SNCF intends to invest billions of dollars into US high-speed rail system.

[RooRocz]

Yep. If we needed it we would have done it already.

Ah, but, one could continue to make this argument indefinitely even if it were needed.

Indeed, when applied to other situations, this argument holds no water. For example:

"If I had needed food, I would have eaten already."

"If I had needed to install a security system in my home, I would have done it already."

"If I had needed do my homework, I would have done it already."

These people died of malnutrition, were robbed and assaulted, and failed math, respectively.

One cannot base the necessity of a thing based solely on the argument that if it doesn't exist then it must not need to exist. With this mindset, only stagnation lies.






also, I like to recklessly spend government money on pie-in-the-sky projects. Is that so bad?

 

[Tokkyu40]

... Can someone explain, with particularity, why it is that with all the greedy capitalists in the money worshiping United States, not one has seen it feasible to raise the capital to build an HSR system and operate it...

Bernie

A high speed rail system will take several years to complete, and about 10-15 years after completion to return the initial investment. In a world where the universe revolves around the next quarterly report and long term planning means the next election cycle, where will you find anyone with the vision to spend 20 years to build something that's new to America.
I'm sorry, but saying that when we need it we'll build it is patently wrong. By 2000, any long term view of the economy would tell you that the housing industry was riding a bubble ready to burst without warning and that a variety of small and large vehicles would be needed in the near future to weather rising energy prices and economic cycles. Yet the banks were looking at the next business cycle and selling no asset liar's loans to unemployed people on the theory that eternally skyrocketing house prices made it safe, and Detroit was building the massive land yachts that made large profit margins as long as the economy allowed people to blindly buy them. When the downturn happened their lack of long term vision was catastrophic.
We already need high speed rail. We've needed it for the last decade at least, and it's already too late to start if we want it to be ready for when the people are ready to ride. That's going to hurt us.
The Acela semi-speed rail is already packed to overflowing with business people who hate to fly. Other faster systems will be even more popular. It's not even "Build it and they will come." Now it's "They're here, where's the train?"

Claude

 

[SuperFudd]

What's the point of such an endevor that can not make a profit? If there is no profit, who is going to pay for it?
Yes, on a small scale something like BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) can be made to work without a profit but only if the economy of the area it serves can support the finacial drain required. That economy can only be made strong by private enterprise "capitalists" having the vision to concieve of enterprises that can create products and services citizens want to pay for, thus generating the jobs and resulting payroll to generate the money for those expenditures.
Taxes on people and businesses are a drag on the economy but are required for many proper projects. Care must be taken to not kill the "Golden Goose" that is the profit based economy. I fear the tipping point has been passed so building a massive unprofitable HSR system cannot be done. It would just drive another nail in the coffin of America.
Yes, it would be so cool to ride a coast to coast on a 300mph HSR and, yes, even the United States has the smarts to come up with the technology but, where is the profit? People won't pay enough to support it.
Our current Amtrak, which I love, is a bad enough drain on our tax base. It seems like every year there are calls to shut it down because it does not make a profit. How do you expect to get suport for a national HSR? There is no need so no demand so no profit so why bother?

 

[paulzmay]

If it's anything like the majority of world HSR projects it will (unlike most of Amtrak) make a decent operating profit. It's just that due to the very high cost of such projects, the payback is usually beyond what most private businesses are prepared to pay (often as little as 3 years, and almost never over 7). What's government for if not to do the important things that private enterprise won't? There are many things outside the USA (and even inside it) that don't make a profit in themselves, but are essential for the running of the economy, and the quality of life in general.

I agree that if a specific HSR project looked like running at a substantial defect long-term, then it's not worth pursuing. As so many HSR projects give good operating profits, failure to achieve this would indicate poor planning, or inadequate demand. The USA already has pairs of cities close enough for HSR, that have enough air passengers to justify the service - European experience has shown that HSR will take the lions share of such traffic, and often expand the market size overall.

Anyway, this is starting to go round in circles - anyone else got anything new to add?

Paul

 

[amigacooke]

Yes, it would be so cool to ride a coast to coast on a 300mph HSR and, yes, even the United States has the smarts to come up with the technology but, where is the profit? People won't pay enough to support it.

Isn't that part of the point. Why waste money, thereby reducing profit, reinventing pre-existing technology? US railroading initially copied European technology and then improved it. That could happen again.

In my opinion a completely free market economy is just as doomed as a completely planned economy.

 

[Isaacg]

Our current Amtrak, which I love, is a bad enough drain on our tax base. It seems like every year there are calls to shut it down because it does not make a profit. How do you expect to get suport for a national HSR? There is no need so no demand so no profit so why bother?

Never expect the government, a service provider, to make any sort of profit. Thats the whole point in a government, to provide services(without necessarily making any profit). I do think that the private sector should get more involved, but here's my question: What American railway company is left? We only have US Railcar, which is geared towards commuter rail and intercity rail, which is great for those lines that are connecting HSR, but not for HSR. It's going to take a multinational corporation to invest in A-HSR. I do think that the HSR projects(esp. in California, Midwest, and Florida) should be carried out. 1. to reduce congestion in some of the nations most congested cities(LA and SF are in the top 10 in the US, and Tampa and Orlando aren't far behind(TPA is 11th in the nation, ORL is 30th) and 2. to spur economic development in the future of american urbanism. Once built, the govt' can keep the network and allow different operators to provide services, while the private revenue goes into a fund to update infrastructure, etc. If you leave everything to the private sector(eg. let it do what it does best), you won't get anywhere. Its a matter of "because the private sector doesn't want to do it, who's gonna do it?", so now it looks like the Gov is grappling the matter.

 

[RooRocz]

A quick read of the report suggests that SNCF intends to make a profit off it.

They managed it in China and Taiwan.. perhaps they can repeat the effort here in the US?

 

[UP5521]

There is a good possibility they might but it is only a matter of time before this can happen so we have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Isaacg]

A quick read of the report suggests that SNCF intends to make a profit off it.

They managed it in China and Taiwan.. perhaps they can repeat the effort here in the US?

Well SNCF I could see making a profit(cause they're SNCF, lol jk), but yeah, SNCF is a great choice to build the lines.

 

[Tokkyu40]

So far, wherever it has been tried, High Speed Rail has been profitable. To maximize profits would require 3 things.
1: The trains have to have their own track. You can't mix 200mph super express with 50mph freight. Especially on the freight owned lines where the super express has to stay off the tracks to allow the freight to trundle through.
2: Fast means fast. Fast doesn't mean as fast as a 90 year old steam train went, although that would be an improvement. It means peak speeds of 200 mph with average service speeds across the route of at least 100-120 mph, including urban running and station stops. People like trains, but they still want to get there. And enough trains to allow people some flexibility in scheduling. There's only one train a day each way on the I-10 corridor. You can't run a railroad like that.
3: Stations should generate a profit. Major urban stations should have full office, hotel and shopping facilities, with some entertainment venues to amuse the crowd while waiting for the next train. Even the smallest commuter stops should have a convenience store and news stand.

Claude

 

[BobCass]

Hi ALL: I,m going to throw in my two cent opinion. Why not let them (SCNF)do the thing. The United States have proven over the past years they can't handle it. We are so far behind the Euorpean countrys when it comes to HSR, It will take serveral years to catch up. The only thing the United States leads in is Freight haulage..The Oil Industry is to blame for this alot of
it..We had Sreetcars along time ago look what happened to them. The Oil Companys wanted to switch them to Gas Buses so they have corner on the market..Now we have to spend big bucks to get Sreetcars again..The big Oil companies should donate to the cause..


Bob Cass

 

[BobCass]

Hi Again: I just noticed the above post of mine has an error in Sp (SNCF)
My Apologies..

Bob Cass

 

[UP5521]

Hi ALL: I,m going to throw in my two cent opinion. Why not let them (SCNF)do the thing. The United States have proven over the past years they can't handle it. We are so far behind the Euorpean countrys when it comes to HSR, It will take serveral years to catch up. The only thing the United States leads in is Freight haulage..The Oil Industry is to blame for this alot of
it..We had Sreetcars along time ago look what happened to them. The Oil Companys wanted to switch them to Gas Buses so they have corner on the market..Now we have to spend big bucks to get Sreetcars again..The big Oil companies should donate to the cause..


Bob Cass

I agree with that but when you reffered to the street car,true but we also had steam engines hauling our trains and finally yes the oil industry is to blame for our bad economy which is why it is almost no wonder why some people are being laid off from their jobs and people barely have money to go on vacation and I think it is ridiculous that this happened and it seems that we are the only ones behind while everyone eles is ahead of us.

 

[SuperFudd]

UP5521,

Is that what they teach in school these days?

 

[UP5521]

well, I don't know, I am just concerned thats all!

 

[UP5521]

UP5521,

Is that what they teach in school these days?

No not these days, anyway I am just concerned on how things are going right now when the economy came into focus and still while it might be a good idea to have a high speed rail system in the USA but I just don't know.

 

[WileeCoyote]

I seriously doubt the oil industry is to blame for the fact that nearly all American railway companies only play host to freight trains and freight-only lines. I thought it was because they're so good at hauling freight and that they discovered some time ago that freight trains are more profitable than passenger trains (which in terms of investment and upkeep cost versus net profit is true).

WileeCoyote

 

[marinemania]

But if the all these corridors are electrified what going to happen to the superliners I mean that the project is a fantastic idea but take away superliners from the capital limited to replace them with multiple units now that going to far. I may like multile units and train sets as much as the next guy but if you ask me I think I'm going to miss seeing superliners on the capital limted not to metion that the capital limited is the only one of two routes (including the cardinal) that travel from the east coast to chicago with superliners. Unless the can re-bogie the superliners for the cardinal and the capital limited with bogies that can at least take speeds up to 150mphI'm not really interested in the project. But this isn't the only thing to be worried about, on the marc's bruswick line the company uses car that were handed down from metra so they need to use low platforms, another thing is on all of the routes there are grade crossings so if some gets hit by a high speed train lets just say that family members of those who are hit won't be happy. A situation like this has already happened on the nec were a grand parent was hit by a 150mph acela and the grand parent and the boy who was with her died on impact the girl who was in the car was critically injured and died in the hospital three days after the accident. So until this problems are solved really i'm kind of aganist the project.

marinemania

P.S. I wouldn't really say that sncf is all that great with commuter high speed for example the crash at gran de leon was a sncf train it still is france's worst train train crash within the country it's self cosidering that over 50 people died in the intial crash and many more died do to the lack of medical atention

 

[paulzmay]

I seriously doubt the oil industry is to blame for the fact that nearly all American railway companies only play host to freight trains and freight-only lines. I thought it was because they're so good at hauling freight and that they discovered some time ago that freight trains are more profitable than passenger trains (which in terms of investment and upkeep cost versus net profit is true).

WileeCoyote

That's true, but it's also the case that the US government's HUGE highway and airport building projects of the 1950s and 1960s really put the pinch on rail passenger travel numbers, making the problem much worse.

Paul

 

[Tokkyu40]

But if the all these corridors are electrified what going to happen to the superliners I mean that the project is a fantastic idea but take away superliners from the capital limited to replace them with multiple units now that going to far....

I see no reason Amtrack can't keep running the heritage trains on the freight lines like they're doing now. It's kind of a historical interest thing rather than actual transportation, so having modern trains on the high speed lines shouldn't affect the heritage operations.
I don't think you can speed up the superliners just by swapping out the trucks. I'm pretty sure a high speed train will have to be built for the purpose from the ground up.
WileeCoyote has a good point. Under the American model where freight has priority, it's very hard to make passenger traffic pay. Japan has the same problem trying to make a profit on freight trains running on passenger rails. That's why I think they should be separate, so that each can plan their schedules for optimum results without having to compromise with another carrier.

Claude