Would You Take a Bullet Train from Anaheim to Las Vegas?... Brightline West

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It is heart breaking that despite the clear indications of failure the powers that be continuing to pour exorbitant amounts of money into this bottomless pit.

I just don’t understand the financials, there’s some huge ticket items like new highway overpasses, some flyovers for the trains, etc where several hundred million a mile completely makes sense, I just don’t understand how those costs aren’t offset by the couple hundred miles that are primarily creating a base and laying track in a highway median, I know that’s still not simple/cheap but even at $1,000 a foot that’s only $5 million a mile. I love HSR, we take it all over Europe, it’s just shocking to me a country like France can do it for about 20% of what it costs to do the exact same thing here.

I think the powers that be continue these projects because they’ve experienced them in Europe and know it’s an amazing way to travel from a time, convenience, and environmental perspective… unfortunately we just can’t do it at a reasonable price, if we could do it for what it costs in France it would make sense from a financial perspective also.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This is why most every other country on the planet makes these public works projects. Countries like Japan put theirs up decades ago for faster and cheaper because they didn’t worry about “profit”, they just knew it needed to be done for the good of the country.

It’s funny, because a project like the interstate highway system would never be built today because people would be complaining too much about “profit” and how it needs to be privatized, and we’d never have gotten Autopia as a result.

I’m not sure you can compare the two, primarily because the highways benefitted nearly everyone and they were free to use once built, minus some gas taxes. They built almost 40,000 miles of highway for about $25 billion, or about $500 billion inflation adjusted, I think if we could build 40,000 miles of HSR for $500 billion, and it would be free to use once opened, most people would absolutely see a benefit in that.

The problem with HSR is it’s very expensive to build, has a much smaller user base, and still requires an expensive ticket even after it’s built. Give me HSR between Vegas and LA at $50 a ticket and I’ll never drive that horrible 15 stretch again, at $150 a ticket I’ll keep driving.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not sure you can compare the two, primarily because the highways benefitted nearly everyone and they were free to use once built, minus some gas taxes. They built almost 40,000 miles of highway for about $25 billion, or about $500 billion inflation adjusted, I think if we could build 40,000 miles of HSR for $500 billion, and it would be free to use once opened, most people would absolutely see a benefit in that.

The problem with HSR is it’s very expensive to build, has a much smaller user base, and still requires an expensive ticket even after it’s built. Give me HSR between Vegas and LA at $50 a ticket and I’ll never drive that horrible 15 stretch again, at $150 a ticket I’ll keep driving.

Highways have ridiculous ongoing costs for constant expansion that never deliver on their promises.

They also suck resources away from the smaller scale transit which has a compounding effect on the viability of high speed rail. Most obvious, it means there is a lack of transit options at high speed destinations, the last mile problem. It also causes high speed projects to be pushed into areas that are even more under-served to create connections and satisfy political patronage to rural and exurban areas. The lack of other projects also means there is a lack of a diversified and experienced workforce capable of competing to deliver such projects.

There are then even more indirect costs due to highways. The complete reorientation of development around the automobile is inefficient and comes with greater ongoing costs not just in terms of roads but the utilities that follow their deliberately convoluted organization. This re-orientation also often made it illegal to develop in ways that support transit [and walkability] in many places, reinforcing the last mile problem and making it more difficult and costly to overcome.

Historically, many railroads did not make money on passenger fares. It was often a regulatory requirement to offer freight services and/or a loss leader for real estate development.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’m not sure you can compare the two, primarily because the highways benefitted nearly everyone and they were free to use once built, minus some gas taxes. They built almost 40,000 miles of highway for about $25 billion, or about $500 billion inflation adjusted, I think if we could build 40,000 miles of HSR for $500 billion, and it would be free to use once opened, most people would absolutely see a benefit in that.

The problem with HSR is it’s very expensive to build, has a much smaller user base, and still requires an expensive ticket even after it’s built. Give me HSR between Vegas and LA at $50 a ticket and I’ll never drive that horrible 15 stretch again, at $150 a ticket I’ll keep driving.

As much as I think the highway system has benefited the country, it is the biggest money sink in the history of the planet. We spend an average of $200B per year just on maintenance, that doesn't even cover any new builds or emergency situations. Just imagine how much HSR and other public transit projects could be built for that if we just re-prioritized to public transit projects even for a few years.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

As much as I think the highway system has benefited the country, it is the biggest money sink in the history of the planet.

"The U.S. highway system contributes to the economy in various ways, including an estimated annual economic value of $742 billion from the Interstate system alone due to faster and more reliable trips for goods movement. This is supported by studies showing the Interstates are crucial for freight, carrying nearly 75% of truck freight, and that removing them would shrink the U.S. real GDP by an estimated $619.1 billion."

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

As much as I think the highway system has benefited the country, it is the biggest money sink in the history of the planet. We spend an average of $200B per year just on maintenance, that doesn't even cover any new builds or emergency situations. Just imagine how much HSR and other public transit projects could be built for that if we just re-prioritized to public transit projects even for a few years.

There are definitely cost savings associated with rail but you still need roads (and the associated costs) regardless of the rail network. Rail works efficiently in urban areas, much less efficiently in rural areas, even in extremely dense urban areas like Paris, with an amazing HSR and RER system, they still have a substantial highway system, adding mass transit reduces the scale of the road network but it doesn’t eliminate it entirely.

I’d love for HSR to be successful here, I just don’t see how it can be with the construction costs, and as a result the ticket costs, being as astronomically high as they are.

 

[Disney Irish]

"The U.S. highway system contributes to the economy in various ways, including an estimated annual economic value of $742 billion from the Interstate system alone due to faster and more reliable trips for goods movement. This is supported by studies showing the Interstates are crucial for freight, carrying nearly 75% of truck freight, and that removing them would shrink the U.S. real GDP by an estimated $619.1 billion."

Not sure where that quote comes from, but it is not a direct profit generator like this is alluding to. However with that said if HSR was also used for commercial purposes it would also add to the economy by the same if not significantly more due to being able to get goods to locations much much faster than truck.

All one has to do is stop thinking of it as something that can’t be additive in the same way.

 

[Disney Irish]

There are definitely cost savings associated with rail but you still need roads (and the associated costs) regardless of the rail network. Rail works efficiently in urban areas, much less efficiently in rural areas, even in extremely dense urban areas like Paris, with an amazing HSR and RER system, they still have a substantial highway system, adding mass transit reduces the scale of the road network but it doesn’t eliminate it entirely.

I’d love for HSR to be successful here, I just don’t see how it can be with the construction costs, and as a result the ticket costs, being as astronomically high as they are.

No one is saying remove all roads and replace it completely with HSR or other forms of public transit. We have to stop thinking that somehow having HSR or other forms of public transit is somehow trying to kill off all forms of cars and roads. It can be complementary and just another arrow in our huge quiver of transportation options.

Rail, specifically HSR, works more efficiently over long distances where speeds can be much much higher compared to other land based transportation. For example if you had a non-stop HSR from New York to California it would take less than 12 hours compared to taking 40+ hours by car or truck in that same non-stop trip. So in this example we could be using HSR for long haul shipping and use trucks for the "last mile", see complimentary. And all your goods would make it to all locations much much faster.

There are lots of ways to commercialize HSR, no reason it can't be used for both freight and passengers. Heck we used rail for 200+ years before cars and trucks, no reason we can't bring it back as being a valid form of transportation again.

 

[DLR92]

There’s no room to expand much freeways in Southern California, especially in urban areas like Los Angeles either. Unless eminent domain.

 

[Disney Irish]

There’s no room to expand much freeways in Southern California, especially in urban areas like Los Angeles either. Unless eminent domain.

There isn't much room to expand the highway system in many urban centers in this country, at this point its all effectively built out. The only way to expand more is taking land via eminent domain like you mentioned and knocking down living areas just to place more cars.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

No one is saying remove all roads and replace it completely with HSR or other forms of public transit. We have to stop thinking that somehow having HSR or other forms of public transit is somehow trying to kill off all forms of cars and roads. It can be complementary and just another arrow in our huge quiver of transportation options.

Rail, specifically HSR, works more efficiently over long distances where speeds can be much much higher compared to other land based transportation. For example if you had a non-stop HSR from New York to California it would take less than 12 hours compared to taking 40+ hours by car or truck in that same non-stop trip. So in this example we could be using HSR for long haul shipping and use trucks for the "last mile", see complimentary. And all your goods would make it to all locations much much faster.

There are lots of ways to commercialize HSR, no reason it can't be used for both freight and passengers. Heck we used rail for 200+ years before cars and trucks, no reason we can't bring it back as being a valid form of transportation again.

I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s a complete replacement, just pointing out those highway costs will still (largely) exist regardless of whether or not we have rail.

Ideally a transportation system includes all of it… cars, trucks, buses, subways, light rail, slow rail, HSR, planes, ships, etc… each one is ideal for a specific task, HSRs sweet spot seems to be the 100-400 mile trip, less than that and a car/metro becomes a more efficient way to travel, longer than that and a plane becomes a more efficient way to travel, that’s also largely dependent on there being an efficient way to get to your destination once you get off the train.

Transit systems (including roads) are one of those things that’ll never be appreciated until they’re done. They’re wildly expensive so they're an easy target for criticism, then once they’re done people wonder how they ever lived without them. They need to actually finish them, and they need to be affordable enough for people to use them, to get to the appreciation stage though.

 

[networkpro]

Highways have ridiculous ongoing costs for constant expansion that never deliver on their promises.

They also suck resources away from the smaller scale transit which has a compounding effect on the viability of high speed rail. Most obvious, it means there is a lack of transit options at high speed destinations, the last mile problem. It also causes high speed projects to be pushed into areas that are even more under-served to create connections and satisfy political patronage to rural and exurban areas. The lack of other projects also means there is a lack of a diversified and experienced workforce capable of competing to deliver such projects.

There are then even more indirect costs due to highways. The complete reorientation of development around the automobile is inefficient and comes with greater ongoing costs not just in terms of roads but the utilities that follow their deliberately convoluted organization. This re-orientation also often made it illegal to develop in ways that support transit [and walkability] in many places, reinforcing the last mile problem and making it more difficult and costly to overcome.

Historically, many railroads did not make money on passenger fares. It was often a regulatory requirement to offer freight services and/or a loss leader for real estate development.

Apples and oranges. HSR only makes sense if it's highly density population centers to other high density population centers.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s a complete replacement, just pointing out those highway costs will still (largely) exist regardless of whether or not we have rail.

It sort of seemed like that is what you were trying to claim I was saying, which it wasn't. So yeah no one is saying a complete replacement, until at least something better than cars comes along.

Ideally a transportation system includes all of it… cars, trucks, buses, subways, light rail, slow rail, HSR, planes, ships, etc… each one is ideal for a specific task, HSRs sweet spot seems to be the 100-400 mile trip, less than that and a car/metro becomes a more efficient way to travel, longer than that and a plane becomes a more efficient way to travel, that’s also largely dependent on there being an efficient way to get to your destination once you get off the train.

Again that is only if you're isolating it to human transportation. Why do we still use ships and trains for shipping? Because they are way more efficient than even planes for large scale shipping long distances. Again the way to make HSR cheaper is by including a commercialization component to it. If you monetize it by using it for shipping along with human transportation then the costs go WAY down and tickets become way cheaper.

People need to stop thinking one dimensional with solutions.

Transit systems (including roads) are one of those things that’ll never be appreciated until they’re done. They’re wildly expensive so they're an easy target for criticism, then once they’re done people wonder how they ever lived without them. They need to actually finish them, and they need to be affordable enough for people to use them, to get to the appreciation stage though.

Yes, everyone complains about traffic not realizing that if we improved our public transportation systems including HSR it would lower traffic exponentially.

 

[Disney Irish]

Apples and oranges. HSR only makes sense if it's highly density population centers to other high density population centers.

Only if you're think of it as isolated to human transport.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It sort of seemed like that is what you were trying to claim I was saying, which it wasn't. So yeah no one is saying a complete replacement, until at least something better than cars comes along.


Again that is only if you're isolating it to human transportation. Why do we still use ships and trains for shipping? Because they are way more efficient than even planes for large scale shipping long distances. Again the way to make HSR cheaper is by including a commercialization component to it. If you monetize it by using it for shipping along with human transportation then the costs go WAY down and tickets become way cheaper.

People need to stop thinking one dimensional with solutions.


Yes, everyone complains about traffic not realizing that if we improved our public transportation systems including HSR it would lower traffic exponentially.

Has anyone ever utilized HSR for freight?

I know some European countries use it for smaller items like parcel delivery but for major shipping like containers, chemicals, etc slow rail is still considered more efficient.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

There isn't much room to expand the highway system in many urban centers in this country, at this point its all effectively built out. The only way to expand more is taking land via eminent domain like you mentioned and knocking down living areas just to place more cars.

This is one area I think Brightline was smart, I know most people hate the thought of losing highway lanes but replacing one lane of highway traffic in each direction with a HSR/Light rail would (should) likely have a drastic influence on traffic levels overall, it also has the benefit that the interstates were typically built in the most efficient areas to connect the countries most dense population centers. If Brightline can pull off some of the steeper grades they’re shooting for it should open up HSR to more areas.

I always chuckle driving in LA because it desperately needs more mass transit and many highways are 12+ lanes across, replacing the carpool lanes with mass transit would likely have 10x the impact on traffic the carpool lanes have. I’ve never driven in TX but every time I see their insane freeways I have the same thought, adding a 12th lane in each direction isn’t going to fix the problem, but a light rail likely would.

Highway medians and extra lanes seem to me to be the best option for mass transit expansion without NIMBYism and having to resort to eminent domain.

I have family in the Salt Lake area and they did a fantastic job with their light rail, it’s not perfect but it’s efficient and gets you close to where you need to be, close enough an uber easily finishes the trip.

 

[Disney Irish]

Has anyone ever utilized HSR for freight?

I know some European countries use it for smaller items like parcel delivery but for major shipping like containers, chemicals, etc slow rail is still considered more efficient.

Its use in this regards has been expanding over the last decade or so. Many countries are either developing the systems now or deploying them, China like many things is leading the way.

High-speed rail for freight forwarding companies

Discover how China and Europe are revolutionizing high-speed rail freight and what it means for freight forwarding companies

www.globalialogisticsnetwork.com

As more and more countries add the capability it becomes more cost effective to go this route than traditional "slow" rail.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Apples and oranges. HSR only makes sense if it's highly density population centers to other high density population centers.

Absolutely correct! HSR would not benefit the vast majority of the population nor be useful in moving freight.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is one area I think Brightline was smart, I know most people hate the thought of losing highway lanes but replacing one lane of highway traffic in each direction with a HSR/Light rail would (should) likely have a drastic influence on traffic levels overall, it also has the benefit that the interstates were typically built in the most efficient areas to connect the countries most dense population centers. If Brightline can pull off some of the steeper grades they’re shooting for it should open up HSR to more areas.

I always chuckle driving in LA because it desperately needs more mass transit and many highways are 12+ lanes across, replacing the carpool lanes with mass transit would likely have 10x the impact on traffic the carpool lanes have. I’ve never driven in TX but every time I see their insane freeways I have the same thought, adding a 12th lane in each direction isn’t going to fix the problem, but a light rail likely would.

Highway medians and extra lanes seem to me to be the best option for mass transit expansion without NIMBYism and having to resort to eminent domain.

I have family in the Salt Lake area and they did a fantastic job with their light rail, it’s not perfect but it’s efficient and gets you close to where you need to be, close enough an uber easily finishes the trip.

Yes, its why I said this -

Yes, everyone complains about traffic not realizing that if we improved our public transportation systems including HSR it would lower traffic exponentially.

The issue is that in many areas the bridges that go over freeways have columns that are not set back enough or have a center column right in the middle of the median. Making it difficult to place transit options there, not impossible just difficult.

 

[Disney Irish]

Absolutely correct! HSR would not benefit the vast majority of the population nor be useful in moving freight.

Except most industrialized countries on the planet except this one seems to disagree with you. Its only this country where "cars" have a foothold that this sentiment has taken hold, hmm wonder why.