The Return of Rail - Page 6

dpeilow · 11-16-2008, 09:44 AM

Surge of yes votes pushes BART sales tax closer to victory

Quote:

An unexpected surge in yes votes Friday has suddenly pushed the BART-to-San Jose tax measure within reach of victory, surprising supporters who had given up hopes that the still-to-be-counted provisional ballots could make up the difference for Measure B.

Nearly 73 percent of the 9,000 ballots counted Friday supported Measure B, inching it to 66.61 percent of voters — a fraction from the required 66.67 percent. Friday's jump was the biggest one-day increase since the registrar began counting absentee and provisional ballots after the Nov. 4 election.

With 17,000 more provisional ballots left to count, BART supporters say the math may be starting to look in their favor. More results could be released Monday and if the remaining yes votes swing in favor of BART by a 70-30 majority, the tax would win.

graham · 11-16-2008, 10:00 AM

Wow! I had given up hope on this passing as well! It would be a shame to be so close to the 2/3rds required and fall short...

bobw · 11-16-2008, 12:06 PM

Don't be surprised when CA has to subsidise operations. Historically, passenger rail service only made a profit on heavily travelled commuter lines. The railroads only ran passenger trains because it was expected of them. When automobiles and airlines became common the railroads dropped passenger service like a hot rock. Hence Amtrak.

To get ridership high speed rail has to undercut air service in both time and money door to door. To do that, they have to manage costs aggressively.

I suspect they'll need a subsidy. European countries, with much greater population density subsidises their passenger rail services.

The Myth of Passenger Train Profitability

TEG · 11-16-2008, 12:37 PM

An electric train may eventually become the mode of choice when oil really starts running out. I don't think the high speed rail will be a success for a while, but I expect eventually it will become indispensable. We have already seen what starts to happen to Jet travel when oil prices soar.

Cobos · 11-16-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobw

Don't be surprised when CA has to subsidise operations. Historically, passenger rail service only made a profit on heavily travelled commuter lines. The railroads only ran passenger trains because it was expected of them. When automobiles and airlines became common the railroads dropped passenger service like a hot rock. Hence Amtrak.

To get ridership high speed rail has to undercut air service in both time and money door to door. To do that, they have to manage costs aggressively.

I suspect they'll need a subsidy. European countries, with much greater population density subsidises their passenger rail services.

The Myth of Passenger Train Profitability

Actually they would only have to undercut the planes on time and not be a lot more expensive.... Remember for most business people a 3-4h train ride is effective time. It can be spent working on your laptop (using wireless internet access from the train or cellphone network) or having a lunchmeeting with collegues. Most of the time you can't get very much work done with short range plane travel. You spend so much time getting to airport, standing in security and other lines and then the same on the other end... I dare say on something like the LA-SF part train should be competitive on time and as long as total cost is not more than 50% of planes that should be it. That's my experience with Norway anyway, which is a LOT less densely populated than California (80% of the area and 8% of the population).

Cobos

dpeilow · 11-16-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobw

I suspect they'll need a subsidy. European countries, with much greater population density subsidises their passenger rail services.

The Myth of Passenger Train Profitability

There needs to be distinction between operational profitability and being profitable enough to cover the cost of borrowing for the infrastructure expenditure.

Several of the companies in the UK operate at huge operational profits - some paying over £1bn for a 7 year franchise - but then our tracks were amortised decades ago with only the occasional upgrade and regular maintenance to consider. The same is true in Japan.

The investment in tracks to enable this to happen may need to be subsidised, but that is the equivalent of a new highway, for example.

dpeilow · 11-25-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham

Wow! I had given up hope on this passing as well! It would be a shame to be so close to the 2/3rds required and fall short...

Apparently this passed:

Silicon Valley BART extension backers rejoice

SANTA CLARA COUNTY / Tax hike to expand BART narrowly wins

graham · 04-16-2009, 05:54 PM

Obama outlines high-speed rail plan for U.S.

Quote:

President Obama today outlined a plan to build regional high-speed rail routes in the United States. Cross-country trips will still be conducted best in a plane or as a road trip, but options to go from Detroit to Chicago, for example, would include the new trains that can go up to 110 mph. The regional routes include a Chicago Hub, a California corridor (Sacramento and San Francisco down past LA), and a southeast corridor (DC down to Florida).

The White House - Blog Post - A Vision for High Speed Rail