Habits Are Easy To Break
On Wednesday the New York Times held a HSR “Room for Debate” with six academics and policy wonks. Overall these show that many misconceptions remain about HSR, even among academics who ought to know better. The six op-eds vary in quality – some make sound arguments, some don’t. But one in particular deserves closer attention for its flawed anti-HSR argument.
In Habits Are Hard to Change, by Jan Brueckner of UC Irvine, we see a shockingly out-of-touch and ignorant piece from a California academic (Economics) who ought to know better. He basically restates the “nobody will ride trains argument,” in the typical evidence-free fashion of those who make these claims:
For example, the proposed high-speed system linking Los Angeles and San Francisco will face numerous hurdles in attracting passengers.
First, people are used to flying or driving between these cities, and habits are hard to change. Moreover, car users, who now can use their vehicle to get around Los Angeles or the Bay Area upon arriving, would need to rent a car following a rail trip to have adequate mobility at their destination (especially if it’s L.A.). Will current car users be willing to incur this extra cost and inconvenience, or will they simply shun the rail option?
This is ridiculous. By his logic, nobody would ever take a plane between SF and LA – yet the shuttle flights are full. By his logic, people in places like Madrid and Barcelona would not have taken to HSR, as they too were used to flying and driving between the cities – but we all know the AVE has been a massive success in connecting those two cities, in less than two years’ time.
Further, this assumes that the price of oil will remain steady – that bringing one’s own car would be cheaper than taking a train and finding other transportation at the end of your HSR destination.
And finally, it ignores the many options that already exist or will exist at that destination. LA Union Station already has two car rental locations. Other stations might encourage car rental companies to set up shop nearby. Brueckner doesn’t seem to know about car share companies like Zipcar which already have locations around SF and LA, including near Metro Rail stations, and one can reasonably expect those options to be expanded over the coming decade.
Speaking of Metro Rail, by 2020 LA might have an even more extensive Metro system connecting travelers closer to their desired destination, especially as 30/10 money starts coming in. SF and San José are already nodes of significant mass transit options, and those too are slated to be expanded over the coming decade, including the BART to San José project and the SF Central Subway.
Ultimately, evidence shows that habits are NOT hard to break at all – since they aren’t really habits to begin with. Californians don’t have some deep cultural attachment to driving – if they did nobody would ever ride a train in the state, and yet we know that most train systems have high ridership. The fact is that Californians generally lack reasonable alternatives to driving, but they really want those alternatives to be built. We know that because large majorities of voters in the state’s population centers – over 2/3rds in Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, and Marin/Sonoma counties – voted in 2008 to tax themselves to build mass transit. And of course, a majority of Californians voted to spend $10 billion and build HSR at that same election.
We should not mistake a lack of choices for a habit. If you build it, they will ride.
So many are still ignoring the generational question that has been brought up here (perhaps too much by myself), and which has also been noted and measured by Amtrak and others.
Why is this so?
rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Perhaps that’s because it’s your pet theory, based largely on anecdotal evidence. I suspect there are in fact plenty of baby boomers and senior citizens who would readily embrace HSR for intrastate trips if it were available today. The problem is that it will be at least another decade before that’s the case, so even they will have to suffer through the (perceived) risk to the value of their homes, the construction nuisance and shoulder a significant share of the cost while having few – if any – years of life left to enjoy the benefits.
It’s a standard bone of contention between generations for large, complex infrastructure projects. Then again, social security and Medicare are also funded out of cash flow from tax revenues, i.e. they are social contracts for massive transfers of wealth from young and middle-aged worker bees to seniors – contracts that are becoming harder to honor due to demographic changes. As for public trust funds, unlike e.g. 401k plans they’re not backed by real assets, just accounting smoke and mirrors in the federal budget.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I’ve documented this as well – Americans under 30 have been proven to be driving less than their predecessors. Car companies are convinced this is a long-term shift and are deeply spooked about it what it means for their future profits.
Southwest will fly me from San Francisco to LAX, non-stop, in 1:20.
the HSR is promising, but offers little evidence, to do it in 2:40, stopping in how many cities along the way?
Southwest has flights for $49 one way on their site for SFO to LAX, how much does HSR promise to charge?
Southwest doesn’t require Billions of tax payer money to operate. HSR wants $10 Billions as a down payment.
Why would anyone take the HSR?
Rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:15 am
How much time do you need to get from your point of origin to the departure airport?
How much ahead of time do you need to check in for your flight so ground staff can issue a boarding card, handle your bags and get you through security?
How much delay do you need to budget for when fog is forecast at SFO?
How long do you need to wait to pick up your bags at the other end?
How much time do you need to get from your arrival airport to your final destination?
Granted, HSR passengers will also need connecting transportation, but assuming their journey begins and/or ends at a downtown location near a train station, this will take less time than it does to reach a more distant airport.
As for travel time, the 2h40m is for a non-stop train from SF TTC to LA US. Every stop along the way will increase the time spent on board the train by 2-4 minutes depending on dwell time and the speed at which express trains can run through that stop.
CHSRA has so far only given a rough indication of full price fares. Just like any airline worth its salt, an HSR operator will treat seats as perishable commodities and fine-tune a rating engine to maximize profits. SNCF has experimented with a number of strategies, the latest one initially prices seats as low as EUR 19 regardless of distance several weeks prior to departure. The more customers take the bait, the more the price goes up. In the final minutes before departure, they could have a fire sale of the remaining seats but I’m not sure they actually do that. Bottom line: if you book early, you could snag a trip from Lille to Marseille (750km) for peanuts.
While airport taxes – i.e. surcharges on fares and cargo – do cover airport operations and maintenance, construction of runways and buildings actually is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. HSR systems all over the world also cover their operating and maintenance costs, unlike standard-speed commuter railways that provide a public service by reducing rush hour congestion on the roads.
Btw, have you noticed how it has become standard practice for airlines to offer a low fare and then slap on fuel surcharges and other fees? That $49 ticket would probably end up costing you more, possibly quite a bit more. Imagine if your local supermarket advertised a loaf of bread at $3 and then charged you $4.50 for it at the checkout to cover the rising cost of the natural gas needed to bake it. Bait-and-switch? Yup.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Distance Lille-Marseille is 994km (618 miles). You can do it for €19 if you buy online and early enough. Ryanair has the same fare system and is probably cheaper on the whole, and yet it attracts far fewer passengers. Most people prefer to pay a few more euros to avoid airport hassle.
If airlines were the only competition for CHSR, it wouldn’t have to be cheaper. When you try HSR once, you never fly again if you have the choice.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:22 am
That’s a fundamentally flawed comparison, for the reasons rafael notes. Southwest will not have cheap fares like that forever, unless you think there’s some magic oil-producing fairies in the earth’s crust that will enable such prices to remain.
Further, everywhere HSR and flights are in competition, HSR wins, even when the flight’s fares are cheaper. Of course, you can’t walk up to the gate the day of the flight and get a $49 ticket on Southwest; you have to buy it well in advance.
Finally, the airlines themselves – including short-haul carriers like JetBlue – WANT HSR to be built so they can expand operations to the more profitable mid- and long-range routes.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:39 am
The issue is not whether HSR can compete with airlines. In the scheme of things, that market is a drop in the bucket. The issue is whether HSR can compete with the auto market, particularly for those who live a distance (30-100 miles) from a station and who are a large portion of the forecast demand.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
actually the issue is that HSR will get some of the air market but not all of it, some of the auto market but not all of it, some of the existing rail market but not all of it, and some new people who don’t currently travel much may since it will be so much faster ( people who live in the valley, maybe don’t have a car, certainly don’t fly, but use amtrak and or greyhound – only not much cuz it takes too long, but with hsr it will be fast – so … them too. and you combine all that and then add regional commuters who may if its convenient, switch to hsr within there region, total it up and there is your ridership.
@Rick, you can’t possibly making the debunked statement that has been rehashed here a million times. Please apply actual common sense and some critical thinking to your argument.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
The SNCF says ridership prediction is not an exact science. They must know, since they underestimated Lyon-Paris ridership by nearly 50%. They had scientifically calculated how many drivers and flyers they would capture, but an extra 50% turned up who seemed to come from nowhere. They called it induced ridership.
By the way, that is one of the grudges the Greens have against the TGV. They say it creates “frivolous” ridership unnecessarily consuming energy. They cite the example of people going to Paris to buy clothes they would have bought in their home town if the TGV didn’t exist.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
There is going to be a lot of “induced ridership” in california.
wu ming Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
no kidding. i have a bunch of friends and family down in socal that i see maybe once every couple of years because it’s too much of a hassle/takes too much time to drive all the way down there, and too expensive/hassle with a small kid in tow.
people also forget that HSR enables two-leg trips as well, HSR to a commuter rail like capitol corridor or surfliners or metrolink or BART, that will bring a lot more of the state within range than currently imagined.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Again, an illustration of the value and genuine usefulness of connectivity.
wu ming Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:05 am
a good trunk makes every branch more effective.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
The reduced capture for those 50 miles to 100 miles from a station is a real effect. But the point that those over 30 miles or 50 miles from a station are less likely to use it than those within 10 miles of a station is not a critique of the existing ridership modeling, since it already shows up in transport mode shares among existing options, and so its included in the ridership modeling which is driven y estimates of existing responses to different factors.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
including short-haul carriers like JetBlue
Jet Blue is a lot bigger than the last time you looked. All those transcontinental flights aren’t competition for HSR.
Joey Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
stopping in how many cities along the way?
None, if you catch an express train (well maybe San José).
the HSR is promising, but offers little evidence, to do it in 2:40
HSR is mandated BY LAW to be able to make the trip in 2:40. There are time simulations available (I’ll look them up if you want), which indicate that it is possible, taking into account acceleration, deceleration, grades, curves, etc.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
and Rick, who in hell wants to fly southwest. God they suck. Its the most uncomfortable 3 hours there is ( tsa+the lousy cattle call at boarding + being crammed into a tiny cabin with a bunch of other people, tied into your seat in claustrophobic conditions…. forget it. And the fare is $156.70 If I want to go to la today. not 49.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
It’s that, or the union busters at JetBlue. Your call.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I use virgin america whenever possible. I make maybe what, 3 round trips a year to socal. But I’m sure there are other people like me who, with the hsr option, would do more traveling. FAct is, the airlines simply don’t get me anywhere near where I want to go ( with the exception of long beach and palm springs) I would also go not only more often, but to more places, with hsr. Arriving at LAX does me no good whatsoever. There are no rail connections there like at LAUS. and its the last place on earth any friends want to have to drive to pick me up.
I think, actually I know there are a lot of people who do stuff spontaneously. You know, you call up your friend and your bored and you’re like, “I’m bored lets go do something” and so you liv ein concord and your friend says, “hey this new [gallery, club, bar, restaurant, bike shop, pot club, audi delaership, whatever] just opened in the city, lets take bart over. so you take a 45 minute bart ride and do whatever. Now with HSR, all of sudden you have nearly two thirds of the state and two thirds of the population with that kind of instant access. now you can hit the sunday beer bust in fresno, or that family picnic bakersfield and still be home in time to be ready for monday. The unlimited utility of have that many places and that many people within a couple quick simple no hassle hours of each other is so obvious.
Donk Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
JetBlue doesn’t have unionized labor? Are you trying to discourage Rick from flying JetBlue for this reason? I bet most people will not care at all about this, and many people would probably even be more inclined to fly JetBlue because of this.
Speaking of which, do you guys think that CASHRA workers will be unionized? I know very little about union labor, but you would think that a new entity would be much more flexible unless they have Amtrak or one of the other existing operators run the system.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
I feel much safer on unionized transport. Not to mention feeling better knowing my cheap ticket isn’t being subsidized on the backs of working americans.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:10 am
JetBlue is non-union, as most low-cost carriers are. However, unlike at some other low-cost carriers like Spirit, JetBlue’s management treats employees well enough that a unionizing attempt failed an election. Southwest is almost fully unionized, like most of the legacy carriers.
CAHSR will almost certainly be unionized, because of various FRA labor rules. While CAHSR’s technical specs are largely lifted from European standards, it will still be a railroad subject to FRA regulations, including ones about labor.
J. Wong Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The $49 fare is for Tuesday only. HSR will match or better Southwest’s fares, especially on the busier (i.e., more expensive days). Also, the flight to LA takes 2:20 including arriving at the airport 1 hr in advance to get through security. Plus Southwest already got billions in subsidies required to build LAX and SFO.
And, you’re stuck in your cramped seat with crying babies for at least 1:20 of your 2:20 flight time.
I would take HSR in a heart beat over flying to LA.
wu ming Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
another bonus of HSR – even with a pressurized train, it doesn’t set the little kids’ ears off the way that airplanes do. combined with a ton more space to walk around or wiggle, and you get a better experience for both toddlers, their beleaguered parents, and the poor bastards sitting next to them. world better.
First, it’s not six wonks. One of them works for Reason, so it’s at most five. I’d argue four – Yaro comes off to me as the Northeast’s answer to Bob Doty or Quentin Kopp. The NYTimes should get out of the habit of looking for people with opposing views and instead look at what experts say. Those include Brueckner, but also Perl and a host of others.
Second, Brueckner actually has expertise in urban transportation. And the concerns he’s voicing are real: he’s saying there are limited transit options within LA and SF, which is completely true, and therefore the ridership estimates may be overblown. This seems to be consensus opinion among California’s academics: HSR is good, but it needs connecting transit.
30/10 is not good at providing this connecting transit. The Regional Connector and the Subway to the Sea are nice, but even they have fairly low ridership estimates; the Gold Line extensions are a waste of money; Crenshaw is actually counterproductive. On the Bay Area end, even HSR supporters like Clem and Rafael find Caltrain’s plans puzzling at best and moronic at worst.
Donk Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I don’t completely understand your point about why “30/10 is not good at providing this connecting transit”. What else could you ask for? I’d say it is pretty damn good at extending various lines out radially from Union Station.
The only suggestions I would have would be to reroute the LAX/Crenshaw line to LAX/Sepulveda/Westwood (connecting the two largest individual employment centers in LA) and scrap the PE ROW route and instead put that money towards the Norwalk HSR/Green Line connection. The only VTA-esque project in the 30/10 plan is the Crenshaw Line.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Subway to the Sea and the Expo Line are great. But the other lines aren’t, even as monocentric transit. The Gold Line is way too slow; it’s very VTA-esque, even more than Crenshaw. Crenshaw is a complete dud, and the PE route to Santa Ana is just drawing lines on a map.
Better, as you say, would be to focus on extending the Green Line to Norwalk Station; it’s not expensive, but it requires political capital to convince the Norwalk NIMBYs to let it happen above ground. The Orange Line extensions should focus on going east to Burbank and Pasadena and not just on going west. A Sepulveda line would be great, though it’d be useful for local transit rather than as HSR feeder. And they should at least try to run rail on the Harbor Line from LAUS to LAX, ideally constructed to mainline specs so that HSR trains could use it and serve LAX.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Surely the Downtown Connector adds to Union Station connectivity too (by allowing direct Union-to-Blue and Union-to-Expo transfers).
The thing about habits is … much less intercity transport is habitual than is the case for local transport.
The idea that transit options are less easily available in LA and SF than available to in the average metropolitan area in the US, so that ridership studies based on average reactions of US transport user to changes in frequency, transit time and etc. overstate the likely ridership for the CA HSR project … I’d like to see more specific numbers on that, since it seems off to me. LA may not be New York, but neither is it Houston or Dallas/Fort Worth.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Bruce, the idea is not that LA and SF are worse than the average US metro area. On the contrary, Brueckner says he thinks the same problem plagues other proposed US HSR lines.
The ridership estimates in question don’t come from “average reactions of US transport users.” As there’s no HSR in the US, any American data would have to be extrapolated, making it less reliable. SNCF’s own projections come from France; its model includes access and egress times, but may understate unique American problems, such as the need to battle local traffic in LA and SF, or even a belief that if you need to drive to the station then you might as well drive the whole way.
Kenb Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
If you are talking about a short distance trip you might as well drive if you have to drive to get to a train station. San Francisco from LA is not a short trip. Who’s going to opt to drive six to seven hours just to avoid driving a few miles accross town?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 8:58 am
To be honest, I don’t know. But it’s not obvious to me that nobody will do this. The “I might as well drive” factor could be real, especially since the intercity freeways in California are much nicer to drive on than the hell that is the LA Basin’s local freeways.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:52 am
If the LA Basin’s local freeways are hell, then why is it that motorists would prefer to stay on them a longer distance in order to reach the intercity freeways rather than stay on them shorter distance in order to reach the station?
Indeed, this same effect ought to show up in mode choice of air travel by Californians. To an even greater extent, since the transition from the airport parking lot to the seat on the plane is a much bigger PITA than the transition from the station parking lot to the seat on the train.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
The effect does show up; people routinely choose flights based on which airport is closest.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
The question is why would an amplified tendency to skip appear for HSR, since the effect that already shows up is already included in the parameters of the ridership model.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Is the effect that shows up actually included? In other words: if you apply SNCF’s ridership screen to auto versus air mode shares, does it actually predict something like the present-day situation?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:31 am
This is just not true:
There are three intercity freeways that connect Southern California to points northward, and they are all plagued by the same traffic problems:
1. Interstate 5: Traffic on this route, even in the Central Valley, is much higher than many other intercity freeways in the West. It once took my 9 hours to drive from LA to Berkeley via I-5. Granted, this was around the holidays, but there is frequently a lot of traffic on I-5 around weekends, when most people would want to drive. Many people I know – in fact, *most* people I know – dread the I-5 drive through the Valley and very much want an alternative. Sitting in the flat Valley for 6-7 hours is nobody’s idea of fun, especially if you have young children, especially if you’d rather use your time to relax and enjoy your trip.
2. Highway 99: This route has had well-documented capacity problems and Central Valley officials and businessmen have been calling for massive investment to widen the freeway for years. HSR is in fact intended to help relieve the pressure on Highway 99, one reason why HSR has such broad support in the Valley.
3. Highway 101: This route is more scenic than I-5, but takes significantly longer – 2-3 hours longer – than I-5 for a trip from SF to LA. This route also has traffic problems, especially in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
Many of the people I talk to say they would try HSR between NorCal and SoCal, especially as an alternative to driving. There is every reason to believe that the “I might as well drive” factor is overblown – driving is sometimes seen as preferable to the inconvenience of flying, but HSR offers a better option than either flying or driving.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
First, I agree with you that the factor is overblown. Personally I think CAHSR will achieve ridership numbers at the low end of the official forecast. But it’s not obvious, and I respect the fact that most people who actually study this professionally are skeptical about the quality of connecting transit. The only thing I’m bringing to the discussion where I disagree with them is that I think the connecting transit at both ends is fine if you just care about going to Union Station or Transbay.
Second, yes, I-5, 99, and 101 are all meh. Still, to compare them to the 405 or the 110 is like to compare the crowding levels on BART to those on the Yamanote Line.
And third, “Many of the people I talk to” doesn’t constitute much evidence. Of the people I talk to, not a single one has any interest in riding Amtrak to Boston or Washington. That doesn’t mean the Acela is doomed to low ridership even at full HSR service levels; it just means that at present-day service levels, to the people in my social group it makes more sense to ride Bolt or MegaBus. What’s true today for my social group doesn’t automatically invalidate plans to make the Acela good, and what’s true today for your social group doesn’t automatically make California’s HSR plans good.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Pricing’s also a blatant issue when it comes to the Acela vs. the el-cheapo bus services which freeload on the public roads.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Depends on what you call “nicer”. the endless vistas of the Central Valley all begin to look more or less the same after an hour or two. The exits are very far apart so you are stuck in your cramped little shell until the next exit. In a 6 or 7 hour drive, unless you have a mayonnaise jar or two or three handy you have to make a stop or two.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
anytime signs on your road have to warn you that the next gas or services is 47 miles away, you know its not a good situation. lol.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Lots of people. Currently, there is a very high level of service available by air. There are frequent flights in and out of many airport pairs. LAX sucks but there are lots of smaller regional airports that don’t. For leisure passengers, you can get very cheap tickets by booking even a shortwhile in advance. For tomorrow, there were 12 different flights available for $90 and I didn’t check southwest.
Still, you have 50% of LA-SF trips done by car for a 370 mile+ trip which indicates that access and egress and the need for a car at your destination are very important issues.
From the ridership perspective, this indicates that HSR for LA-SF will be very competitive for the air passengers but have a much harder time getting those currently choosing car over air. HSR, when fully built out with service to the ontario region may attract a large percentage of the air market (similar to northeast corridor) but that is only 7 million a year passenger market. If HSR got 4 million of those riders, you would say it was doing great from that perspective but it comes nowhere close to getting the numbers currently assumed in its business plan (which assumes it wins about as much of car market as it does for the air market).
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Keep in mind that in 2020, driving is going to be much less affordable than it is now, with gas prices around $5 per gallon (give or take a dollar). Also keep in mind that there will be a much more extensive passenger rail network in SoCal that can help bring people closer to their final destinations. And of course, as I’ve said before, spending half your waking day in a car, disconnected from your digital devices, is becoming less and less desirable. I can only imagine that being more of a deterrent to long drives in 2020.
It’s interesting how nobody in the comments seems to have grasped the importance of my comments about car-sharing services. I’m guessing people are simply ignorant about their existence. But companies like Zipcar can help provide some of the travel flexibility people seek.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I know a few people who use Zipcar. It’s not really a solution for most of them when traveling. When they are away from home they have a specific destination in mind. Mass transit or a cab makes more sense. If they have a lot of wandering to do at the destination a rental car makes more sense. They tend to use Zipcar for the twice a month foray to the supermarket and other shopping or for a trip with a single destination where cab fare is higher than the Zipcar fee.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Driving will not necessarily be less affordable. The mandated increases in efficiency mean that for most people, the price per mile will stay fairly flat.
The train has to compete by being nicer and easier than driving. Counting on ridership because of cost differentials is foolish.
rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
The mandated increases in efficiency mean that for most people, the price per mile will stay fairly flat.
Uhm, no. Efficient technology comes with a price tag, so if you include asset depreciation the total cost of ownership per mile will go up unless fuel taxes are raised by a large amount. That way, the ROI on each additional MPG of fuel economy increases, so the initial investment amortizes sooner. Btw, fancier technology also costs more to maintain.
You’re making the common mistake of looking only at fuel cost, which at 3% inflation will be at $5/gallon or so in California in 2020 regardless of the net present value of future crude oil. Predicting the latter is very difficult, especially 10 or more years into the future. When – not if – the global economy recovers from the present recession, which is arguably worse in the US than elsewhere, global structural demand for oil will once again trend sharply upward.
Against that, the price of oil is already at levels that justify expensive tertiary extraction technology and even synthetic algal oil production. The main problem is that no-one knows if Iraq will become politically stable enough anytime soon to ramp up its oil production from the present ~2 MBPD to the 10 or so it is easily capable of. In that benighted country, the cost of production would be peanuts compared to stuff like deep offshore drilling. Even a massive increase in Iraqi production would only delay the tipping point at which politicians decide that continuing to bet on oil-based transportation is an unsustainable strategy. Some countries are already halfway there, e.g. France with its toll motorways and TGV network running on nuclear power.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Technology naturally decreases in price. Thus today’s cars are more fuel-efficient than they were in 1990. Their fuel economy hasn’t increased in the US, but this is because the efficiency gains have been distributed elsewhere, to size and performance.
thatbruce Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:14 am
And only now coming back to the fuel efficiency seen in the late 70s/early 80s, taking into account additional emissions requirements.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Uhm, no. Efficient technology comes with a price tag, so if you include asset depreciation the total cost of ownership per mile will go up unless fuel taxes are raised by a large amount. That way, the ROI on each additional MPG of fuel economy increases, so the initial investment amortizes sooner. Btw, fancier technology also costs more to maintain.
Um, no, Rafael, efficient technology need not be expensive at all. Indeed, easily the best way to improve the efficiency of a vehicle is to lighten the weight! This is basically the key differential between fast trains and slow trains, too. Smaller cars tend to be cheaper than large cars, so efficient European vehicle fleets are actually cheaper to both own and operate than fat American vehicle fleets. Another cheap way to improve vehicle efficiency is to use low-resistance tires, which are becoming more popular. Tire companies resisted selling low-resistance tires for a long time, because the initial cost is higher than a regular tire. The fuel savings are substantial, but the tire companies didn’t see any return on the actual fuel savings — a classic consumer market failure. Again, low-resistance tires are analogous to HSR’s key “technological” advantage over regular trains: the use of straight, smooth, well-maintained track. HSR really isn’t a fancy technology either. Building the track beds smooth, straight, and unobstructed is really the name of the game, and the civil engineering firms are salivating over the profit potential of HSR for their concrete-pouring ways (not mechanical engineering firms).
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Thing is, you pay the current price at the pump, not the average price over the current three year period. For a commodity, a ride down a production peak tends to be bumpy with the bumps show up in volatile prices, and especially for a commodity that tends to be inelastic in demand. An average real price of $5/gallon in 2010 dollars implies that when a price shock hits, it will be $8~$10.
Now, we can stabilize that substantially if we put substantial oil-independent alternatives in place so that the elasticity of demand of gasoline can increase … but you are assuming that we fail to do that, and a consequence of failing to do that is more extreme oil price shocks.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
This is simply wrong:
Driving has absolutely become less affordable over the last 10 years. Efficiency has NOT caught up with that increase. CAFE standards will rise to 35 mpg, but that doesn’t obviate the effect of gas at $5 per gallon. Most Americans can’t afford those newer vehicles anyway. And if they could, you still have the congestion problem – even at current driving levels many California freeways are over capacity.
This is not true, and it’s actually pretty reckless to assume, as this comment does, that the cheap oil that dominated the last 60 years will exist forever. It will not. Cost differentials are about to become a significant factor. We already saw in 2008 what rising gas prices do to train ridership – AND that ridership has been sustained at the 2007 plateau. 2009 and 2010 ridership numbers for Amtrak California, for example, are at a level that would be a record for every year except 2008 (and 2007, depending on the route). Similarly, gas prices have stabilized at the $3 level first achieved in 2006, and are likely to rise once economic recovery sets in.
I know you’re not an “HSR denier,” Elizabeth, but you do sound like you’re denying the reality of rising oil prices and their proven impact on passenger rail ridership.
Finally, as I’ve argued constantly, the train competes on another important level: connectivity. You can’t be browsing your iPhone or writing an email while driving, but you can on a train, and that makes a HUGE difference for a lot of people, which is borne out by the evidence showing younger Americans are driving less.
You keep expecting that 20th century conditions will persist indefinitely. They won’t, and they aren’t. Traveler behavior is more malleable than you’re assuming, the the numbers prove this.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Robert, CAFE standards were flat in the 2000s; of course fuel economy didn’t catch up with oil prices. While oil prices will almost certainly go up sharply in the next 15 years, cars’ fuel economy will increase as well. This does not mean the freeways have spare capacity; this only means that car travel will not be so much less affordable than it is today.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Though there has not been any substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of the roads themselves, so we can be sure that the upkeep of the roads will be less affordable than it is today ~ whether suburban motorists will have to pay for a stable share of that rising cost is uncertain, but as suburban residents have reached a majority of the population, there is no easy cross-subsidy available.
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The roads are in worse shape than they have ever been in. Part of the lie about how roads are paid for by the people who use them. The truth is they haven’t been paying enough to maintain and build roads to an acceptable standard and state of good repair. If they were really paying the cost to maintain city state and interstate roads as they should be maintained, the cost of driving would be much higher.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
CAFE standards do not necessarily track the market. Oil prices rose steadily from about 2003, but fuel economy did not follow, as Congress dithered and as carmakers were wedded to selling inefficient vehicles (and as consumers had available credit to buy those vehicles and fuel them).
If rising prices lead to fuel shortages – as happened in the 1970s and as can happen again today – then more efficient vehicles won’t help solve that problem.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I don’t see why we can’t think outside the box a little anyway. The hsr can be anything we want to make it over time. It can double at night time as overnight high speed freight delivery and there’s nothing to stop the owner operator or voters from adding an autotrain as well. Its been done. Take the car with you. The trip is fast enough that you could actually stay in your car. Imagine you drive your car onto the train at sacramento turn off the engine, turn on the radio, eat your chips and pepsi and 2.5 hours later your drive your car off onto the hwd fwy at burbank or whatever and off you go.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Alon, what is it extrapolated from? Reactions of US travelers to various options with various estimated transit time and other characteristics.
The fact that it is an extrapolation rather than an estimate in the scope of existing choices means that it should not be treated as precise an estimate as if it was in scope, but the argument here is that there is a cultural bias, and if there is a cultural bias, its already present in the measured correlations from which the extrapolation is being made.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
First, stated preference studies tend to be useless. Second, the cultural bias argument I’m making is separate from the extrapolation: I contend that the present ridership projections have either an extrapolation problem or a cultural bias problem.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
So basically you are saying that neither extrapolation from existing US transport behavior nor projection from existing European behavior are flawless, even though the European behavior extrapolated down to existing US conditions yields behavior roughly in line with observed US behavior.
Contending that the estimates are not precise is not an argument, its only a step in the argument. The next step is to conclude that therefore the US ought to pursue the highest cost-benefit projects available, which are those that can withstand the greatest imprecision and still yield a benefit, and which will also yield more direct observations of transport behavior to inform more precise ridership estimates.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
The point here is that the European models are not observed to be in line with US behavior. On the contrary: back in the 1980s, when American transit agencies extrapolated from European numbers to estimate light rail ridership, the light rail systems missed the projections by a factor of 2. It was only around the mid-1980s that American agencies started using reliable enough numbers and started more or less making their projections.
Saying the numbers are imprecise is a euphemism. An interpolation is imprecise; an extrapolation is a wild guess without extra corroborating data. We know that connecting transit to the HSR stations is important, so if SNCF applies its model to the Northeast, I’ll believe any number that comes out; it’s just that California’s connecting transit quality is lower, which may impact the result.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
maybe that’s why hsr in cali is big on parking lots at stations?
BruceMcF Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
On your premise, we can’t have any way of knowing how important connecting transit quality is, because its a an extrapolation and therefore a wild guess.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Not with the current models, no. That’s why you have actual experts trying to figure out how important it is, and explaining why they think it’s necessary.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Eh, on the other hand, using the “American” models in the 90s vastly *underestimated* ridership on the newly opened lines in places like Minneapolis and Charlotte.
Soooo…. I’ll agree that it’s hard to predict ridership. Period.
Rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:19 am
In France, almost all motorways are toll roads and fuel taxes are very high. Both serve to structurally depress the consumption of crude oil, all of which France must import.
California is still a major oil producer, as are other parts of the US. Few freeways are toll roads and fuel taxes are low. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
In France, both gas prices and cars’ fuel economy are about twice as much as in the US. The tolls are a major difference, but SNCF’s mode choice model already factors in both time and cost, so it corrects for this effect. I’m inclined to trust SNCF’s numbers, but they could be missing a different variable, due to connecting transit quality. SNCF fully includes station access and egress time, and tests its numbers in a country where the connecting transit is timed to just miss the TGV, but it might still understate the degree to which people feel that after driving on the 10 for an hour, Central Valley isn’t that big a deal.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
SNCF’s numbers have four problems:
1) Got SF population off by a lot by taking the Bay Area (7 county) numbers as the SF numbers.
2) Missing the transit issues.
3) There is not train service now so there is a big guess as to what percent will go to trains.
4) It used really high travel costs for auto.
As someone said earlier, it would be interesting to see if the SNCF model would accurately predict the air/ auto split today.
J. Wong Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
1) Got SF population off by a lot by taking the Bay Area (7 county) numbers as the SF numbers.
??? Only people in SF will travel to LA?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
No, but SNCF had a separate list for SJ. In other words, it double-counted Silicon Valley.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
It didn’t just double count silicon valley – it assumed the market for the Transbay terminal station is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Jose-San_Francisco-Oakland_CSA.svg
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
That by itself is not criminally stupid, as long as it’s understood that the entire Bay Area already includes the other Bay Area stations. If you remove the San Jose double-count, then you’re largely left with regions that have okay transit connections to Transbay, via the buses over the bridges and BART.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
1 is pretty sloppy, yeah, but it’s not that horrible; if the ridership misses projections by a factor of 2, it won’t be because of this. 2 is the main question. 3 is what the model is the most reliable about – it has accurately predicted how many people switch to trains from other modes elsewhere. 4 I’ll plead ignorance about – I recall the travel costs for auto being normal, but I’m open to counter-evidence.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
For anyone who is lost in the discussion, here is the report we are all talking about: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/sncf/California.pdf
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
i notice it says for instance in 2020 – predict 8 million in the fresno-sf market. well there’s already over a million in that market now. ( just looking at existing station boarding totals) and thats with 6 slow trains and bus connections in each direction. So getting to 8 million by cutting the time by 2/3 and quadrupling the number of departures should be pretty easy.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
The entire ridership for San Joaquin Service (Oakland-Sacramento-Bakersfield): 929,172 . Where are you getting 1 million for just Fresno to SF?
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Im using the internal I got for september. My numbers though pertain to riders per station not city pair or destination. I just added up the september numbers for all the stations that were counted between sf and fresno got a total and multiplied it by 12 months as september is an average month not a (peak month like jun jul aug nov and dec) and I got 1.2m
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I have revenue amounts for all the stations too. Revenue and ridership for every station nationwide. Trust me, there is plenty of money and ridership to be had out there.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
its even broken down as to how many people use the kiosk and how many people go to the live person.
like fresno, 18,182 at the window, and another 4,144 at the kiosk, = 22,326 riders in september. x 12 months 268k per year at fresno. and they say no one wants to go there. ( well it looks like plenty of people want to leave at least)
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
oh and fresno revenue for one month, $484,149.12 so someone is riding the train. and x 12= 5,809,788 in revenue. for one station.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
And Jim, aren’t most tickets on trains, like those on airplanes, ultimately round trip?
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
yes I guess. I don’t know how it all breaks down. I just bring it up because while I understand that its necessary to have all these studies and reports and blah blah blah. ( can anyone actually sit and read through any of these godawful dull reports?) my point is that I can tell by what I see and hear everyday that hsr is going to be a success in california. It just is. no study needed. Just watch and see. I know what will happen. It will open, there will be numbers that are lower than the estimated numbers at first. at that point, the naysayers will pipe up with the II told you so’s, and the media will join in the hyperbole of the day for a while, then hsr will keep plugging away and before you know it, the problem will be, that the trains are too crowded. That is how it will go down. I don’t need a study to tell me that. Just watch and see. Thats how it works. you’ll see.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Jim,
If you add up all the numbers for those stations, you will have overestimated as some of the passengers were going to other places like Sacramento.
I do think that Fresno residents will really enjoy having a train option. This is probably the most underserved market in the state from a lot of perspectives. The question is how much business class demand will there be – this is what is required to get the revenue in.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Elizabeth. yes, some have non san joaquin destinations. I don’t know exactly how they work the numbers to tell you the truth as there are so many ways to count. Even in sf where the numbers are high, I only have numbers for the staffed location sfc, but not sff, sfs, sfw, sfm, sfp and sfv.
Again Im just looking at the overall picture that a lot more people are riding the existing slow, bus connected service than the “nobody takes the train” crowd realizes. And I’m making the common sense assumption that if you improve rail service by creating through trips with no bus connection and/or increase hours of service, increase frequencies, and overall capacity, and comfort and of course cut the travel time in half or by 2/3rds, then getting the estimated hsr ridership should really be a piece of cake.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Just for kicks, on whether hanford-visalia should get a station. Look, for september alone, hanford had 10,076 passengers. and 199,405.72 in revenue. To me, that would justify an hsr stop no? almost as many as bakersfield at 15k riders a month. In fact hanford had almost as many riders as emeryville and had more than oakland.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
@jimsf, yeah, it can take about five years to build full patronage, so if it opens in 2025, people will definitely point to the 2030 projection and say, “it’s failing”. But of course, the Benefit / Cost ratio is so far above 100% that it is well justified substantially below the project ridership, so they’ll be twice wrong.
jimsf Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
i was reading through more of that sncf report. I like the interesting parts where they talk about the stations, and the scheduling and customer services and amenities. Sounds like they really know what they are doing. I hope they get it! ( and we get agv!)
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
$2.93/gallon in real terms through to 2030 is obviously not high, so I take it you are assuming vehicle occupancy substantially higher than 1.4/vehicle or fleet fuel efficiency substantially higher than 21mpg. Of course, with $5/gallon more likely than ~$3/gallon, fuel efficiency would have to be be 35mpg just to offset the rosy gasoline price projection.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
But it didn’t assume that. You will see a comment about “other minor costs” – that raised the cost of a gallon by 60%, so the cost was close to $5. This results in .22/ passenger mile per passenger, “coincidentally” the same as the Cambridge estimates.
I am actually unclear if they used the 1.4 passengers or not. This study lifted a lot of things from the Cambridge study, which used a completely different methodology, so unless I could see “under the hood” I am a little cautious in being able to say anything definitively. I think certain things might have been lost in translation.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Ah, so you are talking about cars with no per mile depreciation or operating costs other than gas. I hadn’t realized those were going to be on the market in 2030, it must have the car repair shops shaking in their boots.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Bruce, most people calculate their driving costs as miles per gallon. The repair bills are a separate cost that they don’t relate to how many miles they drive. Depreciation, you have to explain depreciation to most people….
A trip to New York City cost ten bucks on Amtrak once I account for car costs – gas and tolls. At 25 cents a mile it’s cheaper to take the train.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Research has shown (including Cambridge’s!) that for long infrequent trips people really only look at out of pocket costs when deciding how to travel.
peninsula Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Only thing that counts is marginal cost of the trip. ONce you own the car, depreciation, maint, repair, car payment, insurance – all sunk costs. And HSR doesn’t remove car ownership from anyone. They take an HSR trip – its 100% incremental to their budget. The ONLY cost that counts is comparing cost of driving to cost of the other mode (including car rental on the other end, buses, shuttles, etc.)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I would argue that there are two costs that are considered. One is the marginal cost that Peninsula and others have brought up. The other is non-financial; I call it “hassle cost,” or alternately, and more positively, “travel value.” Traffic congestion, fatigue, leg cramps, sore butt, sore back, parking problems, navigation problems (am I in the right lane on a road with 12 of them?), vison problems (i.e., night vision degredation), poor weather, parking tickets, parking costs–no wonder regional Amtrak and many commuter services are going strong on ridership, and that many of the riders are younger, to boot. This even includes a commuter train I occasionally ride that has a slew of stops and takes two hours to cover 75 miles–and is standing room only for at least one third of the trip, and still quite full later on. Problem is, how do you put a value, monetary or otherwise, on this?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Mode specific constants.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Only thing that counts is marginal cost of the trip. ONce you own the car, depreciation, maint, repair, car payment, insurance – all sunk costs.
Marginal costs if I want to go to Saratoga Springs for dinner. When I’m planning a trip that willput a 1.000 miles on the car I realize that it costs more than gas and tolls. But then a trip to Sartoga Springs cost so little I don’t really worry about the expense. Dinner costs more.
Depreciation varies depending on how many miles you drive. It why people want to know how many miles there are on the used car’s odometer. It’s why sites like Kelly’s Blue Book want to know the mileage on the car. It’s why if you lease a car there’s a clause defining how much you pay for every mile over the mileage set out in the lease. But then most people don’t even know what depreciation is.
I’m not sure what the difference is between maintenance and repair is but I lump them together in one pot. If I take a 1,000 mile trip that’s one third of a 3,000 mile oil change. If I take a 1,000 mile trip that’s 1/40th of my 40,000 mile tires. It’s why I guesstimate car costs at 25 cents amile /
Car payments? I only buy cars with cash. If I can’t pay cash I can’t afford a car. I understand that most people don’t do that or consider what they could be doing with the money otherwise.
Insurance… I don’t know how it works in California but I pay different rates depending on how many miles I drive each year. The split occurs at less than 10,000 miles a year or over 10,000 a year. I never inquired if there are more rates because I arrange my life to drive around 12,00 a year.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
peninsula, real depreciation ~ wear and tear on the car ~ is most definitely not a sunk cost cost, it hits with every mile you add to the odometer.
The bean counters for business car travel, for one, quite definitely count it. Its something that some people doing a four times a year or monthly trip to grandma’s house in another part of the state .
As far as the claims that everyone universally ignores from 38% to 50% of the marginal cost of driving, depending on gas price, I’d like a citation to evidence that backs it up. It’d have to be in behavioral economics, since the mainstream modeling would balk at people simply ignoring such a large component of marginal cost.
magicrealm Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
My concern / question is why the initial estimate of about 100 million passengers a year was revised down significantly to I think 40 million? If some parameters /assumptions were tweaked slightly to cause that change, it goes to say how sensitive the ridership model is and how a tiny variance in the parameters/assumptions can lead to huge swings in the number that the whole analysis/project critically depends on. Or it is just a downright bait and switch that the public got played on.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:22 am
The estimate was not revised down from 100 to 40. The original range of estimates was about 65-117, of which the high end was always a pipedream. SNCF came up with its own separate calculations and arrived at an estimate of 65. Other people applying very different assumptions got much lower numbers, it’s true, but it doesn’t indicate a bait and switch (the agency never said 40) or sensitivity to constants (playing with the constants in the 1990s moved the numbers for Pacheco up by 5 and for Altamont down by 5).
Robert, critics make the same argument as you, only in reverse:
“He basically restates the “nobody will ride trains argument,” in the typical evidence-free fashion of those who make these claims”
There are valid criticisms that the CHSRA’s ridership estimates are evidence-free. Is there any other evidence to support your assertion that there will be enough riders to support the system?
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:56 am
There are claims that the CHSRA’s ridership estimates are evidence free. There is, however, no strong evidence that they are.
Indeed, you are presenting an open ended challenge, which leaves you the freedom to constantly shift the goal posts, so that no matter what evidence is presented, its declared “not good enough”. So not only what counter-evidence do you have, but also what evidence would you accept?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:03 am
1. Look at roughly comparably space city pairs with vastly more developed existing local and regional transit networks and with vastly less sprawling urban development patterns.
2. Compare actual HS ridership numbers on real world trains from years after opening with the crack-smoking, rent-seeking, fraud-abetting, limitlessly-corrupt PBQD fictions that they self-enrichingly concoct as “predictions” for even the opening year of operations.
3. Two choices at this step: Either laugh all the way to the bank or cry, depending whether you’re on the gravy train (or so such a delusional fanboy you make beleive you’re riding along — maybe they’ll give you a junior trainee train driver’s cap!) or whether you’re being reamed to pay for for the gravy train.
Rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Forecasts are always wrong, especially the ones about the future. That is as true of the models used to justify new highway construction as it is of HSR.
In this case, CHSRA’s forecasts can be held against the opinion of UC Berkeley’s ITS (which attacked the methodology but refused to submit alternate forecasts) and that of SNCF (which forecasts the lower bound of CHSRA’s range will be reached in 2040). Granted, SNCF may well submit a proposal when contracts are put out to tender, but that actually makes their quibble with CHSRA’s numbers all the more noteworthy.
Truthfully, predicting ridership for a system unlike anything currently operating in the US is more of an art than a science. There is risk, which is why Gov. Schwarzenegger made such a fuss about securing private investment. His argument is that they would not be swayed by voter opinion in deciding if the project pencils out. What’s still unclear is the extent to which they will actually shoulder their share of the ridership risk. Future politicians may find themselves forced to offer very favorable terms just to close a funding gap, shafting taxpayers in the process.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:41 am
No, there is NO evidence – none whatsoever – that the CHSRA’s ridership estimates are “evidence-free.”
The closest anyone has come was the Berkeley ITS study that said “well, we take issue with the methodology.” But that was as far as they went. They did NOT provide ANY hard evidence that the CHSRA ridership numbers are invalid. And in fact, they spent a great deal of time discussing the hard evidence that Cambridge Systematics has produced.
Some, like Elizabeth, have criticized those numbers. But they’ve never yet proved the numbers are wrong. The best they can do is say “well there’s reasons why these numbers might not be true.”
HSR critics and opponents have taken those conclusions and twisted them to mean “the HSR ridership numbers are wrong.” It’s a deliberate lie, and deserves strong pushback.
magicrealm Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
No one knows whether the ridership numbers are wrong and no one flat out said the numbers are wrong. People are questioning the validity /assumptions of the model and hence the reliability of results. This is a credibility issue. First, CHSRA put out the estimate of 100 million passengers and THAT number sold to the public and then a year or so later, the ridership number was revised down to 40 million (I think). How can you expect the average public to have confidence in a model that produce such a wide discrepancy in estimates months after it was publicized? Either the model was vastly different than the one used to produce the initial estimates sold to the public OR assumptions where changed significantly and then the question becomes whether that was CHSRA’s intent all along. If the same model was use, but just with slightly different parameters, this goes to show how sensitive the model is to slight change in variable(s). Again, this goes back to whether the model is a realistic one to use.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Ugh, this again?
If you set the prices low enough, you get 100 million, if you set the prices much higher you get 40 million. If I remember correctly that’s what the two studies said. THOSE ARE CONSISTENT.
The idea that habits are hard to break and hat nobody will ride trains is ridiculous as proven right here in california where we went from zero rail options when I was growing up to the current success which caught everyone by surprise in the beginning. People will ride, and there is pent up demand for more. “you should go here too” is heard daily. Nobody though people in southern california would take a train, or californians in general but they do. This year is record breaking, even in the midst of a deep recession. I have all the ridership and the revenue numbers for every station in the system right here for september. California is doing well. These so called academics, don’t know their asses from holes in the ground. They are slaves to their own ideology in the small worlds in which they live, only considering borad generalizations as if the whole point of hsr has to do with people going to sf and la having to rent a car. I t doesn’t take a a degree to understand that ( well it takes a certain degree of common sense I guess) to understand a couple of things.
a share of the bay-socal air market will opt for hsr instead for a variety of reasons. ( reasons that those of us who travel and those of us who work in transportation are well aware of)
in addition, hsr will take a share of those who currently drive, because hsr will be faster.
hsr will also take a share of those who will now have and option where they currently have none ( mainly up and down the central valley)
hsr will take a HUGE chunk of the california tourist industry ridership. This i know as our tourism industry is international and a good portion of those people already use hsr at home. This is perhaps going to be the largest segment of users and its something that know ever acknowledges.
throw in some commuter and mid day users within regions and add up all of the above and you have your ridership.
IT may not be the estimated numbers to begin with that is irrelevant because any fool can see the option is needed, the state is growing, and this is a wise investment in the future. Its so obvious to anyone who lives like a normal person in the real world.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:42 am
Except the right-wingers who grew up in the cheap gas/auto ascendant 1950-1973 era. Most, though not all, are about 60 to 90 years old now, and can’t imagine bringing back an “outmoded” form of transport “from the 19th century.” You might as well “bring back the horse and buggy.” Oh, and let’s not forget that trains are “socialist,” “collective,” or “Communist,” that you have to ride with “other stinky people” (just like some airliners nowadays, I’ve heard. Why, they require subsidies, “spendign my tax money,” and planes and cars don’t (Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, what they don’t know!)
Nobody, NOBODY, should even begin to try to tell me I’m making this up. I’ve seen too much of it first-hand over the last 20 years, and other, more professional types, have actually measured it, too.
It’s a generational trend that’s prevelent enough, and been going on long enough (well before the present recession, which has only accelerated it) that it has the auto and auto insurance people worried.
Links available on request.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Yes, arguing against a transport technology developed in the second half of the 20th century, in favor of a rapidly obsolescing technology developed in the first half of the 20th century, because the national American economy was built by rail.
Rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Ironically, there’s a lot of excitement around the upcoming Chevy Volt (an all-electric car with an emergency generator, cp. the Lohner Porsche of 1900) and Better Place, the brainchild of former SAP CEO Shai Agassi. It calls for a network of battery swap stations for electric cars to deal with the issue of limited range (cp. pony express in the 19th century).
In truth, there’s only one late 20th/early 21st century mode of transportation and that’s the Internet – for information. For the first time in human history, it’s possible to communicate visually, to collaborate on virtual whiteboards, even to perform surgery, from anywhere in the world. While this has already reduced our appetite for speed (e.g. no successor to Concorde), it has not eliminated our demand for physical travel. Indeed, we want to travel more often and farther afield than ever, especially on vacation.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Interesting observations, Rafael;
You join Jim SF and me as amatuer historians (a fun pastime, believe me)! I have to ask, where does this interest in such ancient technical history come from? In many ways, this is not something younger people (and that’s what I’m assuming you are) are supposed to be interested in.
rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I’m a mechanical engineer by trade. One of the first things they teach you at university is that you often get paid to re-invent the wheel quickly, i.e. to assume that someone somewhere has probably had a similar idea before – and paid their dues trying to develop it. If you read patents, the bulk of most of them consists of adapting and recombining prior art, just so a small but significant new technology (the “special sauce”) can be applied. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
Many such innovations fail to take off in a big way when they are first conceived. Later, often long after the patent has expired, someone comes along and leverages the idea for something else.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Wonderful commentary, observed to be true by myself, and greatly appreciated.
I’m an auditor, I review wages to make sure unemployment taxes are properly paid, but I was originally in mechanical engineering myself. Unfortunately, I had a bit of trouble with a subject called calculus.
As noted elsewhere, I probably have just enough engineering background to get myself in trouble.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
For reference:
http://www.ct.gov/teendriving/cwp/view. … 722&a=3283
http://consumerist.com/2010/07/why-are- … iving.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities … irst-car/1
http://www.gazette.com/articles/birthda … fewer.html
http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/fewer-young-drivers
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/200 … oys_d.html
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01339.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/09 … /fi-rebel9
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26975&page=1
It’s not just here:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/Th … Japan.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/16/a-po … ociety.htm
Early trend?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/04/repo … ion-in-20/
BruceMcF Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
And, again, habits are easier to change when they involve less frequent decisions each with a higher investment of time, money and effort, and harder to change when they involve high frequency decisions each with a smaller investment of time, money, and effort. Getting people to change their habits as to how they get their groceries is just harder than getting people to change their habit as to how they take several hundred mile trip.
I would expect most high speed rail systems in California to be under-utilized when service begins, even a Grapevine/Altamont route. Sprawl is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. It assures that any rail service is going struggle to attract riders than if we had not embarked on the path of sprawl.
But it’s a Catch-22. If we build a lightweight system because of sprawl, the train can never attract enough riders because it’s a lightweight system with hour-long headways and lower speeds due to suburban resistance.
Some amount of overbuilding is to be expected. Build a high-capacity system, and then let the state develop around it. Connecting to existing systems is paramount.
rafael Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Even in places that already have well-developed connecting transit, HSR starter lines take a while to grow their ridership. People still have to have a reason to travel. Urban planners can and do try leverage new transportation infrastructure, but there are only so many new real estate and transit projects that can be funded at any given time. Moreover, existing structures and systems are not discarded until/unless it becomes economical to do so, often decades later.
In that sense, HSR can reasonably be expected to create demand for lots of residential and/or office space within walking distance of the stations. However, there will also be resistance to such densification. The shift will be driven by demographics and/or the cost of the alternatives, but we’re talking years, even decades here. Plus, some of the decisions that led to sprawl will never be reversed. Suburbs will re-invent themselves rather than turn into ghost towns.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_dunham_jones_retrofitting_suburbia.html
I also would like to mention that many European countries didn’t have high speed rail until the 90s. Yet ridership rapidly increased from day one. Right now, you can buy long trip 1st-class tickets for just 48 euros. This has nothing to do with habits. If Californians have the option, they will use it. On top of that, CAHSR is not really going to compete with airlines or cars. CAHSR will fill a gap that couldn’t be filled by the latter two.
It will be the most convenient, cheapest AND fastest way to travel from San Diego to San Francisco.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
When I was booking tickets between Paris and Nice, for a while there was a special deal in 1st class, at 112 Euros one-way.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Not really. Countries investing in HSR saw little to no effect on the overall train mode share, in some cases even a decrease. For example, the 1990 rail mode share in Spain was 6.9%. By 2008 it had declined to 5.5% (source: Eurostat).
There is a lot of compelling evidence that HSR investment diverts funds that might have been more effectively used for conventional upgrades. For example, Austria has no HSR infrastructure, but achieves more than double Spain’s rail mode share.
Emma Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Yeah. Fine, but California voted for high speed rail. Not a dime of the money should be wasted on upgrading commuter rail. It’s a slippery slope. Once you spend a buck on commuter rail upgrades, HSR will never come. That’s why I’m opposed to any track sharing to “save money.”
Spokker Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 12:09 am
“Not a dime of the money should be wasted on upgrading commuter rail.”
We must waste money on high speed rail so we don’t waste it on commuter rail.
Emma Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
If you want track sharing, move to the NEC. There you get your “high speed” rail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
You do realize that the NEC’s trains between DC and NY get respectable speeds. Maybe not HSR speeds but respectable speeds for regional rail. That there are long stretches of it that could handle HSR trains today if the catenary was up to it….
Peter Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Then why the hell don’t they upgrade the catenary, then?
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
the amount of funding available doesn’t come close to the amount of backlog.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
what a polite way of saying “Republicans and Blue Dogs gut the budget for things like that”
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:23 am
If there’s no commuter rail, then how do you expect people to get to the HSR station – walk?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:37 am
The most amazing thing is that I gather “Emma” is from or has lived in Germany, but all she can take from the experience is that the longest distance inter-city trains aren’t as fast or as reliable as she would like.
So…
Death to every S-Bahn! Death to RE! Death to IC! Death to all intermediate nothing-burgs in flyover-land! Each set of train tracks is for one train type and one train type only, and that means ICE and nothing, nothing else. All investment must go exclusively to making Flight Level Zero airline surrogate traffic faster!
I think that this policy would find favour with about 2% of Germans. The other 98% have some sort of clue that they live in a land featuring some sort of rail network, imperfect and compromised (hey, this is the real world) as it may be.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:45 am
I don’t know about the HSR-only view, but I think a reduction in transit would be a lot more popular than 2%. Maybe I’m incorrectly generalizing from Switzerland, but the immigrants-should-all-act-like-us-and-we’ll-still-not-give-them-citizenship, minarets-are-evil types tend to be really pro-car and against any government subsidies that don’t go to farmers.
Emma Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
GOSH! Could you please think before posting?? Commuter rail is the responsibility of Amtrak. They get billions from the federal government every year. High speed rail only has the $9.95 billion from Prop 1A and $2 billion from the federal stimulus. NOW you want to spend this money on commuter rail, too? Does this even make sense to you? I don’t need to tell you that we will never have any form of true high speed rail with that attitude.
And yes, I’m in favor of grade separation by any means but that doesn’t mean I oppose commuter rail. I just don’t want Amtrak and commuter rail lobbyists suck out the blood of our state-of-the-art high speed rail project. Why has Caltrain never asked for stimulus money? Why has Amtrak never invested in a catenary system? They never bothered and now they want to get a big slice of the HSR pie?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Commuter rail is the responsibility of Amtrak.
That must be stunning news to the MTA, NJTransit, SEPTA, the MBTA, MARC, VRE, Metra….
Emma Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Yes. And all of them screwed up and didn’t bother to ask for money. Now, some of them are trying to steal the little we have for CAHSR.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
None of them run intercity trains. They weren’t eligible to bid for grants.
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Emma, Amtrak is an operator and they don’t build catenary (with the exception of nec 3000 miles from california) Amtrak isn’t trying to get a slice of the california hsr pie. Maybe Caltrain is, but not Amtrak. Amtrak has its own state and federal funding. Amtrak is not boing to build catenary on union pacific freight row. Why would they? For the routes in california electrification isn’t really necessary. Meanwhile, as pointed out by nearly everyone here, we do need to maintain and improve the existing rail network in california for hsr connectivity.
Emma Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
No doubt about that. Commuter rail and public transit must be expanded to benefit HSR. All I’m saying is let’s use separate funds for that, NOT the monies saved for HSR! Local and state government must pass additional bills to improve the existing rail network and not take advantage of Prop 1A funds.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
It’s not taking advantage: Prop 1A explicitly assigned $950 million for connecting transit.
Nathanael Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Um, your numbers are the usual misleading bullshit. Modeshare out of *what collection of options*? Modeshare on *what corridors*?
The portions of Spain with poor rail service definitely saw car usage increase as people got rich enough to buy cars, but what does this have to do with the way HSR destroyed the airline market between the cities it connects? (And for the record, that’s a good thing on environmental grounds alone.)
I didn’t know there was midwest blog and this is the first Ive heard of this plan… we need this in cali too then.
thatbruce Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I’d love to see that done in Cali, say tacked on behind the Coast Starlight. That’s one of the things I miss about living in Europe; DB’s Autozug services to lots of neat destinations.
There is also a seasonal market for this catering to the visiting snowbirds.
auto
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Check out this video clip from the Midwest group:
http://mwhsr.blogspot.com/2010/10/great-high-speed-rail-wisconsin-video.html
jimsf Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 4:45 am
that was a good one.
Peter Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:32 am
I love how they worked in a quote from the Heritage Foundation.
Off-topic: Some comments have been made that some people are of the opinion that SNCF should not be permitted to bid on the California project because of allegations that the company was complicit in wartime transport of victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” SNCF, in return, has emphasised that this was under duress, and that many of its employees paid the ultimate price in attempted secret resistance against the Germans of this time.
What may be forgotten in this is that this was the subject of a film, released in 1964, called “The Train,” which starred Burt Lancaster and was directed by John Frankenhiemer.
A bit of trivia? Yes. Typical Hollywood loose story adaptation? Probably. Still, it is a classic film, perhaps the last great action movie shot in black and white. Some links follow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Train
French television production on the filming of this movie, which was apparently quite an event; the movie ran to something like $7 million 1963-1964 dollars, one wonders what it would cost today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2pEvr32C7g&feature=related
Clip from the film; in this sequence, a repaired locomotive is being moved into position to continue taking the special train on to Germany; it is being moved in daylight because of the train’s high priority and to get the engine out of the repair shop. Lancaster looks tired as the scene opens; his character has just been working all night on that repair job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUzTJCumuE&feature=related
Enjoy.
Semi Off-Topic, courtesy of James RePass’s National Corridors site (Destination:Freedom newsletter):
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df10182010.shtml#Railroads
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df10182010.shtml#Innotrans
There’s more, including news on the Swiss tunnel.
More Maryland Rail Commuter photos:
An appropriate grade-seperated right-of-way for the Peninsula? This is on the B&O/Chessie System/CSX branch from Harpers Ferry, W.Va. to Winchester and Strasburg, Va.; the location is in downtown Harpers Ferry. This was originally the Winchester & Potomac Railroad, and this junction with the main line of the Baltimore & Ohio was one of the first interchanges established between two railroads in America. It is normally freight-only, but an excursion, using commuter equipment, ran on it at the time of this photo. That wooden bridge has been there, in one form or another, since prior to the Civil War. All of if undoubtedly has been replaced more than once over the years, yet one would have to say it is of natural and recyclable materials–one could say it’s a “green” bridge!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=185369&nseq=144
Harpers Ferry from the cliffs of Maryland Heights; as the name suggests, we are standing in Maryland, looking to West Virginia (center and right) and Virginia (ridge to the left, across the Shenandoah River, which joins the Potomac here). Station at Harpers Ferry, served by commuter trains and Amtrak, is just visible above this freight train where it emerges from between trees to cross the 1930 vintage bridge over the Potomac. This is the main line of what was once the B&O; we are looking west, to Martinsburg, Cumberland, and Chicago. Curving to the left is the 1892 bridge, semi-replaced by the 1930 bridge, and still in use for the former Winchester & Potomac line to Winchester, Va. The wooden bridge through Harpers Ferry mentioned above is also visible, beyond the sharp reverse curves and above the fire engine house that was the final defending spot of John Brown and his raiders in 1859.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=304214&nseq=26
Here we are in West Virginia, looking to Maryland (cliffs and tunnel) and Virginia (ridges at right). Junction to former Winchester & Potomac is actually in the mouth of the tunnel; part of the 1892 bridge is just barely visible above trees that are in turn above and very slightly to the right of the tower of the station.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=158144&nseq=215
Enjoy.
Donk Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Dude, you are a bit too liberal with the links.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Well, I’m glad you think it is just a bit; I’ll try to go a little easier.
A more accurate comparison could be found in the invention of the internet. Did our world (as a whole, since there are still people who don’t use the internet) not transition to a new technology because we were so habituated to traditional mail and encyclopedias? Habit has very little impact on technology adoption, it will be the economic and efficiency forces that decide the success of any completed rail project.
Bruce, *which two car rental companies have desks at Union Station?* This is relevant to me for an upcoming trip.