tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post527811842110200759..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Comparing Fares for Planes, Trains and AutomobilesRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-22789355988678197372009-09-30T14:56:17.823-07:002009-09-30T14:56:17.823-07:00How is it "fare" to compare a private in...How is it "fare" to compare a private industry, like the airline industry, with a public industry like high speed rail in CA? One uses competition and supply/demand principles, the other uses taxpayer money. Sure the airlines received a boost from the federal govt in '01 but it wasn't taken over by the federal govt. It's like the health care debate - how can the private sector be expected to compete with the government? The government can print fiat money and isn't concerned about making a profit. <br /><br />Now if we had different operators running different trains, on different rails, competing against each other, that would be a more compelling competitive argument to me. But to compare flying or driving with hsr is comparing apples to oranges. Government should never be in business to push private industry out of business. That's how you end up with a totalitarian, socialist state. Passenger train service and Amtrak are just government-run industries. If they had to compete on the same principles, they would lose 100% of the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-15955810614184627792009-09-16T00:14:37.112-07:002009-09-16T00:14:37.112-07:00Why are you assuming that they will exactly replic...<em>Why are you assuming that they will exactly replicate whatever agreements exist between Amtrak and NJT</em>?<br /><br />I'm not. One could infer that. I'm just relating my experiences using the Northeast Corridor. The arrangements between Amtrak and the commuter railroads change all the time. There was a radical shift in Amtrak's and NJ Transit's arrangement in 2005. <br /><br /><em>I'm not sure what the relevance of Path is? SF-SJ is comparable to Trenton-NYP or Pct Jct-NYP, not Newark-NYP.</em><br /><br />Newark is analogous to Millbrae or where ever they decide to put the SFO station on HSR. Or Millbrae is analogous to Jamaica. Or Oak Park or New Carrollton or Woodlawn or.... <br /><br /><em>Operationally, the difference between the CHSR and the NEC is that CHSR will have some additional capacity from SJ to SF (i.e., a significant minority of NB passengers will be alighting at SJ), whereas Amtrak has no additional capacity between Trenton and NYP (i.e., to a first approximation, no NB passengers alight at Trenton)</em><br /><br />Both of them have will have more passengers hoping to snag a nice cushy ride on the long distance train as opposed to the commuter train across the platform, than there are seats. The people getting off in San Jose from points south are going to be less than the amount who will want to get those nice cushy seats on a fast ride to San Francisco. HSR is going to do something to make it less attractive to do that or they are going to have lots of pissed off passengers who spend the San Jose to San Francisco leg of the trip staring at standing commuters or even more irate passengers who bought a ticket for SF to a point south of San Jose and had to spend it standing because someone who is getting off in San Jose was sitting in the nice cushy seat. Or run lots and lots of empty seats between San Jose and points south.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-32299422551249911462009-09-14T09:42:16.669-07:002009-09-14T09:42:16.669-07:00There aren't going to be a whole lot of HSR co...<i>There aren't going to be a whole lot of HSR commuters between SJ and SF, it will be too expensive.</i><br /><br />Why are you assuming that they will exactly replicate whatever agreements exist between Amtrak and NJT?<br /><br />I'm not sure what the relevance of Path is? SF-SJ is comparable to Trenton-NYP or Pct Jct-NYP, not Newark-NYP.<br /><br /><i>One would hope Caltrain will end up with fast EMUs that can run at 125 MPH. </i><br /><br />Operationally, the difference between the CHSR and the NEC is that CHSR will have some additional capacity from SJ to SF (i.e., a significant minority of NB passengers will be alighting at SJ), whereas Amtrak has no additional capacity between Trenton and NYP (i.e., to a first approximation, no NB passengers alight at Trenton).<br /><br />Regardless, whether the commuters are served by HSTs or 125 mph EMUs is irrelevant from a project level perspective. Either way, it's a benefit of the project. From a local perspective, it may matter in terms of which agency gets what percentage of whatever pot of money. That's something to be hammered out down the line. But from a project level benefit-cost perspective, it does not matter: new passengers are new passengers.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-514390692615547142009-09-13T10:55:11.943-07:002009-09-13T10:55:11.943-07:00But they're assuming that there will be a lot ...<em>But they're assuming that there will be a lot of commuters from Palmdale to LA. So are they going to price SF-SJ trains out of commuters' ranges while keeping fares affordable for Palmdale-LA</em>?<br /><br />They could. Wouldn't make any more sense to me than HSR between SJ and SF but they could. One would hope Caltrain will end up with fast EMUs that can run at 125 MPH. Metrolink will be using diesels for a long time. <br /><br />In 2004 three of the top ten busiest stations in the Amtrak system were in NJ. Newark in 5th place, Trenton in 7th place and Princeton Junction in 9th place. . . Princeton Junction?... <br /><br />It was the Clockers, Amtrak trains that ran between Philadelphia and New York. NJ Transit paid Amtrak to cross honor monthly tickets on the Clockers. <br /><br />NJ Transit decided that the subsidy to have Amtrak cross honor NJ Transit monthly tickets on the Clockers was too expensive. They began to run express trains themselves duplicating the service between Trenton and New York. Philadelphians were not pleased. People in Hamilton were ecstatic, because Amtrak doesn't stop in Hamilton, NJ Transit does. <br /><br />In 2004 Amtrak carried 3,855,311 passengers to/from stations in New Jersey. Hiding in there were people taking the Clockers from Trenton and Princeton Junction to Newark and New York. NJ Transit took over the service, north of Trenton, after October 31, 2005. In 2005 Amtrak carried 3.4 million passengers to/from stations in NJ. In 2006 that dropped to 1,577,540. Newark dropped from Amtrak's 5th busiest station to 13th, from 1,377,054 passengers in 2004 to 609,184 in 2006. In 2004 Princeton Junction had 932,261 Amtrak passengers , 65,679 in 2006. Amtrak ridership in Penn Station NY went from 8,724,232 in 2004 to 7,546,208 in 2006. It all depends on who wants to subsidize what and what kind of equipment they have.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-81868954564870336202009-09-13T08:06:30.216-07:002009-09-13T08:06:30.216-07:00One thing about LA though is people aren't so...One thing about LA though is people aren't so much going into downtown LA proper the same way they go into Manhattan or Downtown San Francisco. I''m thinking that getting around from Palmdale to Burbank/Anaheim/Riverside/Irvine and so forth, the HSR can get them so quickly from point A to B compared to driving or anything else, that it will more than make up for the time spent on a local bus at the destination. I mean you just can't get around the LA basin quickly right now no matter how you do it.<br /><br />I mean Palmdale to Norwalk in 37 minutes has probably never been done by anyone, ever in the history of Los Angeles. It' not possible. except with hsr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-28852047844815835942009-09-13T01:53:35.063-07:002009-09-13T01:53:35.063-07:00But they're assuming that there will be a lot ...But they're assuming that there will be a lot of commuters from Palmdale to LA. So are they going to price SF-SJ trains out of commuters' ranges while keeping fares affordable for Palmdale-LA?Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-6795714016471546042009-09-13T01:39:55.097-07:002009-09-13T01:39:55.097-07:00...commuter travel between SJ and SF is so low?
W...<em>...commuter travel between SJ and SF is so low</em>?<br /><br />Why would there be any commuter traffic between SJ and SF on HSR trains at all? <br /><br />I used to commute to Manhattan through Penn. Station in Newark, NJ. When I first started to do it the PATH fare was 30 cents and a ticket to Penn Station in NY was a dollar. The ticket was good for any train that was going to or from NY except for the all parlor car trains. <br />Amtrak's website is down right now. I vaguely remember that the fare on a regional is 12 dollars, Acela is 53 or something like that. These are the NJ Transit fares for a ride that takes the same amount of time. I'm sure the leather seats on Acela are very nice but they ain't worth 2 bucks a minute... <br />Adult One Way $4.00<br />Child/Senior/Disabled $1.75<br />Adult Off-Peak Round $7.00<br />Child Off-Peak Round $3.25<br />Ten Trip $40.00<br />Weekly $34.00<br />Monthly $111.00<br />Student Monthly $83.00<br /><br />Acela fares are outrageously high. Regional fares are a bit much too. But you could buy a monthly ticket on NJ Transit or one round trip on Acela give or take a few dollars.<br /><br />PATH fare is still $1.75. Takes a lot longer to get to Herald Square and you have to change trains in Jersey City. <br /><br />There aren't going to be a whole lot of HSR commuters between SJ and SF, it will be too expensive.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-13885004115269007432009-09-12T23:28:32.368-07:002009-09-12T23:28:32.368-07:00Andre: I'm not sure. I haven't seen too ma...Andre: I'm not sure. I haven't seen too many media references to Cox and O'Toole one way or another. Usually when people quote them, it's in support of some anti-rail editorial, rather than in a regular article.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-57178036043131913862009-09-12T23:16:07.386-07:002009-09-12T23:16:07.386-07:00I like what AndyDuncan just wrote. Andy, have any...I like what AndyDuncan just wrote. Andy, have any articles been printed that speak to the low quality and misleading figures in that due diligence report?<br /><br />I scanned it at one point, but from what I saw, which was consistent with your observations, I decided that it was not worth my time to read. It was garbage.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-38045411134406402692009-09-12T12:54:09.832-07:002009-09-12T12:54:09.832-07:00What I don't understand is why Cox and others ...What I don't understand is why Cox and others are so respectfully quoted in lots of serious media, as if they were undisputable authorities.<br />Are fact-checking journalists an extinct species?Andre Perettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-76142161140244242722009-09-12T11:53:26.226-07:002009-09-12T11:53:26.226-07:00The Vranich, Cox report was an analysis of the Cal...<i>The Vranich, Cox report was an analysis of the California High Speed Rail project, which he found was the worst managed HSR project he had ever encountered.</i><br /><br />The Vranich, Cox report was laughably labelled as "due dilligence". They basically spent 200 pages cherry picking examples that fit their predetermined conclusion (for example: pointing to Amtrak cost/mile operational numbers instead of HSR operation costs) while ignoring, and often blatantly lying/misrepresenting/showcasing their own ignorance about HSR in other places. For instance they break the huge story that CAHSR is lying when claiming that trains exist to carry 1600 passengers, and they claim the highest capacity train in the world is the 700 series Shinkansen at 1200, when the E4 had been out for ten years at the time of their report, and seats over 1,600 passengers in revenue service. I mean, you don't have Google? Further, they claim that CAHSR will have to run FRA-compliant trainsets, and they give run-time numbers without any explanation or information as to how they came up with those times.<br /><br />Pretty much every paragraph of that document is filled with misleading chartjunk and self-referencial bullshit. They actually use their own numbers to justify their own numbers. One of my favorite charts is where they list the various ridership estimates that have been conducted over the last 15 years, to point out that, *gasp* those numbers are different from each other. Then they put their numbers at the bottom, calling them "Due Diligence Base/High Projection" and, I swear I'm not kidding, they put a little note by it that says that these ones are the "Ridership projection considered most likely by this report." No shit? your numbers are the ones you recommend? That's one hell of an endorsement.<br /><br /><br />Throughout the whole thing they never actually attempt to offer a real estimate of anything, they just say "CAHSRs numbers can't be right because we can find unrepresentative examples as to why they're not" But they never actually explain why the CAHSR numbers aren't right, or attempt to show any detailed analysis of CAHSR's ridership or cost projections.<br /><br />It's like 200 pages of "Well that doesn't look right to us". Accompanied by Mlynarik-level vitriol and and more axe grinding than a lumberjack party.<br /><br />There's plenty to bitch about in the CAHSR docs. I wish Reason would ask harder questions like (as we've discussed on this board), why the ridership estimates for Anaheim are so high but commuter travel between SJ and SF is so low?<br /><br />Instead, it's as if they read the summary of the CAHSR docs, immediately labelled them as bullshit, and then googled some irrelevant comparisons without bothering to figure out whether they were even remotely applicable.<br /><br />And I'm sorry, but writing one fanboi book about how HSR is TEH GREATEST doesn't give you any more credibility when you change your mind than it did when you came out with it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-80184657525975510912009-09-12T11:26:10.555-07:002009-09-12T11:26:10.555-07:00Cox, OTOH, has been completely unwavering in his h...<i>Cox, OTOH, has been completely unwavering in his hatred for anything involving passenger rail or public transport in general.</i><br /><br />Yes. He's a lobbyist for highway construction. Of course he's going to hate public transportation.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-19795528048970563812009-09-12T08:08:52.743-07:002009-09-12T08:08:52.743-07:00Incidentally, flying LUV to SoCal this weekend. Wo...Incidentally, flying LUV to SoCal this weekend. Wow, what a nightmare this airline is. Just the boarding process alone is aggrevating enough and haven't even pushed back yet. Can't wait for HSR to be built.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51015990776588949282009-09-12T07:50:26.440-07:002009-09-12T07:50:26.440-07:00he has written books on the subject
I know. I rea...<i> he has written books on the subject</i><br /><br />I know. I read one of them (written many years ago). Obviously his views have changed since then. <br /><br />W. Cox, OTOH, has been completely unwavering in his hatred for anything involving passenger rail or public transport in general. I've even seen him try to debate academic colleagues of mine in a literature he's not even qualified to evaluate (needless to say, he fails). It borders on a pathology.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-18799503052665990032009-09-12T07:43:52.398-07:002009-09-12T07:43:52.398-07:00Mike, with your Lafayette numbers you forgot the $...<i>Mike, with your Lafayette numbers you forgot the $4 bridge toll.</i><br /><br />No, I did not. I thought that assumption was obvious and did not need stating. It now has been stated.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-42381471534695860032009-09-11T19:11:55.678-07:002009-09-11T19:11:55.678-07:00Cox says:
"This is not the experience even on...Cox says:<br />"This is not the experience even on the premier Japanese and French systems, which shows that strong air markets remain after HSR corridors are in operation."<br />What Cox (intentionally?)forgets to say is that the French air market is only strong on routes with no HSR corridor. When there is no direct link, people take the plane because they have no other choice. When a new TGV link opens, the majority quit flying.<br />I've used Marseille airport a lot. Before the TGV Med opened, every other departure was "destination Paris". Now, Paris has almost completely disappeared from the departures displays.<br />Paris-Brussels is no longer served by any airline. You can still buy an Air France Paris-Brussels ticket, but your flight will be on rails. In fact, many Belgians treat Brussels TGV station as a Paris CDG terminal.<br />By the way, Cox's sentence shows how you can tell a big lie without saying anything untrue by just forgetting to mention a detail...Andre Perettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-69348480079900630122009-09-11T19:04:12.896-07:002009-09-11T19:04:12.896-07:00mike said...
The funny thing about Cox and Vr...mike said...<br /><i><br /> The funny thing about Cox and Vranich is, despite their vehement opposition to and dislike of HSR, their ultimate ridership projections aren't much different than CHSRA's<br /></i><br /><br />Knowing Joe Vranich, your characterization of him is wrong. He is not at all against HSR; he has written books on the subject and he is considered an expert in the area.<br /><br />The Vranich, Cox report was an analysis of the California High Speed Rail project, which he found was the worst managed HSR project he had ever encountered.<br /><br />You can see his testimony before the State Senate Transportation and Housing committee by going to:<br /><br />youtube.com and searching under<br /><br />derailhsr high speed rail (3 parts)Morris Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84931282431152427162009-09-11T18:16:39.787-07:002009-09-11T18:16:39.787-07:00oh for god's sake who cares. The fact is tha...oh for god's sake who cares. The fact is that if you build a train that gets lots of people to lots of places and does it really fast and is clean, comfortable and affordable, then people will ride, a lot. Its not rocket science. <br /><br />These arguments that trains are a bad idea were used when trains were new technology.<br />People made the same arguments about air travel.<br />And there was just as much drama with the building of the interstate system.<br /><br />If you oppose this because you don't like spending then just say so and if you oppose it because you are afraid it will get too close to your back yard then say so and be done with it.<br /><br />The arguments are meaningless ploys to try to make points that don't need to be made.<br /><br />build the train and people will ride the train, eventually to the point where the trains are packed to capacity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52001772638276078532009-09-11T18:00:07.409-07:002009-09-11T18:00:07.409-07:00Mike, with your Lafayette numbers you forgot the $...Mike, with your Lafayette numbers you forgot the $4 bridge toll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-84797897892063749852009-09-11T17:56:35.199-07:002009-09-11T17:56:35.199-07:00Anon @2:39, perhaps you're not the same anon f...Anon @2:39, perhaps you're not the same anon from 10:21, who said this:<br /><br /><i>There is no latent demand. You guys really like smoking that HSR crack.</i><br /><br />That's who I was responding to. No need for me to repeat anything after you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-8180824789563811882009-09-11T17:20:54.190-07:002009-09-11T17:20:54.190-07:00Sorry, I should be clear: the 2,200 Lafayette boar...Sorry, I should be clear: the 2,200 Lafayette boardings are boardings from Lafayette to downtown SF. Total Lafayette boardings are 3,400/day.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-56373958236734315382009-09-11T17:09:29.926-07:002009-09-11T17:09:29.926-07:00On the topic of ridership, the CHSRA commuter ride...On the topic of ridership, the CHSRA commuter ridership estimates are questionably low in some cases.<br /><br />Take, for example, commuter ridership from San Jose to Downtown SF. It is projected at 3,150 boardings/day. This is only 50% higher than BART's Lafayette boardings, which are 2,200 boardings/day.<br /><br />But compare Lafayette vs San Jose:<br /><br />(1) Population: SJ = 1.01 million, Lafayette = 0.02 million. Advantage: SJ by 40x<br /><br />(2) Travel Time to SF: SJ = 31 minutes, Lafayette = 31 minutes. Advantage: tie<br /><br />(3) Train Frequencies: SJ = 4-8 tph, Lafayette = 3-10 tph. Advantage: tie<br /><br />(4) Travel Time to Downtown SF if Driving: SJ = 52-80 minutes (or 70-105 minutes on Caltrain), Lafayette = 24-55 minutes. Advantage: SJ by 1.5x-2x<br /><br />(5) Out-of-pocket cost of driving (RT): SJ = $23.20, Lafayette = $19.20 (assume gas at $3.30/gal, vehicle gets 25 mpg, and daily parking is $10). Advantage: SJ by 1.2x<br /><br />(6) Transit access to station: SJ = VTA light rail Mtn View-Winchester line, VTA bus 22, 63, 64, 65, 68, 168, 180, 181, 522, Lafayette = County Connection bus 6, 25. Advantage: SJ by more than 10x<br /><br />The only way that SJ will have remotely similar commuter ridership to Lafayette BART is if they make fares ridiculously high (i.e., over $20/one-way ride) or if they engage in semantic exercises and declare all limited/express high speed commuter riders to be "Caltrain" riders instead of "high speed" riders. But if anything, you'd think they'd do the opposite of that.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-50281935030744099022009-09-11T16:17:49.504-07:002009-09-11T16:17:49.504-07:00The funny thing about Cox and Vranich is, despite ...The funny thing about Cox and Vranich is, despite their vehement opposition to and dislike of HSR, their ultimate ridership projections aren't much different than CHSRA's.<br /><br />They forecast 23.4-31.1 million Intercity pax and decline to give a forecast of commuter ridership. They like to invoke the NEC experience, however, and on the NEC commuter ridership is 6 times Intercity ridership.<br /><br />Thus, if HSR achieves a ratio that is half as good as the NEC, then C & V project total ridership of 94-124.4 million, which is substantially higher than most of the CHSRA projections (generally 80-90 million)! If HSR achieves a ratio that only 33% as good as the NEC, then C & V project total ridership of 70-93 million, which is right in line with most of the CHSRA projections.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-59291392915884931552009-09-11T15:52:13.907-07:002009-09-11T15:52:13.907-07:00Are you comparing 2030 HSR vs. 2008 air passengers...<i>Are you comparing 2030 HSR vs. 2008 air passengers? </i><br /><br />Cox and Vranich claim that the 2030 air market will not be so much larger than the 2008 air market, though they ultimately waffle without making an exact forecast. But overall they clearly believe that air diversions will be negligible. To quote:<br /><br /><i> If [high speed rail] were built, diversion of traffic from the highways and airports would be imperceptible...the diversion factor from air is overestimated. The CHSRA assumes that airlines will cancel a large share of the flights within California because passengers will have switched to HSR...This is not the experience even on the premier Japanese and French systems, which shows that strong air markets remain after HSR corridors are in operation.</i><br /><br />To summarize, Cox and Vranich argue:<br /><br />(1) Predicted Intercity ridership: 23.4-31.1 million<br />(2) Number of diverted air passengers: low (less than 1/3 of air market that is today around 13 million).<br />(3) Number of diverted car passengers: negligible (e.g., only half as many diverted car passengers as air passengers).<br />(4) Main source of ridership: induced demand.<br /><br />Even the most vehemently anti-HSR folks disagree with you. You're all alone in your belief of no induced demand, and the entire rest of the world, both pro-HSR and anti-HSR, is crazy. It must be lonely there.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-16420188712399412252009-09-11T15:49:11.647-07:002009-09-11T15:49:11.647-07:00Repeat after me:
Latent demand is specifically in...Repeat after me:<br /><br />Latent demand is specifically included in official ridership numbers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com