I think it's a great idea crowded roads and high petrol prices make driving around a real pain anyway. Bring on the trains I say.
|
|
|
I think it's a great idea crowded roads and high petrol prices make driving around a real pain anyway. Bring on the trains I say.
I've taken the Acela from Boston to NYC twice in the past couple of weeks. It is so much better than flying or driving, and generates far less pollution (because, of course, it's electric!). As a professional, I can sit in undisturbed comfort for 3.5 hours with internet access. That's nearly a full workday (round trip) that I save compared driving or flying. The airplane takes a little less time on the clock, but it takes less time from my life.
This investment in high-speed rail in CA will have huge benefits; I hope it can move forward!
The return of rail has taken to long given the denseness of vehicle traffic across America and hopefully we (America) can start to see bullet trains connecting some of its cities.
£9bn railway investment unveiled | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Acknowledgement from the Transport Secretary that diesel is 'massively' expensive and we need to move to electricity to secure our prosperity in the decades ahead.
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.Originally Posted by dpeilow
This excerpt shows a strong economic incentive to favor freight over passengers:
Each passenger car taken off the older, slower rail lines makes room for three freight cars because passenger trains have to move so quickly that they force freight trains to stop frequently.
I think freight shippers, and governments have always subsided passengers, and the following quote reinforces that view:
The Ministry of Railways has not yet figured out a way to charge large freight shippers, many of them politically influential state-owned enterprises, for part of the cost of the high-speed lines, which haul only passengers.
More reinforcement that subsidization of passenger traffic is nothing new:
The high-speed trains are also considerably more expensive than the heavily subsidized older passenger trains.
GSP
No, it just shows that one must separate trains moving at vastly different speeds, as having to clear freight trains out of the way for a fast moving passenger train greatly reduces the numbers of both able to traverse the same corridor. In the case of a busy mixed line, a single passenger train cannot generate the revenue of multiple of freight trains (usually 3) that it displaces. When separated, both can operate to their full potential.
Maybe in the way that the US system is currently set up, but this is certainly not the case elsewhere, including in the UK.I think freight shippers, and governments have always subsided passengers, and the following quote reinforces that view:
The Ministry of Railways has not yet figured out a way to charge large freight shippers, many of them politically influential state-owned enterprises, for part of the cost of the high-speed lines, which haul only passengers.
What the Chinese are saying here is that the freight companies are benefiting hugely from the removal of fast passenger trains, without requiring any change to their own infrastructure. The accountants are just trying to find a way to cross-charge them for that, to get them to pay for their fair share of the extra value generated by the large expenditure on high speed lines.
No, this proves nothing. A state of the art high speed train is obviously more expensive than the clunky old antiques that China used to run on these routes, yet they have vastly more revenue potential than what they replace. For example, on some routes the high speed train is 5 times quicker than its predecessor, potentially carrying 5 times as many passengers in the same time. Quicker journey times lead to much bigger market shares (typically 80% vs. air for journeys of 3 hours), so infrastructure is better utilised as well. High speed rail, taken in isolation from the rest of their national networks, typically operate at a profit. You can see this in Japan, France and in the UK the companies operating busy long distance lines typically pay vast amounts to the government to have the franchise rights (this then in part subsidises other marginal routes). For an extreme example, Japanese Rail is currently self-financing a $45bn maglev track being constructed between Tokyo and Osaka.More reinforcement that subsidization of passenger traffic is nothing new:
The high-speed trains are also considerably more expensive than the heavily subsidized older passenger trains.
GSP
Last edited by dpeilow; 12-31-2012 at 07:49 AM.
With the publication of the planned route of the second phase of Britain's HS2, we may need to relocate the Nottingham HPC...
...still, got 15 years or so to think about it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote