, least not yet; whereas humans are quite good at this.

And people rely upon those systems, but they wouldn't cause instant death (in most cases).

[El Barto]

I had this conversation with my brother a while back.  I like to drive.  I like the fact that my older model car has a direct link from the key to the starter,  from the gas pedal to the throttle body,  from the brake pedal to the master cylinder,  etc.  Cars nowadays have none of these things.  Pretty soon, even the steering wheel will be FBW.  Today's generation really doesn't seem to give a shit, though.  I suspect that half the drivers on the road today would be happy with a car that drove itself,  so they could spend their commute dicking around on facebook and texting each other.  I'm a bit of a relic in this regard.  In a few more years,  there won't be too many people like me left.

And I'm also adapting a bit, as well.  I was one of the old farts that insisted I'd never let some ABS bullshit stop my car.  I was pretty good at controlled braking,  and didn't trust the car to do it on it's own.  Of course now I realize that ABS does it much better than I do.  I'm glad my car has it and that there aren't too many cars on the road that predate it. 

[slycordinator]

Maybe it was a different forum, but I recall a lawyer posting once that he commuted everywhere via taxi cab, because while he was being driven everywhere he would be able to do his work and still charge the client for that time at his regular hourly rate. And I know a few people who do the same with commuting on a bus as they can do work or studying while riding. So I imagine if people introduced cars that drove themselves, it wouldn't be exclusively people who do twitter/facebook that utilize it.

[GuineaPig]

Or high-speed rail, which is actually viable at this current time, or even in the next 25 years.