On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:14:15 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
<step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >"Scott A Crosby" <scro...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message >news:oydsmajvilz.fsf@bert.cs.rice.edu... >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:13:22 -0400, "Ian St. John" <istj...@noemail.ca> >> writes: >>> "if you build it, they will come". Fact is that the barrier to HSR is the >>> fact that there is no HSR and therefore no incentive to denser >>> communities.
>> An interesting conjecture. Maybe when/if the US grows to a population >> of a billion or so, we'll see more HSR.
>The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast US >has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many >countries with successful HSR...
Depending on your definition of "successful". All the countries you mention have government subsidies for their rail systems, so they are not successful as stand-on-their-own systems. Whether this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of government.
>The rest of the US is at the low end of that or below; Florida's population >density is only 272ppl/sqmi,
The interior of Florida is largely swamp or open land/farms. What would be the density of population for a HSR linking the Atlantic caoastl counties (including Orlando/Disney)?
>and the Midwest's is even lower.
Except, perhaps, for the corridor along the route of the old Limited.
California has two densel populated areas and one sort of densely populated area (Southern Californis, San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento region) that seem a good candidate for connection by HSR but really aren't.
and Texas' is a platry 78ppl/sqmi. The US overall is
>76ppl/sqmi.
Texas is really questionable.....
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:14:15 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" > <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast US >>has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many >>countries with successful HSR...
> Depending on your definition of "successful". All the countries > you mention have government subsidies for their rail systems, so > they are not successful as stand-on-their-own systems. Whether > this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of > government.
Roads aren't successful as stand-on-their-own systems either; they're funded out of all kinds of taxes (property, sales, income, fuel, etc) yet are considered successful.
I think the best definition for this debate would be "accepted by the general populace as a viable mode"; by that measure, HSR in Europe and Japan is successful -- but certainly not profitable. Air is considered successful in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's not profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points nationwide.
>>The rest of the US is at the low end of that or below; Florida's >>population >>density is only 272ppl/sqmi,
> The interior of Florida is largely swamp or open land/farms. What > would be the density of population for a HSR linking the Atlantic > caoastl counties (including Orlando/Disney)?
That gets into a study of where stations would be located, numbers of people within X distance of the stations, travel times, etc. Give me a few million dollars budget and I'll tell you :)
>>and the Midwest's is even lower.
> Except, perhaps, for the corridor along the route of the old > Limited.
True. Linking particular cities together might succeed, but none of those individual cities have the density of major European cities.
> California has two densel populated areas and one sort of densely > populated area (Southern Californis, San Francisco Bay Area, > Sacramento region) that seem a good candidate for connection by > HSR but really aren't.
That depends on the metrics; by the numbers California appears a better candidate for HSR than Spain, where the AVE is considered a success, and is almost on par with France, where HSR was pretty much invented.
> and Texas' is a platry 78ppl/sqmi. The US overall is >>76ppl/sqmi.
> Texas is really questionable.....
Texas has similar issues to California -- fairly dense cities (and getting denser) in a sea of mostly unpopulated land. At least we don't have mountains, oceans, and hordes of environmentalists in the way...
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
<step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >"Hatunen" <hatuu...@cox.net> wrote in message >news:khvmi09nu3bcppp68vbdsr1bpiqimmh2m2@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:14:15 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" >> <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast US >>>has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many >>>countries with successful HSR...
>> Depending on your definition of "successful". All the countries >> you mention have government subsidies for their rail systems, so >> they are not successful as stand-on-their-own systems. Whether >> this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of >> government.
>Roads aren't successful as stand-on-their-own systems either; they're funded >out of all kinds of taxes (property, sales, income, fuel, etc) yet are >considered successful.
The don't claim it one way or the other. But the history of turnpikes has been troublesome You ignored the part "Whether this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of government." You seem to want to express your personal philosophy.
>I think the best definition for this debate would be "accepted by the >general populace as a viable mode"; by that measure, HSR in Europe and Japan >is successful -- but certainly not profitable.
Yep. But advo ates of HSR in the USA don't argue that; they argue that the system will be profitable when they mean it will 9probably) have an operating proit, ignoring the huge infrastructure cost. In California the HSR commission will be going to ask the voters for a 0.25% increase in the state-wide sales tax. I will be interesting to see what the voters in Mono County think of that.
>Air is considered successful >in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's not >profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points >nationwide.
They have, and will go bankrupt, and go our of business An HSR system won't be able to do this.
>>>The rest of the US is at the low end of that or below; Florida's >>>population >>>density is only 272ppl/sqmi,
>> The interior of Florida is largely swamp or open land/farms. What >> would be the density of population for a HSR linking the Atlantic >> caoastl counties (including Orlando/Disney)?
>That gets into a study of where stations would be located, numbers of people >within X distance of the stations, travel times, etc. Give me a few million >dollars budget and I'll tell you :)
Yeah. My point is that you caan't point at a big state that is empty on a state-wide basis and ignore the population concentrations. Reminds me of the Stats 101 student who drowned in 5 meteres of water although his calculations told him the lake had a average depth of 0.75 meters.
>>>and the Midwest's is even lower.
>> Except, perhaps, for the corridor along the route of the old >> Limited.
>True. Linking particular cities together might succeed, but none of those >individual cities have the density of major European cities.
Eh? You don't think Chicago or New York have high population densities?
[...]
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> "Hatunen" <hatuu...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:khvmi09nu3bcppp68vbdsr1bpiqimmh2m2@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:14:15 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" > > <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: > >>The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast US > >>has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many > >>countries with successful HSR...
> > Depending on your definition of "successful". All the countries > > you mention have government subsidies for their rail systems, so > > they are not successful as stand-on-their-own systems. Whether > > this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of > > government.
> Roads aren't successful as stand-on-their-own systems either; they're funded > out of all kinds of taxes (property, sales, income, fuel, etc) yet are > considered successful.
> I think the best definition for this debate would be "accepted by the > general populace as a viable mode"; by that measure, HSR in Europe and Japan > is successful -- but certainly not profitable. Air is considered successful > in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's not > profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points > nationwide.
Are you saying US airlines are not profitable except for two?? Granted recently airlines have had many financial troubles, but that may only be a temporary aberition. <snip>
> > California has two densel populated areas and one sort of densely > > populated area (Southern Californis, San Francisco Bay Area, > > Sacramento region) that seem a good candidate for connection by > > HSR but really aren't.
> That depends on the metrics; by the numbers California appears a better > candidate for HSR than Spain, where the AVE is considered a success, and is > almost on par with France, where HSR was pretty much invented.
> > and Texas' is a platry 78ppl/sqmi. The US overall is > >>76ppl/sqmi.
> > Texas is really questionable.....
> Texas has similar issues to California -- fairly dense cities (and getting > denser) in a sea of mostly unpopulated land. At least we don't have > mountains, oceans, and hordes of environmentalists in the way...
But sprawling cities such as Houston don't lend themselves well to HSR unless there is a secondary distribution network from the HSR station. This is the same problem that plagues many suburbanites. Get to downtown XX in just a few hours and then what? Some cities such as NY or DC have local transit to help get you from main terminals to various districts. And from there taxi/bus service can do well.
Perhaps it was a fluke, but airlines have a large rental car symbiosis. The rental-car provides the traveler with an option for getting around once they've reached the vicinity of their destination. No need to find transit service between airport, hotel, resturants, tourist/business sites. HSR *could* benefit from the same sort of 'secondary distribution'. But since older rail came first, most of rail's major terminals are right 'downtown'.
I for one (and I suspect many others) would rather not take a train to downtown DC, rent a car there and then try and drive out to the 'beltway' to get to a business meeting. Starting from an airport and driving halfway *around* the beltway in a rental car is much easier. Considering rental-car returns at airports, can you imagine what the mess would be like on Friday afternoon returning rental cars to a HSR terminal in Grand Central Station??
HSR might have a better chance if the terminals were in a suburban area *near* major metro, with good rental car availability and a major road to the freeway system in the area. The major metro could provide enough passenger business, and the rental cars would give travelers the 'freedom' they crave once they arrive.
> In Europe, the countries are small. Germany is only 360k km^2. France, > 540k km^2. With 200km/h trains virtually anyplace you might want to > reach within the country is under 5 hours away. That isn't true about > the US.
> Europe also has a much higher population density. Germany and France > combined have half of the population of the US, but only 8% of the > land area, implying any nationwide HSR network is going to require > several times the track milage --- and expense.
I don't think anyone's suggesting nationwide HSR; I've only seen it pushed for distances of 800km or less, and it's most attractive for distances under 500km. As more routes are added and corridors are connected together, we might end up with a nationwide network, but I doubt there'll be trains on transcontinental routes.
> The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is > 800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in > between.
In between San Diego and San Francisco are Los Angeles (2nd largest US city) and San Jose (larger population than SF). Hardly "nothing".
In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and 4th largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing". In fact, I've never seen any HSR proposals for Texas that included El Paso at all; you'd get more riders by connecting to cities in OK, AR, and LA.
> How far apart is Nice, France and Brest, France? Or Kiel, Germany and > the Austrian border?
1045km and 912km, respectively. So, both pairs are further apart than the population centers of California.
> Europe and the US have very different > population distributions, both at the large scale --- across the > continent --- and at the small scale --- within a city.
More important is the difference in travel patterns; while I have no data to support this, I'd expect Americans to travel, on average, much further distances than Europeans because of the homogenous culture and more unified economy.
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Hatunen <hatuu...@cox.net> wrote in message <news:uppmi01n8ctpkip60vpbcar37d1goeia6u@4ax.com>... > On 24 Aug 2004 05:59:25 -0700, oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com (me) > wrote: [snip] > > Folks tend to forget that communications then, were not what > >they were today. Additionally, the military was not then, what > >we know today. Washington was primarily concerned with protecting > >their code breaking successes. Much of the behavior of Washington > >can be explained away as merely protecting their code breaking > >activities from detection. Potentially incompetent decisions, > >but ones which were common at the time.
> Not to mention womewhat imperfect translation of coded messages > from the Japanese along with a lack of understanding of some of > the nuances of Japanese, and the fact that there was a lot of > coded traffic so one or two important messages were hard to see > in the crowd, except, of course, by hindsight.
Folks forget that about the power of hindsight. When evaluating information like intercepted messages (or gossip over the wall, or instructions handed down through multiple parties) there are several possibilities:
1) You get the message presented correctly, and you understand it. 2) You get the message presented correctly, and you misunderstand it. 3) You get the message presented incorrectly, and believe it. 4) You get the message presented incorrectly, and you discard it as useless. 5) You get the message presented incorrectly and is spurs you to seek clarification 6) You get the message presented correctly, you misunderstand it, seek clarification and the subsequent message clarifies the instructions. 7) You get the message presented correctly, you misunderstand it, seek clarification, and the subsequent message impresses you in the exactly opposite manner intended.
And I could continue the permutations. Of course, when dealing with code breaking, there is also the concern that the source knows the codes are compromised and so misinformation is intentionally being sent.
It is so much easier in hindsight to discard the garbage, clarify the obscure, and focus on the clear when you know the answers up front. While it's going on, it can be darn close to impossible.
<step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >"Scott A Crosby" <scro...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message >news:oydwtzu28c2.fsf@bert.cs.rice.edu... >> In Europe, the countries are small. Germany is only 360k km^2. France, >> 540k km^2. With 200km/h trains virtually anyplace you might want to >> reach within the country is under 5 hours away. That isn't true about >> the US.
>> Europe also has a much higher population density. Germany and France >> combined have half of the population of the US, but only 8% of the >> land area, implying any nationwide HSR network is going to require >> several times the track milage --- and expense.
>I don't think anyone's suggesting nationwide HSR; I've only seen it pushed >for distances of 800km or less, and it's most attractive for distances under >500km. As more routes are added and corridors are connected together, we >might end up with a nationwide network, but I doubt there'll be trains on >transcontinental routes.
>> The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is >> 800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in >> between.
>In between San Diego and San Francisco are Los Angeles (2nd largest US city) >and San Jose (larger population than SF). Hardly "nothing".
Ever driven I-5?
>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and 4th >largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
Ever driven I-10?
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:43:42 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" > <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>"Scott A Crosby" <scro...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message >>news:oydwtzu28c2.fsf@bert.cs.rice.edu... >>> The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is >>> 800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in >>> between.
>>In between San Diego and San Francisco are Los Angeles (2nd largest US >>city) >>and San Jose (larger population than SF). Hardly "nothing".
> Ever driven I-5?
I've driven it from north of LA to San Diego; about half the trip is urbanized. If I'd known about it at the time, I'd have taken the train. Much more comfortable and interesting.
Between LA and SF/SJ I fly because the trains that do exist are too slow and don't have usable airport connections.
>>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and 4th >>largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
> Ever driven I-10?
Yes, from San Antonio to Houston several times and once from Houston to Jacksonville, FL. Pretty boring most of the way, but between SA, Houston, and New Orleans, and again between Tallahassee and Jacksonville you could take a lot of traffic off the road with decent rail service.
Note that I don't consider the SSL to be decent; an average speed of under 75mph (the flow of traffic) and no rental car facilities or effective transit at the stations in major cities along the route makes it pointless for the majority of travellers.
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
> "Stephen Sprunk" <step...@sprunk.org> wrote in message > news:WIMWc.33360$rP2.19224@hydra.nntpserver.com... >> I think the best definition for this debate would be "accepted by the >> general populace as a viable mode"; by that measure, HSR in Europe >> and Japan is successful -- but certainly not profitable. Air is >> considered >> successful in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's >> not profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points >> nationwide.
> Are you saying US airlines are not profitable except for two?? Granted > recently airlines have had many financial troubles, but that may only be a > temporary aberition.
Continental and several other airlines went under in the roaring 80s and 90s; it's a perpetual cycle for the industry because they insist on providing more supply than demand. SWA is the only carrier that has a consistent long-term record of profitability, though JetBlue appears to be modeling themselves after SWA.
>> > and Texas' is a platry 78ppl/sqmi. The US overall is >> >>76ppl/sqmi.
>> > Texas is really questionable.....
>> Texas has similar issues to California -- fairly dense cities (and >> getting >> denser) in a sea of mostly unpopulated land. At least we don't have >> mountains, oceans, and hordes of environmentalists in the way...
> But sprawling cities such as Houston don't lend themselves well to HSR > unless there is a secondary distribution network from the HSR station. > This > is the same problem that plagues many suburbanites. Get to downtown XX in > just a few hours and then what? Some cities such as NY or DC have local > transit to help get you from main terminals to various districts. And > from > there taxi/bus service can do well.
Downtown in most cities is, on average, closer to more of the population than an airport located away from the city in some particular direction. Many business trips are to downtown areas anyways, so flying to the suburbs and taking a cab or rental car downtown is arguably more common than taking a train to downtown and then a cab or rental car to the 'burbs.
The lack of effective transit in Houston (and San Antonio and Austin, or LA for that matter) is a problem for HSR, but no more so than for air.
> Perhaps it was a fluke, but airlines have a large rental car symbiosis. > The > rental-car provides the traveler with an option for getting around once > they've reached the vicinity of their destination. No need to find > transit > service between airport, hotel, resturants, tourist/business sites. HSR > *could* benefit from the same sort of 'secondary distribution'. But since > older rail came first, most of rail's major terminals are right > 'downtown'.
I agree; I consider the availability of rental cars and hotel/event/tourist shuttles to be a critical success factor in HSR. Even if shuttles and transit were available, most business travelers will get a car anyway out of habit -- even in cities like NYC where it's counter-productive.
> I for one (and I suspect many others) would rather not take a train to > downtown DC, rent a car there and then try and drive out to the 'beltway' > to > get to a business meeting. Starting from an airport and driving halfway > *around* the beltway in a rental car is much easier.
So you'd rather fly into Reagan, rent a car, and drive from downtown out to the beltway? Or fly into BWI, rent a car, and drive an hour just to get to the beltway, then fight traffic around it to get to your meeting? I've never flown into Dulles, but I assume it would have the same problem getting to somewhere on the Beltway in Maryland.
> Considering rental-car returns at airports, can you imagine what the mess > would be like on Friday afternoon returning rental cars to a HSR terminal > in Grand Central Station??
That's not an issue at GCT (actually Penn) because it has good transit and taxi service -- much better than La Guardia or JFK, in fact. Newark is probably a draw.
> HSR might have a better chance if the terminals were in a suburban area > *near* major metro, with good rental car availability and a major road to > the freeway system in the area. The major metro could provide enough > passenger business, and the rental cars would give travelers the 'freedom' > they crave once they arrive.
I've always suggested that HSR lines have stations both downtown and at the local airport(s). Transit is a nice complement to reach other parts of town, but only if rental cars or taxis are available at the ends of the lines.
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
>>>>The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast
> US
>>>>has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many >>>>countries with successful HSR...
>>>Depending on your definition of "successful". All the countries >>>you mention have government subsidies for their rail systems, so >>>they are not successful as stand-on-their-own systems. Whether >>>this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of >>>government.
>>Roads aren't successful as stand-on-their-own systems either; they're
> funded
>>out of all kinds of taxes (property, sales, income, fuel, etc) yet are >>considered successful.
>>I think the best definition for this debate would be "accepted by the >>general populace as a viable mode"; by that measure, HSR in Europe and
> Japan
>>is successful -- but certainly not profitable. Air is considered
> successful
>>in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's not >>profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points >>nationwide.
> Are you saying US airlines are not profitable except for two?? Granted > recently airlines have had many financial troubles, but that may only be a > temporary aberition. > <snip>
>>>California has two densel populated areas and one sort of densely >>>populated area (Southern Californis, San Francisco Bay Area, >>>Sacramento region) that seem a good candidate for connection by >>>HSR but really aren't.
>>That depends on the metrics; by the numbers California appears a better >>candidate for HSR than Spain, where the AVE is considered a success, and
> is
>>almost on par with France, where HSR was pretty much invented.
>>>and Texas' is a platry 78ppl/sqmi. The US overall is
>>>>76ppl/sqmi.
>>>Texas is really questionable.....
>>Texas has similar issues to California -- fairly dense cities (and getting >>denser) in a sea of mostly unpopulated land. At least we don't have >>mountains, oceans, and hordes of environmentalists in the way...
> But sprawling cities such as Houston don't lend themselves well to HSR > unless there is a secondary distribution network from the HSR station. This > is the same problem that plagues many suburbanites. Get to downtown XX in > just a few hours and then what? Some cities such as NY or DC have local > transit to help get you from main terminals to various districts. And from > there taxi/bus service can do well.
> Perhaps it was a fluke, but airlines have a large rental car symbiosis. The > rental-car provides the traveler with an option for getting around once > they've reached the vicinity of their destination. No need to find transit > service between airport, hotel, resturants, tourist/business sites. HSR > *could* benefit from the same sort of 'secondary distribution'. But since > older rail came first, most of rail's major terminals are right 'downtown'.
> I for one (and I suspect many others) would rather not take a train to > downtown DC, rent a car there and then try and drive out to the 'beltway' to > get to a business meeting. Starting from an airport and driving halfway > *around* the beltway in a rental car is much easier. Considering > rental-car returns at airports, can you imagine what the mess would be like > on Friday afternoon returning rental cars to a HSR terminal in Grand Central > Station??
> HSR might have a better chance if the terminals were in a suburban area > *near* major metro, with good rental car availability and a major road to > the freeway system in the area. The major metro could provide enough > passenger business, and the rental cars would give travelers the 'freedom' > they crave once they arrive.
> daestrom
Here in Irvine, at the local light rail station, they are looking into have a small electric/NEV rental office to allow for the short range transport to the nearby locations. It already has a lot of bus lines going by...
-- Charlie -- Edmondson Engineering Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
<step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >"Hatunen" <hatuu...@cox.net> wrote in message >news:ar6pi01t6701f0clbvfc89e5sjk9838a6i@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:43:42 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" >> <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>"Scott A Crosby" <scro...@cs.rice.edu> wrote in message >>>news:oydwtzu28c2.fsf@bert.cs.rice.edu... >>>> The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is >>>> 800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in >>>> between.
>>>In between San Diego and San Francisco are Los Angeles (2nd largest US >>>city) >>>and San Jose (larger population than SF). Hardly "nothing".
>> Ever driven I-5?
>I've driven it from north of LA to San Diego; about half the trip is >urbanized. If I'd known about it at the time, I'd have taken the train. >Much more comfortable and interesting.
But you've not driven it from LA to SF or Sacto, then.
The original proposal for California HSR had a route from LA through the Central Valley to SF and a branch to Sacto. I see on the commission's web site that they are now proposing to route it pretty much along US-101 west of the coast range, with a separate route down the Central Valley from SF/Sacto to Bakersfield. Since it terminates at Bakersfield instead of continuing to LA I hardly see the point.
I'm not sure why they did away with the route from LA to the Central Valley unless they finally realized they didn't want to do the engineering in those rugged mountains, nor, perhaps, did they want to deal with the San Andreas Fault in that area.
>Between LA and SF/SJ I fly because the trains that do exist are too slow and >don't have usable airport connections.
>>>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and 4th >>>largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
>> Ever driven I-10?
>Yes, from San Antonio to Houston several times and once from Houston to >Jacksonville, FL. Pretty boring most of the way, but between SA, Houston, >and New Orleans, and again between Tallahassee and Jacksonville you could >take a lot of traffic off the road with decent rail service.
>Note that I don't consider the SSL to be decent; an average speed of under >75mph (the flow of traffic) and no rental car facilities or effective >transit at the stations in major cities along the route makes it pointless >for the majority of travellers.
Ah. Then you've neer driven across Texas to El Paso? You might want to modify your "hardly nothing". Besides, I think everyone should drive I-10/I-20 across west Texas at least one in his or her lifetime
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:12:05 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" > <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>"Hatunen" <hatuu...@cox.net> wrote in message >>news:khvmi09nu3bcppp68vbdsr1bpiqimmh2m2@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:14:15 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" >>> <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>>The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast >>>>US >>>>has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many >>>>countries with successful HSR...
>>> Depending on your definition of "successful". All the countries >>> you mention have government subsidies for their rail systems, so >>> they are not successful as stand-on-their-own systems. Whether >>> this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of >>> government.
>>Roads aren't successful as stand-on-their-own systems either; they're >>funded >>out of all kinds of taxes (property, sales, income, fuel, etc) yet are >>considered successful.
> The don't claim it one way or the other. But the history of > turnpikes has been troublesome You ignored the part "Whether > this is good or bad is largely a matter of personal philosophy of > government." You seem to want to express your personal > philosophy.
>>I think the best definition for this debate would be "accepted by the >>general populace as a viable mode"; by that measure, HSR in Europe and >>Japan >>is successful -- but certainly not profitable.
> Yep. But advo ates of HSR in the USA don't argue that; they argue > that the system will be profitable when they mean it will > 9probably) have an operating proit, ignoring the huge > infrastructure cost.
The Texas TGV was to be entirely funded via private sources, and was projected to be profitable including capital payments. Unfortunately they couldn't find enough investors who were willing to risk the sums involved, but that doesn't change the math.
> In California the HSR commission will be going to ask the voters for a > 0.25% increase in the state-wide sales tax. I will be interesting to see > what > the voters in Mono County think of that.
California already has state-subsidized rail service, so that's not much of a change for them. Like Europe, their solution is to tax everyone into poverty in order to provide free services to pacify the masses. As far as transportation goes, it seems to provide better results than the free market, but I wouldn't want to live there.
>>Air is considered successful >>in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's not >>profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points >>nationwide.
> They have, and will go bankrupt, and go our of business An HSR > system won't be able to do this.
Few airlines go out of business; they just reorganize and come back with more capital to lose. Depending on how HSR is run, it might end up like that or it might end up like Amtrak. Either way, transportation is a money-losing business in the US.
>>>>The rest of the US is at the low end of that or below; Florida's >>>>population density is only 272ppl/sqmi,
>>> The interior of Florida is largely swamp or open land/farms. What >>> would be the density of population for a HSR linking the Atlantic >>> caoastl counties (including Orlando/Disney)?
>>That gets into a study of where stations would be located, numbers of >>people >>within X distance of the stations, travel times, etc. Give me a few >>million >>dollars budget and I'll tell you :)
> Yeah. My point is that you caan't point at a big state that is > empty on a state-wide basis and ignore the population > concentrations. Reminds me of the Stats 101 student who drowned > in 5 meteres of water although his calculations told him the lake > had a average depth of 0.75 meters.
France is mostly empty, with over about the country's population living in a single city; similar with Spain. Still, HSR is widely accepted there in lieu of air, so a state with a similar population density (like Florida) seems like a good fit if not better.
>>>>and the Midwest's is even lower.
>>> Except, perhaps, for the corridor along the route of the old >>> Limited.
>>True. Linking particular cities together might succeed, but none of those >>individual cities have the density of major European cities.
> Eh? You don't think Chicago or New York have high population > densities?
They do, but they're too far apart for even non-stop HSR to compete effectively with air. The cities along the way may not have the population to support HSR either, though I haven't studied that part of the country well enough to know. I've focused more on TX/OK/AR/LA, CA/NV/AZ, and FL/GA since those are the areas I'm most familiar with from my travels.
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
>> Yep. But advo ates of HSR in the USA don't argue that; they argue >> that the system will be profitable when they mean it will >> 9probably) have an operating proit, ignoring the huge >> infrastructure cost.
>The Texas TGV was to be entirely funded via private sources, and was >projected to be profitable including capital payments. Unfortunately they >couldn't find enough investors who were willing to risk the sums involved, >but that doesn't change the math.
The math was based on surmise. The investors didn't believe it.
>> In California the HSR commission will be going to ask the voters for a >> 0.25% increase in the state-wide sales tax. I will be interesting to see >> what >> the voters in Mono County think of that.
>California already has state-subsidized rail service, so that's not much of >a change for them.
But the voters state-wide didn't get asked to raise their sales taxes; that's quite a different thing. And The CalTrans trains are mooney-losers. Nothing wrong with this, if that's what the people want.
>Like Europe, their solution is to tax everyone into >poverty in order to provide free services to pacify the masses. As far as >transportation goes, it seems to provide better results than the free >market, but I wouldn't want to live there.
>>>Air is considered successful >>>in the US on similar routes, but with only two exceptions it's not >>>profitable, and those two exceptions cover only a handful of points >>>nationwide.
>> They have, and will go bankrupt, and go our of business An HSR >> system won't be able to do this.
>Few airlines go out of business; they just reorganize and come back with >more capital to lose.
Lots of airlines go out of busines, although some reorganize first and then go out of business. Look at http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/companies/eastern.html (Eastern was the first airline I ever flew on). And wither Pan American? No matter how big a business it is in the movie "2001" by the mid-90s PanAm's presence in "2001" was looking pretty conspicuous.
>Depending on how HSR is run, it might end up like >that or it might end up like Amtrak. Either way, transportation is a >money-losing business in the US.
It's a money-losing business everywhere. So long as the voters and their representative don't mind, it's fine with me. And if hte voters of California want to increase their sales tax for a HSR that will probably require even more taxes that, too, is fine with me, especially since I left California three years ago.
[...]
>> Yeah. My point is that you caan't point at a big state that is >> empty on a state-wide basis and ignore the population >> concentrations. Reminds me of the Stats 101 student who drowned >> in 5 meteres of water although his calculations told him the lake >> had a average depth of 0.75 meters.
>France is mostly empty, with over about the country's population living in a >single city; similar with Spain. Still, HSR is widely accepted there in >lieu of air, so a state with a similar population density (like Florida) >seems like a good fit if not better.
It helps that France has subsidized SNCF sufficiently that the fares do not reflect the true cost. And that France did retain rail service over the years unlike the USA so the public is used to using it. And it is not all that true that the TGV is used in lieu of air travel. Now that Europe is a-blossom with discount airlines more and more people are flying.
The area traversed by France's longest TGV route from the pParis area to the Meeiterranean coast is hardly empty, passing through Lyon and Avignon and terminating in a much=traveled-to resort area. Paris to Brussels is definitely not empty. All you have to do is look at a map of the TGV system to see that it avoids the "empty" parts of France. And Thalys coers some of the most densely populated part of Europe.
HSR is great. I spent two weeks in June traveling around Germny, using the high speed ICEs and loved it, although the Munich-Berlin run was a bit longer than I would have liked; I can see that the alternative of air travel might be attractive. Still, I had a Bahncard 50 which made fares so cheap that I didn't even consider air.
[...]
>> Eh? You don't think Chicago or New York have high population >> densities?
>They do, but they're too far apart for even non-stop HSR to compete >effectively with air.
I agree that Chicago and NY are too far apart for HSR to be attractive, no one says that an HSR must be used only all-the-way. That doesn't preclude a HSR serving: New York Albany-Schenectady-Troy The Mohawk Valley Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Erie Cleveland Elyria-Loraine Toledo Possible branch to Detroit northern Indiana Chicago
While, say, northern Indiana has few high population clusters it has a lot of closely located small clusters.
>The cities along the way may not have the population >to support HSR either, though I haven't studied that part of the country >well enough to know. I've focused more on TX/OK/AR/LA, CA/NV/AZ, and FL/GA >since those are the areas I'm most familiar with from my travels.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> But you've not driven it from LA to SF or Sacto, then.
Nope. Who would want to when they can fly or, in the future, take HSR? My personal threshold for drive/fly is about 150mi now, though it was about 700mi when I was in college. I've had enough road trips in my life that I'm sick of driving.
> The original proposal for California HSR had a route from LA > through the Central Valley to SF and a branch to Sacto. I see on > the commission's web site that they are now proposing to route it > pretty much along US-101 west of the coast range, with a separate > route down the Central Valley from SF/Sacto to Bakersfield. Since > it terminates at Bakersfield instead of continuing to LA I hardly > see the point.
Ditto. I'd think one line along I-5, with a branch to SJ/SF, would be sufficient.
> I'm not sure why they did away with the route from LA to the > Central Valley unless they finally realized they didn't want to > do the engineering in those rugged mountains, nor, perhaps, did > they want to deal with the San Andreas Fault in that area.
There's no shortage of tracks or roads across the fault area, and worst case they could just build a maintenance facility in the vicinity and do some rush repairs when a quake hits.
>>>>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and >>>>4th >>>>largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
>>> Ever driven I-10?
>>Yes, from San Antonio to Houston several times and once from Houston to >>Jacksonville, FL. Pretty boring most of the way, but between SA, Houston, >>and New Orleans, and again between Tallahassee and Jacksonville you could >>take a lot of traffic off the road with decent rail service. ... > Ah. Then you've neer driven across Texas to El Paso? You might > want to modify your "hardly nothing".
You said from Houston to El Paso, and there's certainly more than "nothing" between those cities. Now, if you said San Antonio to El Paso, or Ft Worth to El Paso, then I'd agree wholeheartedly.
> Besides, I think everyone should drive I-10/I-20 across west Texas at > least one in his or her lifetime
Just what we need -- more dead tourists. That stretch of I-10 is the deadliest highway in the US because so many people fall asleep and run off the road. You'd think there'd be nothing out there for them to hit...
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
>Nope. Who would want to when they can fly or, in the future, take HSR? My >personal threshold for drive/fly is about 150mi now, though it was about >700mi when I was in college. I've had enough road trips in my life that I'm >sick of driving.
It takes about 5.5 hours to drive from SF to LA on I-5 and that will largely be to your destination in LA, unless you are actually headed for Anaheim and points south. That is the time from almost anywhere south of I-80. Now suppose you want to fly. You will first have to get to the airport, perhaps thirty minutes on Super-Shuttle by the time they've picked up you fellow passengers. Arrive at the airport an hour and a half before your flight. About an hour and a quarter to fly to LAX. Add a half hour to get your luggage. That's 3:45 so far. Now head for rental cars, take a half hour or so to get through there. That's 4:15. Now where are you going and how long will it take, LAX not being the most convenient place?
That's one reason you might want to drive. Throw your bags in the car, no matter how much they weigh and head out.
HSR will have a similar time comparison, what with station locations and a longer travel time, although the early check-in isn't necessary.
>> The original proposal for California HSR had a route from LA >> through the Central Valley to SF and a branch to Sacto. I see on >> the commission's web site that they are now proposing to route it >> pretty much along US-101 west of the coast range, with a separate >> route down the Central Valley from SF/Sacto to Bakersfield. Since >> it terminates at Bakersfield instead of continuing to LA I hardly >> see the point.
>Ditto. I'd think one line along I-5, with a branch to SJ/SF, would be >sufficient.
>> I'm not sure why they did away with the route from LA to the >> Central Valley unless they finally realized they didn't want to >> do the engineering in those rugged mountains, nor, perhaps, did >> they want to deal with the San Andreas Fault in that area.
>There's no shortage of tracks or roads across the fault area, and worst case >they could just build a maintenance facility in the vicinity and do some >rush repairs when a quake hits.
There are few railroad tracks across the SAF in the Los Angeles area. The main run is along the coast and doesn't cross the SAF until around Gilroy south of San Jose, an easily accessible location. The tracks through Tehachapi into the Central Valley never do cross the SAF. And you might try driving the Grapevine sometime.
>>>>>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and >>>>>4th >>>>>largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
>>>> Ever driven I-10?
>>>Yes, from San Antonio to Houston several times and once from Houston to >>>Jacksonville, FL. Pretty boring most of the way, but between SA, Houston, >>>and New Orleans, and again between Tallahassee and Jacksonville you could >>>take a lot of traffic off the road with decent rail service. >... >> Ah. Then you've neer driven across Texas to El Paso? You might >> want to modify your "hardly nothing".
>You said from Houston to El Paso,
No, I didn't.
>and there's certainly more than "nothing" >between those cities. Now, if you said San Antonio to El Paso, or Ft Worth >to El Paso, then I'd agree wholeheartedly.
No matter where you start from in eastern Texas you eventually face driving across a lot of nothing. I won't dispute that San Antonio is certainly "something" between Houston and El Paso.
>> Besides, I think everyone should drive I-10/I-20 across west Texas at >> least one in his or her lifetime
>Just what we need -- more dead tourists. That stretch of I-10 is the >deadliest highway in the US because so many people fall asleep and run off >the road. You'd think there'd be nothing out there for them to hit...
Where is the statistic saying it's the deadliest? Of course it's so long it's bound to have more deaths than most places.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:01:34 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" > <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>"Hatunen" <hatuu...@cox.net> wrote in message >>news:ltcpi095gel7npdm159u08k31hrtglie7v@4ax.com... >>> But you've not driven it from LA to SF or Sacto, then.
>>Nope. Who would want to when they can fly or, in the future, take HSR? ... > It takes about 5.5 hours to drive from SF to LA on I-5 and that > will largely be to your destination in LA, unless you are > actually headed for Anaheim and points south. That is the time > from almost anywhere south of I-80. Now suppose you want to fly. > You will first have to get to the airport, perhaps thirty minutes > on Super-Shuttle by the time they've picked up you fellow > passengers. Arrive at the airport an hour and a half before your > flight. About an hour and a quarter to fly to LAX. Add a half > hour to get your luggage. That's 3:45 so far. Now head for rental > cars, take a half hour or so to get through there. That's 4:15. > Now where are you going and how long will it take, LAX not being > the most convenient place?
> That's one reason you might want to drive. Throw your bags in the > car, no matter how much they weigh and head out.
I get to the airport at most 45 minutes before my flights and don't check bags, so that brings the time down to 3 hours; it also takes me less than 15 minutes to get to the rental car lot and drive out in most cities because I don't have to hassle with counters or contracts, so we're at 2:45 -- half the time it takes to drive, and significantly less risk of an accident plus I can work about an hour on the plane if necessary.
Flying changes a business meeting from an overnight trip to a same-day trip; that's a quality of life issue I can't put a price on.
> HSR will have a similar time comparison, what with station > locations and a longer travel time, although the early check-in > isn't necessary.
I'd expect station locations to be equally inconvenient to my location in each city, but the longer travel time does hurt. It's partially mitigated by the ability to use my cell phone en route, more comfortable seats, and snackbar. The boarding times are also lower, meaning I can get to the platform 5-10 minutes before departure. With SF-to-LA times projected at 2:30, it's still fast enough to make single-day trips viable.
>>>>>>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and >>>>>>4th largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
>>>>> Ever driven I-10?
>>>>Yes, from San Antonio to Houston several times and once from Houston to >>>>Jacksonville, FL. Pretty boring most of the way, but between SA, >>>>Houston, >>>>and New Orleans, and again between Tallahassee and Jacksonville you >>>>could >>>>take a lot of traffic off the road with decent rail service. >>... >>> Ah. Then you've neer driven across Texas to El Paso? You might >>> want to modify your "hardly nothing".
>>You said from Houston to El Paso,
> No, I didn't.
"Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in between."
> Where is the statistic saying it's the deadliest? Of course it's > so long it's bound to have more deaths than most places.
I remember a report by some group back when the national speed limit was lifted, because I-10 went from #1 to #2 -- some stretch in Montana took over. When Montana reinstituted speed limits, I-10 went back to #1.
S
-- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
>>>Nope. Who would want to when they can fly or, in the future, take HSR? >...
[... 5.5 hours to drive from SF to LA deleted]
>> That's one reason you might want to drive. Throw your bags in the >> car, no matter how much they weigh and head out.
>I get to the airport at most 45 minutes before my flights and don't check >bags, so that brings the time down to 3 hours; it also takes me less than 15 >minutes to get to the rental car lot and drive out in most cities because I >don't have to hassle with counters or contracts, so we're at 2:45 -- half >the time it takes to drive, and significantly less risk of an accident plus >I can work about an hour on the plane if necessary.
>Flying changes a business meeting from an overnight trip to a same-day trip; >that's a quality of life issue I can't put a price on.
We each have our values. A family of five headed for Disneyland won't feel that way.
The biggest mistake advocates of reform can make is to assume it's all about them.
>> HSR will have a similar time comparison, what with station >> locations and a longer travel time, although the early check-in >> isn't necessary.
>I'd expect station locations to be equally inconvenient to my location in >each city, but the longer travel time does hurt. It's partially mitigated >by the ability to use my cell phone en route,
I can use a cell phone on I-5. With headset, of course.
>more comfortable seats, and >snackbar. The boarding times are also lower, meaning I can get to the >platform 5-10 minutes before departure. With SF-to-LA times projected at >2:30, it's still fast enough to make single-day trips viable.
>>>>>>>In between Houston and El Paso are San Antonio and Austin, the 3rd and >>>>>>>4th largest cities in the state. Again, hardly "nothing".
>>>>>> Ever driven I-10?
>>>>>Yes, from San Antonio to Houston several times and once from Houston to >>>>>Jacksonville, FL. Pretty boring most of the way, but between SA, >>>>>Houston, >>>>>and New Orleans, and again between Tallahassee and Jacksonville you >>>>>could >>>>>take a lot of traffic off the road with decent rail service. >>>... >>>> Ah. Then you've neer driven across Texas to El Paso? You might >>>> want to modify your "hardly nothing".
>>>You said from Houston to El Paso,
>> No, I didn't.
>"Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in between."
There's not much, on average, for the 1300 km, in between.
>> Where is the statistic saying it's the deadliest? Of course it's >> so long it's bound to have more deaths than most places.
>I remember a report by some group back when the national speed limit was >lifted, because I-10 went from #1 to #2 -- some stretch in Montana took >over. When Montana reinstituted speed limits, I-10 went back to #1.
You don't know, eh?
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
