High-speed rail: too expensive?

[Technocrat]

Here in the good ol' US of A, conservatives have been trying to say that high speed rail is just too expensive - we can't do it. Conservatives estimate the cost of a national high-speed rail system at around $100 billion dollars.

Well, let's do some math:

Current cost of gasoline in the USA: ~$4.00/gallon
Current amount of gasoline consumed in the USA annually: 140 billion gallons (source: DOE website)

So, if we taxed gasoline so that it was $1 more per gallon than it is now, we would have $140 billion dollars by the end of the year. If we just had $1 of tax revenue for every gallon of gasoline sold, we would have more than enough revenue at the end of just one year to build a national high-speed rail system. In other words, we could tax gasoline to keep it at or above $5/gallon for just one year and have enough money to build all the rail that we need.

Proving once again that conservatives are full of shit.

[redhotpoker]

its a good idea if all of your data is right, but i doubt people would go for it in the US.

[Technocrat]

its a good idea if all of your data is right, but i doubt people would go for it in the US.

"If the United States committed to build out the DOT's proposed network, the price tag would be close to $100 billion." (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/economy/high_speed_rail/)

Of course they won't go for it - the conservatives have successfully convinced people that high speed rail is too expensive and that government is evil. That wasn't my point, though - my point is that conservatives are full of shit when they claim that high speed rail is too expensive. We could gather all the revenue we need in one year by keeping gasoline $1 above the current price.

Gasoline will very soon reach $5/gal in the US. With our mass transit networks in such a sorry condition, we are ill prepared for such an event. Take a look at the lifestyles of countries where gasoline is already close to or above $5/gal. They do not use cars nearly as much as we do in the US and yet it is easier to get around. I loved riding the trains when I visited Europe some years ago and was impressed with the efficiency with which vast numbers of people are transported every day.

[Summerspeaker]

So the money spent (http://costofwar.com/en/) in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been good for a twelve pack of national high-speed rail systems. Conservatives are really full of shit.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I cannot wait for high speed rail to be introduced in the UK. It will have a moderate impact on the ability of people like me to travel between home and university in speed, comfort and at less ridiculous prices.

But more than that, I just want to see the fucking smile wiped off the smug faces of those fox-hunting country ****s who are opposing high-speed rail here purely from a NIMBY point of view. One of the rare times where I let reverse snobbery get the better of me.:)

[Psy]

"If the United States committed to build out the DOT's proposed network, the price tag would be close to $100 billion." (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/09/news/economy/high_speed_rail/)

Of course they won't go for it - the conservatives have successfully convinced people that high speed rail is too expensive and that government is evil. That wasn't my point, though - my point is that conservatives are full of shit when they claim that high speed rail is too expensive. We could gather all the revenue we need in one year by keeping gasoline $1 above the current price.

Gasoline will very soon reach $5/gal in the US. With our mass transit networks in such a sorry condition, we are ill prepared for such an event. Take a look at the lifestyles of countries where gasoline is already close to or above $5/gal. They do not use cars nearly as much as we do in the US and yet it is easier to get around. I loved riding the trains when I visited Europe some years ago and was impressed with the efficiency with which vast numbers of people are transported every day.

The problem is that would require a US national railway and national industries in recent decades have a problem of being hot bed for workers militancy. So they are lying but because they refuse to risk more working class consciousness by expanding state run industry.

[Technocrat]

The problem is that would require a US national railway and national industries in recent decades have a problem of being hot bed for workers militancy. So they are lying but because they refuse to risk more working class consciousness by expanding state run industry.

Conservatism falls apart when you approach it rationally. Conservatives claim that government can't work because it is made up of self-interested individuals who are inherently corruptible. Then they claim that the free market will solve the problems of government. The free market, by definition, is made up of self-interested individuals who are inherently corruptible. Besides that, those actors in the free market have no responsibility other than serving their own interests. Government might not be perfect, but at least it is supposed to do something other than serve its own interests.

Basically, the principle that is essential to the free market is the same principle that conservatives use to claim that government doesn't work. It's completely illogical, and it's bullshit.

[jake williams]

Here in the good ol' US of A, conservatives have been trying to say that high speed rail is just too expensive - we can't do it. Conservatives estimate the cost of a national high-speed rail system at around $100 billion dollars.

Well, let's do some math:

Current cost of gasoline in the USA: ~$4.00/gallon
Current amount of gasoline consumed in the USA annually: 140 billion gallons (source: DOE website)

So, if we taxed gasoline so that it was $1 more per gallon than it is now, we would have $140 billion dollars by the end of the year. If we just had $1 of tax revenue for every gallon of gasoline sold, we would have more than enough revenue at the end of just one year to build a national high-speed rail system. In other words, we could tax gasoline to keep it at or above $5/gallon for just one year and have enough money to build all the rail that we need.

Proving once again that conservatives are full of shit.
$100 billion is a relatively trivial sum of money in one sense - about two thirds of a percent of GDP, and less than three percent of the federal budget - but it's a whole lot of money to thrust onto the backs of workers, who take home a tiny share of national income. Which is what gas taxes like this do, whatever their intention.

[Psy]

Conservatism falls apart when you approach it rationally. Conservatives claim that government can't work because it is made up of self-interested individuals who are inherently corruptible. Then they claim that the free market will solve the problems of government. The free market, by definition, is made up of self-interested individuals who are inherently corruptible. Besides that, those actors in the free market have no responsibility other than serving their own interests. Government might not be perfect, but at least it is supposed to do something other than serve its own interests.

Basically, the principle that is essential to the free market is the same principle that conservatives use to claim that government doesn't work. It's completely illogical, and it's bullshit.

True and when reading literature on privatization on national railways they ignore the services the national railways were providing at cost, like subsidizing rural communities with transportation and communication, more important to bourgeoisie states subsidizing the military by providing the military with transportation and communications at low costs. Basically national industries books tend to not look as good is because the state wants them to provide a service that lowers their rate of profit.

[Technocrat]

$100 billion is a relatively trivial sum of money in one sense - about two thirds of a percent of GDP, and less than three percent of the federal budget - but it's a whole lot of money to thrust onto the backs of workers, who take home a tiny share of national income. Which is what gas taxes like this do, whatever their intention.

I was merely pointing out that conservatives are wrong when it comes to claiming that HSR is too expensive.

Any solution within a capitalist framework is going to be far from ideal. Let's say we tax the oil companies instead (or eliminated the tax breaks given to them) - what happens then? The oil companies raise the price of gas.

So, I was not trying to propose an ideal solution - none is possible within capitalism. I was merely pointing out that even within the capitalist framework, conservatives are wrong when they claim that HSR is too expensive.

Within the capitalist framework, a gas tax is still preferable to no gas tax because some short-term pain is preferable to the pain that would result otherwise: if we don't have any rail, and the price of gas continues to rise, people will be forced to pay because there is no alternative form of transportation. Eventually, people won't be able to afford to drive and will be stranded without any alternative transportation. I think if that's the case, accepting a 1$ gas tax now is definitely preferable.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

True and when reading literature on privatization on national railways they ignore the services the national railways were providing at cost, like subsidizing rural communities with transportation and communication, more important to bourgeoisie states subsidizing the military by providing the military with transportation and communications at low costs. Basically national industries books tend to not look as good is because the state wants them to provide a service that lowers their rate of profit.

Often the politicians force cuts in services to make it "profitable" and then use the public outcry over problems relating to bad maintenance, insufficient infrastructure and such to get the public opinion to accept a privatisation of a national railway.

The Japanese national railway Kokutetsu was for example made profitable in preparation for its privatisation in the years running up to 1987, and the new private companies were relieved from a large part of the debt that the company had acquired after becoming a state-owned company (it was previously a direct state ministry and as such did not pay interest on its own, but was funded by the state budget directly). This meant that some of the new private companies are now profitable, but mostly because the debt that made Kokutetsu run a loss was transferred to a separate company and later transferred in the national governments debt, at the cost of severe cutbacks in rural service (Kokutetsu itself had already been forced to slaughter rural lines and service in a vile plan similar to the Beeching Axe in the 70's and 80's) and increased ticket prices by as much as 300% (regular commuter ticket prices were formerly subsidised up to 85% of cost).

Effectively it also resulted in the firing of up to 90,000 workers and the crushing of the Kokutetsu unions, which were rather radical and far-left leaning, which was one of the reason it was pushed so hard by the Berlusconi-like Nakasone government.

[jake williams]

I was merely pointing out that conservatives are wrong when it comes to claiming that HSR is too expensive.

Any solution within a capitalist framework is going to be far from ideal. Let's say we tax the oil companies instead (or eliminated the tax breaks given to them) - what happens then? The oil companies raise the price of gas.

So, I was not trying to propose an ideal solution - none is possible within capitalism. I was merely pointing out that even within the capitalist framework, conservatives are wrong when they claim that HSR is too expensive.

Within the capitalist framework, a gas tax is still preferable to no gas tax because some short-term pain is preferable to the pain that would result otherwise: if we don't have any rail, and the price of gas continues to rise, people will be forced to pay because there is no alternative form of transportation. Eventually, people won't be able to afford to drive and will be stranded without any alternative transportation. I think if that's the case, accepting a 1$ gas tax now is definitely preferable.
Tax incidence isn't equal for all taxes. Some taxes affect the bourgeoisie more directly than others. Certain types of wealth tax can affect the working class basically trivially, something even bourgeois economists openly admit to. Others - including consumption taxes on commodities which workers, within reason, need to consume directly or indirectly, like gas, do affect workers, and in fact do so disproportionately. This is especially the case if workers don't have access to public/lower-fuel transportation, which especially in the United States they don't.

This is a problem on a practical level - without an alternative in the first place, workers take more of the burden of the tax. But it is also a problem on a political level - it is a lot more difficult to mobilize workers around a policy which costs them more than it has to. Gas taxes aren't the most effective way to pay for public transportation.

[Technocrat]

Tax incidence isn't equal for all taxes. Some taxes affect the bourgeoisie more directly than others. Certain types of wealth tax can affect the working class basically trivially, something even bourgeois economists openly admit to. Others - including consumption taxes on commodities which workers, within reason, need to consume directly or indirectly, like gas, do affect workers, and in fact do so disproportionately. This is especially the case if workers don't have access to public/lower-fuel transportation, which especially in the United States they don't.

This is a problem on a practical level - without an alternative in the first place, workers take more of the burden of the tax. But it is also a problem on a political level - it is a lot more difficult to mobilize workers around a policy which costs them more than it has to. Gas taxes aren't the most effective way to pay for public transportation.

Again, I wasn't arguing for a most effective way to pay for public transportation. I was merely using the gas tax argument to demonstrate that conservatives are wrong when claiming that rail is too expensive. Let's say you increase the price of gas by 20 cents per gallon. Then you would have enough revenue for a nationwide system at the end of 5 years.

Sure, if we didn't have the ridiculous disparities in wealth that we have, we could pay for a national rail system and national health care. That wasn't my point, though. I was trying to show how even in the conservative's world, it is incorrect to claim that rail is too expensive. In other words, even if we are being conservative (pun intended), we can still see how rail is not too expensive, especially considering the alternative.

[jake williams]

Again, I wasn't arguing for a most effective way to pay for public transportation. I was merely using the gas tax argument to demonstrate that conservatives are wrong when claiming that rail is too expensive. Let's say you increase the price of gas by 20 cents per gallon. Then you would have enough revenue for a nationwide system at the end of 5 years.

Sure, if we didn't have the ridiculous disparities in wealth that we have, we could pay for a national rail system and national health care. That wasn't my point, though. I was trying to show how even in the conservative's world, it is incorrect to claim that rail is too expensive. In other words, even if we are being conservative (pun intended), we can still see how rail is not too expensive, especially considering the alternative.
Fair enough.

[S.Artesian]

Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. The LA-SF project will cost $70 million/mile. And in order to recapture operating costs and support maintenance, the HSR authority consultants say they intend to run high speed trains on 6 minute headways during rush hours in both directions, and 12 minute headways in non-rush hours.

That round-the-clock density is really "field of dreams" dreaming, as to do that, HSR will have to have a third track so maintenance can be performed in the areas approaching terminals.

I love HSR-- travel by TGV whenever I'm in France, the ICE in Germany, Thalys and Eurostar, but we're talking a different animal in the US where population densities make HSR viable in very limited areas-- like the Boston-Washington, California, and Chicago corridors.

Much of what needs to be accomplished in the US can be accomplished with maximum authorized train speeds of 90-110 mph.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. The LA-SF project will cost $70 million/mile. And in order to recapture operating costs and support maintenance, the HSR authority consultants say they intend to run high speed trains on 6 minute headways during rush hours in both directions, and 12 minute headways in non-rush hours.

That round-the-clock density is really "field of dreams" dreaming, as to do that, HSR will have to have a third track so maintenance can be performed in the areas approaching terminals.

I love HSR-- travel by TGV whenever I'm in France, the ICE in Germany, Thalys and Eurostar, but we're talking a different animal in the US where population densities make HSR viable in very limited areas-- like the Boston-Washington, California, and Chicago corridors.

Much of what needs to be accomplished in the US can be accomplished with maximum authorized train speeds of 90-110 mph.

I think the plan involved some very strange planning as well, was it not something along the lines of a relatively short connection from something like Fresno or a similar town to San Francisco that would be opened first and only if this was profitable would the line be slowly extended?

Especially since Los Angeles - SF would probably be the main destinations of most traffic, any half-completed service would with little doubt struggle to fill, not to mention the enormous problem revolving around bad public transit connections within the cities served and the problem of the disgusting suburban sprawl that so much characterises U.S. post-war urban development.

[S.Artesian]

I think the plan involved some very strange planning as well, was it not something along the lines of a relatively short connection from something like Fresno or a similar town to San Francisco that would be opened first and only if this was profitable would the line be slowly extended?

Especially since Los Angeles - SF would probably be the main destinations of most traffic, any half-completed service would with little doubt struggle to fill, not to mention the enormous problem revolving around bad public transit connections within the cities served and the problem of the disgusting suburban sprawl that so much characterises U.S. post-war urban development.


Actually, I forget how the staging is supposed to go. I'm just blown away by 6 minute headways in both directions at 220 mph. Just imagine what happens if any train experiences a 5 minute delay enroute. Won't matter if you install high-speed crossovers every 10 miles as the trains will only be 20 miles apart with trains operating in the opposing directions passing each other, once the parade starts, every 10 miles.

[Psy]

That round-the-clock density is really "field of dreams" dreaming, as to do that, HSR will have to have a third track so maintenance can be performed in the areas approaching terminals.

No passenger service has a constant round the clock density as there are peaks and lulls, for dedicated passenger lines the grave yard shift is usually when track crews maintain the rails when the train density falls to next to nothing. After 1:00am people don't care the time between trains falls to 1/2 hour or more and most trains and even then most train are running close to empty during the grave yard shift, this is also the time most rolling stock gets looked over, if you don't this down time then you also need far more rolling stock.

[S.Artesian]

No passenger service has a constant round the clock density as there are peaks and lulls, for dedicated passenger lines the grave yard shift is usually when track crews maintain the rails when the train density falls to next to nothing. After 1:00am people don't care the time between trains falls to 1/2 hour or more and most trains and even then most train are running close to empty during the grave yard shift, this is also the time most rolling stock gets looked over, if you don't this down time then you also need far more rolling stock.

Once again, Psy shows how easy it is to be shown a fool when you pretend to know something.

No doubt density will decline after 2100 hours. However, if you are going to operate a service density of trains in both directions every 12 minutes in the off peaks in order to eliminate the need for "subsidies," and your trip time is 2.5 hours, then you reduce your maintenance windows as single track operation becomes quite problematic.

To allow for maintenance you will have to install high speed interlockings at approximately 10 mile intervals. Each interlocking will occupy approximately one mile of track. Each interlocking will be an expensive piece of jewelry which will serve practically no purpose during peak service periods as density will not allow for "overtakes" etc.

So we are building a field of dreams that says after 2100 hours we can both reduce service to allow for maintenance and provide the service required for the ridership which we say is essential to fill the farebox.

If you are going to average 12 minute headways in non-peak service, but reduce your service to hourly after 2100 hours, and terminate service at each end of your railroad at 0200,(dispatching your last train at 2300 from each terminal) resuming again at 0530, you need to 1) run with near rush hour densities during the off-peak hours 2) reduce maintenance time by using concrete slab track 3) build areas of a 3rd track outside major terminals to handle the mandatory slowdown from 220 mph to 60-30-20 mph when arriving 4) use the third track to allow for increased maintenance windows near terminals where interlockings are necessary as interlockings require greater maintenance.

I would expect that HSR in California will maintain a scheduled revenue move, or deadhead equipment move in each direction during the overnight period in order to protect equipment and crew balancing requirements at the extreme terminals.

Calendar day inspections on the equipment, and we're talking about 30-35 sets being inspected during the overnight period at each terminal, are going to present another problem. Current US FRA regs require Class 1 brake tests prior to the initial dispatchment of the equipment in passenger service on the day of operation.

Now if I were running CaHSR Authority, I would be installing lots of "machine vision" equipment at each terminal to scope out the external braking equipment on each trainset upon arrival so I could pull trainsets off the road during the day and do the heavy lifting on the mechanical parts prior to midnight, leaving only the visual inspection and testing for the overnight.

[pranabjyoti]

I am curious that whether this train can also be used for goods carriage and that probably can make this train more profitable.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I am curious that whether this train can also be used for goods carriage and that probably can make this train more profitable.

Not likely, because high-speed is of limited value to goods (mostly just relevant to fresh perishables), and most importantly, if it were to operate goods traffic, the major private goods railways of the U.S. would lobby hard to make sure it never got off the drawing board.


No doubt density will decline after 2100 hours. However, if you are going to operate a service density of trains in both directions every 12 minutes in the off peaks in order to eliminate the need for "subsidies," and your trip time is 2.5 hours, then you reduce your maintenance windows as single track operation becomes quite problematic.

I must say that sounds ridiculous, I can't imagine there's any chance of them having enough loading to make 12-minute frequency run without requiring subsidies (I don't think it should have to run without subsidies, but just maxing the frequency right away before travelling patterns are even adapted seems strange). What sort of passenger studies do they have to support this (any links?) It seems very much like wishful thinking.

[Psy]

Once again, Psy shows how easy it is to be shown a fool when you pretend to know something.

No doubt density will decline after 2100 hours. However, if you are going to operate a service density of trains in both directions every 12 minutes in the off peaks in order to eliminate the need for "subsidies," and your trip time is 2.5 hours, then you reduce your maintenance windows as single track operation becomes quite problematic.

Running mostly empty trains is going to be a loss. 12 minute headways off peak never happens on any railway unless there is congestion and trains are getting bottlenecked on a section of the line and then your mostly talking about deadheading trains.



To allow for maintenance you will have to install high speed interlockings at approximately 10 mile intervals. Each interlocking will occupy approximately one mile of track. Each interlocking will be an expensive piece of jewelry which will serve practically no purpose during peak service periods as density will not allow for "overtakes" etc.

Right but guess what that is what pretty much every passenger railway does. That is like saying MOW rolling stock are expensive that doesn't actually make money, while true they are necessary overhead. Also if you are doing maintenance overnight and train traffic is very low you can space them farther apart. Who cares if deadheading rolling stock gets delays by MOW rolling stock?



So we are building a field of dreams that says after 2100 hours we can both reduce service to allow for maintenance and provide the service required for the ridership which we say is essential to fill the farebox.

If a passenger railway can't cover its cost during peak it won't cover its cost off peak thus there is no point even trying.




If you are going to average 12 minute headways in non-peak service, but reduce your service to hourly after 2100 hours, and terminate service at each end of your railroad at 0200,(dispatching your last train at 2300 from each terminal) resuming again at 0530, you need to 1) run with near rush hour densities during the off-peak hours

2) reduce maintenance time by using concrete slab track 3) build areas of a 3rd track outside major terminals to handle the mandatory slowdown from 220 mph to 60-30-20 mph when arriving 4) use the third track to allow for increased maintenance windows near terminals where interlockings are necessary as interlockings require greater maintenance.

That assumes you are going to have 12 minutes headway off-peak, you are still going to be off-peak in the morning right up to around 8:00am, and most passenger services reduces trains as ridership falls off till they close all passenger traffic and really rack up dead mileage.




I would expect that HSR in California will maintain a scheduled revenue move, or deadhead equipment move in each direction during the overnight period in order to protect equipment and crew balancing requirements at the extreme terminals.

Pretty much all passenger service do most of their maintenance overnight.




Calendar day inspections on the equipment, and we're talking about 30-35 sets being inspected during the overnight period at each terminal, are going to present another problem. Current US FRA regs require Class 1 brake tests prior to the initial dispatchment of the equipment in passenger service on the day of operation.

Right and most passenger railways do this overnight. There is not the ridership to even cover overhead so if they put any trains out they will be running at loss.



Now if I were running CaHSR Authority, I would be installing lots of "machine vision" equipment at each terminal to scope out the external braking equipment on each trainset upon arrival so I could pull trainsets off the road during the day and do the heavy lifting on the mechanical parts prior to midnight, leaving only the visual inspection and testing for the overnight.
True but many railways have made the overnight deadline in doing all the maintenance before the morning rush, it just is very labor intensive to ensure crews make that deadline. This is where JNR got into trouble, as crews got more militant workers realized they could sabotage the line causing huge delays by taking their time to do work orders on rolling stock.

[S.Artesian]

Not likely, because high-speed is of limited value to goods (mostly just relevant to fresh perishables), and most importantly, if it were to operate goods traffic, the major private goods railways of the U.S. would lobby hard to make sure it never got off the drawing board.



I must say that sounds ridiculous, I can't imagine there's any chance of them having enough loading to make 12-minute frequency run without requiring subsidies (I don't think it should have to run without subsidies, but just maxing the frequency right away before travelling patterns are even adapted seems strange). What sort of passenger studies do they have to support this (any links?) It seems very much like wishful thinking.

Yeah, I agree. It's hard to envision 1000 people getting on trains every 12 minutes to travel between SF and LA. This claim was presented at the 2009 APTA (American Public Transportation Assoc.) Conference in Chicago Il.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry, but $70 million per mile?! Sounds to me like somebody somewhere is being a greedy little shit, or has seriously got their sums wrong. Or they think that HSR tracks should be coated with gold and palladium or some shit like that.

You certainly never see such figures bandied about when the subject of new roads comes up!

It makes me suspicious.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm sorry, but $70 million per mile?! Sounds to me like somebody somewhere is being a greedy little shit, or has seriously got their sums wrong. Or they think that HSR tracks should be coated with gold and palladium or some shit like that.

You certainly never see such figures bandied about when the subject of new roads comes up!

It makes me suspicious.

It is no surprise construction entrepreneurs are greedy, and then the capitalist entrepreneurs consulted for planning, engineering planning and so on so forth also want a few millions each. Construction costs are very inflated in the U.S. Even new roads end up having absurd costs. Big Dig anyone? Ended up at 15 billion for just above 3 kilometres. Although this an extreme, even more simple motorway projects also ends up ridiculously overpriced. (Then they like to use this as an excuse to make something a toll road).

When it comes to railways the outdated and Byzantine regulation of the Federal Railway administration also help making things difficult and expensive in addition.

[S.Artesian]

I'm sorry, but $70 million per mile?! Sounds to me like somebody somewhere is being a greedy little shit, or has seriously got their sums wrong. Or they think that HSR tracks should be coated with gold and palladium or some shit like that.

You certainly never see such figures bandied about when the subject of new roads comes up!

It makes me suspicious.


You think? Well, you see, California being California that can't just go from A to Z as the crow flies, so they've got to do some tunneling, etc.

Hey. look it up, the Orlando-Tampa HSR project on flat land that the state already owned was estimated at $29 million/mile.

[S.Artesian]

It is no surprise construction entrepreneurs are greedy, and then the capitalist entrepreneurs consulted for planning, engineering planning and so on so forth also want a few millions each. Construction costs are very inflated in the U.S. Even new roads end up having absurd costs. Big Dig anyone? Ended up at 15 billion for just above 3 kilometres. Although this an extreme, even more simple motorway projects also ends up ridiculously overpriced. (Then they like to use this as an excuse to make something a toll road).

When it comes to railways the outdated and Byzantine regulation of the Federal Railway administration also help making things difficult and expensive in addition.

I might point out that the Long Island Rail Road's East Side Access project to provide direct service into Grand Central Terminal is going to cost around $18 billion to build about 10 miles of double track railroad, a stacked 4-on-4 platform area below GCT's lower level, a concourse, a reconfiguration of Harold interlocking to allow through movement to GCT, and a yard and shop at Arch St.

Is it a boondoggle? Mos def. Doesn't mean it won't be even more expensive.

[Psy]

You think? Well, you see, California being California that can't just go from A to Z as the crow flies, so they've got to do some tunneling, etc.

Hey. look it up, the Orlando-Tampa HSR project on flat land that the state already owned was estimated at $29 million/mile.

Yes tunneling is expensive but if it was that expensive to tunnel then mining would be unprofitable. Or course there is also the cost of building the track but large mining operations also build track in the form of narrow gauge lines so they can move heavy equipment through mine and move miners deep into the mine faster.

It is very expensive to tunnel through rock but mechanization of labor has made it cheaper then when railways first blasted through mountain ranges along the west coast.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes tunneling is expensive but if it was that expensive to tunnel then mining would be unprofitable. Or course there is also the cost of building the track but large mining operations also build track in the form of narrow gauge lines so they can move heavy equipment through mine and move miners deep into the mine faster.

It is very expensive to tunnel through rock but mechanization of labor has made it cheaper then when railways first blasted through mountain ranges along the west coast.

But don't you also get that a large part of the problem is not about actual costs. It's about the economic system not being particularly conducive to these sort of infrastructure investments and all forms of associates trying to milk any and all projects for whatever they can. Efficiency has increased, the technological and engineering understanding has improved, but the cost has spiralled out of control: many of these projects end up being enormous hand-outs to the private contractors (road and rail alike). The situation would possibly be somewhat more manageable if there was no subcontracting.

[S.Artesian]

The above text from Psy quoted by Takayuki is exactly why Psy is on my ignore list. What kind of clown talks about tunneling costs and mining and ignores the fact how mines are abandoned just as soon the return on investment, the profit on production, cannot be sustained by, and sustain in return, the costs of reproduction? Why the Psy clown that's who.

If I didn't ignore this clown, I'd ask him to produce comparable costs per mile of track constructions for the 1870s and 1990s; for the 1880s, and 2000s.

[Psy]

But don't you also get that a large part of the problem is not about actual costs. It's about the economic system not being particularly conducive to these sort of infrastructure investments and all forms of associates trying to milk any and all projects for whatever they can. Efficiency has increased, the technological and engineering understanding has improved, but the cost has spiralled out of control: many of these projects end up being enormous hand-outs to the private contractors (road and rail alike). The situation would possibly be somewhat more manageable if there was no subcontracting.

Right, I don't argue that, I actually agree with that. What I object to is the idea that tunneling is as much of a obstacle that it was in the 19th century.


The above text from Psy quoted by Takayuki is exactly why Psy is on my ignore list. What kind of clown talks about tunneling costs and mining and ignores the fact how mines are abandoned just as soon the return on investment, the profit on production, cannot be sustained by, and sustain in return, the costs of reproduction? Why the Psy clown that's who.

That is true far all industry. This is totally beside the point. My point is the production costs to tunnel through have gone down since the 19th century.



If I didn't ignore this clown, I'd ask him to produce comparable costs per mile of track constructions for the 1870s and 1990s; for the 1880s, and 2000s.
Wait are you contesting the mechanization of labor has not reduced the cost of tunneling?!? If mechanization of labor didn't reduce costs capitalists wouldn't do it and tunneling operations would have similar levels of fixed capital today as they did in the 1870's.

I can't see how anyone can seriously say the cost of excavating has not seriously declined in the era of massive open pit mines and entire mountain tops being excavated.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Right, I don't argue that, I actually agree with that. What I object to is the idea that tunneling is as much of a obstacle that it was in the 19th century.

Who suggested that tunnelling was such an obstacle in itself? I can't remember seeing anyone suggesting that in this thread; but do you have any actual studies to back up this idea that tunnelling is cheaper today? Yes, it requires less labour time to complete, but then we are forgetting that it is a capitalist economy and a lot of additional costs will come, and justified for inflation I cannot imagine that actual costs are much lower than they were in the 1870s.


Wait are you contesting the mechanization of labor has not reduced the cost of tunneling?!? If mechanization of labor didn't reduce costs capitalists wouldn't do it and tunneling operations would have similar levels of fixed capital today as they did in the 1870's.

I can't see how anyone can seriously say the cost of excavating has not seriously declined in the era of massive open pit mines and entire mountain tops being excavated.

The increase in commodity prices is in some aspects high enough to offset the increase in capital investment costs. Why do you think so many mines in the West have closed? Safety regulations and falling prices for the commodities eats into the profit margin.

And most importantly, it is not very fair to compare mining operations to railway tunnelling, since they have entirely different requirements and purposes and a railway does not pay for itself by any extraction of raw materials, and because when it comes to a mine, the very same entity that does the extraction does the building, and this is a fundamental differentiation from when it comes to a railway tunnel.

[☭The Revolution☭]

So let me get this straight....

The USA has spent the last 3 years throwing away 15 trillion USD on a reformist nightmare from which no good changes have come, the working class has done nothing but become more oppressed, pollution continues to fill our air, and they're saying that a high speed mass transit system that would save millions of gallons of fuel and be amazingly cheaper than taking a gas guzzling plane is not worth investing in?

Seriously, at this point, I really just fucking hate the US.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So let me get this straight....

The USA has spent the last 3 years throwing away 15 trillion USD on a reformist nightmare from which no good changes have come, the working class has done nothing but become more oppressed, pollution continues to fill our air, and they're saying that a high speed mass transit system that would save millions of gallons of fuel and be amazingly cheaper than taking a gas guzzling plane is not worth investing in?

Seriously, at this point, I really just fucking hate the US.

Who are you talking to? I'm not from the US.

The primary point I'd make is that this plan is bad and not all that well thought out. For the United States, I think a gradual plan establishing decent medium-speed passenger services between many localities would be the best choice, and once this network, combined with extensive expansion of intra-city mass-transportation of all kinds, metros, tramways, improved bus-services, so on, would be working okay, then high-speed railways could be a good investment, in turn fed by the slower services with more frequent stops at interchange stations and so on. Just building a high-speed railway with super-high operational frequency going from nowhere to nowhere (in terms of passenger destinations) will not provide quality in the same quantity.

[Psy]

Who suggested that tunnelling was such an obstacle in itself? I can't remember seeing anyone suggesting that in this thread; but do you have any actual studies to back up this idea that tunnelling is cheaper today? Yes, it requires less labour time to complete, but then we are forgetting that it is a capitalist economy and a lot of additional costs will come, and justified for inflation I cannot imagine that actual costs are much lower than they were in the 1870s.

The law of value devalues commodities across the board over time as the exchange value of the commodity is spread across more units of the commodity as the productivity of production increases.

What this means is you can excavate more for the same exchange value during the 1870's thus why we didn't see open pit mining during the 19th century, labor just wasn't mechanized enough to make it cost effective. For example imagine the cost of the Channel Tunnel in the 1870's without modern machinery (of course not open pit mining but had a high level of labor mechanization).



The increase in commodity prices is in some aspects high enough to offset the increase in capital investment costs. Why do you think so many mines in the West have closed? Safety regulations and falling prices for the commodities eats into the profit margin.

Commodity exchange value and profit margins are different, profit margins tend to shrink as commodities lose value in the market while capitalist are stuck with fixed capital.



And most importantly, it is not very fair to compare mining operations to railway tunnelling, since they have entirely different requirements and purposes and a railway does not pay for itself by any extraction of raw materials, and because when it comes to a mine, the very same entity that does the extraction does the building, and this is a fundamental differentiation from when it comes to a railway tunnel.
National Railways tended to excavate their own tunnels or work with a nationalized mining company.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

National Railways tended to excavate their own tunnels or work with a nationalized mining company.

I don't know in how many cases this has been so, but yes, in some cases they would have their own construction crews and make it efficient in that way (British Railways never did this). But where are there national railways left in these days? Hardly nowhere. Those few that remains are disorganised and corporatised already and operate on exclusive market-terms or they are sordid, underfunded and neglected. And, more relevant, would this be done in the United States? Unless there was some large-scale social re-organisation á la a revolution, I can't see that being done in a thousand years.

And secondly you didn't provide any estimates of tunnelling costs justified for inflation in various times. I'm interesting in seeing those.

[twenty percent tip]

whenp[rofiot if the only motive even public education is "tooexpensive". look at tjos country. we're in the toilet. au de capitalisme

[Psy]

I don't know in how many cases this has been so, but yes, in some cases they would have their own construction crews and make it efficient in that way (British Railways never did this).

Well large private railways also did this in the 19th century.



But where are there national railways left in these days? Hardly nowhere. Those few that remains are disorganised and corporatised already and operate on exclusive market-terms or they are sordid, underfunded and neglected. And, more relevant, would this be done in the United States? Unless there was some large-scale social re-organisation á la a revolution, I can't see that being done in a thousand years.

National Railways came forth from the ideas of the bourgeoisie economist Friedrich List that created the idea of national economics, that argued the benefit of bourgeoisie states forcing industrialization through nationalized industries. The lack of industrialization is not a concern of the US bourgeoisie yet the US is facing a problem of the bourgeoisie not investing enough in fixed capital.



And secondly you didn't provide any estimates of tunnelling costs justified for inflation in various times. I'm interesting in seeing those.
That is hard since each tunnel has different costs due to the geography yet we see far more tunnels were built during the long boom then during the 19th century with far more mechanization of labor.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well large private railways also did this in the 19th century.


National Railways came forth from the ideas of the bourgeoisie economist Friedrich List that created the idea of national economics, that argued the benefit of bourgeoisie states forcing industrialization through nationalized industries. The lack of industrialization is not a concern of the US bourgeoisie yet the US is facing a problem of the bourgeoisie not investing enough in fixed capital.



There's no shortage of transportation capacity in the U.S. as it is, though. After all, why would you waste money on expensive railway infrastructure when you can have the government give you free roads? That's why people drive, those are heavily subsidised, and it's why most of the growth in goods transport (apart from some aspects of long-distance container cargo and heavy bulk goods such as coal and grain) have shifted to decidedly to the roads, and why the U.S. railways have seen little change since the 1940's. The maintenance on the U.S. goods railways are, though not very good, definitely adequate as relates to current operations. They tread the fine line between inadequate maintenance resulting in performance problems on the one hand and the profit margin on the other, as is to be expected.

[Psy]

There's no shortage of transportation capacity in the U.S. as it is, though.

Yes there is, traffic congestion is a limiting factor to the production cycle.



After all, why would you waste money on expensive railway infrastructure when you can have the government give you free roads?

That are congested



That's why people drive, those are heavily subsidised, and it's why most of the growth in goods transport (apart from some aspects of long-distance container cargo and heavy bulk goods such as coal and grain) have shifted to decidedly to the roads, and why the U.S. railways have seen little change since the 1940's. The maintenance on the U.S. goods railways are, though not very good, definitely adequate as relates to current operations. They tread the fine line between inadequate maintenance resulting in performance problems on the one hand and the profit margin on the other, as is to be expected.
Again there is a problem with congestion a problem that dates back to the 1950's with the first expressways and maintenance costs far higher then railways.

[Psy]

And secondly you didn't provide any estimates of tunnelling costs justified for inflation in various times. I'm interesting in seeing those.

Here is an example of old tunneling costs

The Mount Royal Tunnel cost $10 Million in 1918 that today would be about $150 million. In 1918 it was very ambitious project, 5KM electrified double track tunnel made by then privately owned Canadian Northern Railway (CNoR). To finance the tunnel the railway did what large railways did at the time, buy cheap land along the line which it then developed into the town of Mount Royal, this is why railways tended to do their own construction back then since they already had construction departments to build whole towns so they could profit from buying cheap land before anyone knows the railway will go through.

Hmm you know that is still less then $70 million per mile for the high speed rail today. Mount Royal was 150 Million for 5 kilometers so that is $30 million a kilometer so thats around $50 million a mile, and that was offset with land development that national railways have done.

Of course with today's modern mechanization of labor a national railway could tunnel at a fraction of the cost per mile.

[S.Artesian]

Here is an example of old tunneling costs

The Mount Royal Tunnel cost $10 Million in 1918 that today would be about $150 million. In 1918 it was very ambitious project, 5KM electrified double track tunnel made by then privately owned Canadian Northern Railway (CNoR). To finance the tunnel the railway did what large railways did at the time, buy cheap land along the line which it then developed into the town of Mount Royal, this is why railways tended to do their own construction back then since they already had construction departments to build whole towns so they could profit from buying cheap land before anyone knows the railway will go through.

Hmm you know that is still less then $70 million per mile for the high speed rail today. Mount Royal was 150 Million for 5 kilometers so that is $30 million a kilometer so thats around $50 million a mile, and that was offset with land development that national railways have done.

Of course with today's modern mechanization of labor a national railway could tunnel at a fraction of the cost per mile.

Well, gee, why don't we look at some modern railroad construction that included tunneling costs, say like the Channel Tunnel, officially complete in 1994 at sterling 4.65 billion for 50 km, or about $9.2 billion for 30 miles or $300 million/mile.

Or how about the Swiss Gotthard Base Tunnel, distance of about 35 miles, with a total of about 100 miles of shafts and tunnels.. at an estimated $10 billion with completion set for 2016. You think maybe the final cost might exceed the current estimate of $280 million per route mile, or about 100 million per system mile?

So $70 million per mile sounds like a downright bargain to me.

But hey, don't let a little thing like the facts stand in the way of your supposed expertise in rail operations and engineering.

I'll repeat this one more time for all those who think I'm unfairly harsh when I refer to Psy as a clown: he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Psy]

Well, gee, why don't we look at some modern railroad construction that included tunneling costs, say like the Channel Tunnel, officially complete in 1994 at sterling 4.65 billion for 50 km, or about $9.2 billion for 30 miles or $300 million/mile.

Well the Channel Tunnel is a very tricky engineering project, one that will never be encountered in building a California railway unless you plan to go under the San Francisco Bay.

Also you seem to be implying that mechanization of labor does not reduce labor value of tunneling.

[S.Artesian]

I'm implying nothing. I am stating that you don't know what you're talking about, not even a little bit when it comes to any aspect of railroad design, construction or operation.

I'm implying nothing about value and the ratio of fixed assets to unit costs. I'm stating what the costs were/are for actual projects. The fact that those costs discredit your assertions is you problem, not mine.

[Psy]

I'm implying nothing. I am stating that you don't know what you're talking about, not even a little bit when it comes to any aspect of railroad design, construction or operation.

I'm implying nothing about value and the ratio of fixed assets to unit costs. I'm stating what the costs were/are for actual projects. The fact that those costs discredit your assertions is you problem, not mine.

How does it discredit my assertions? Mount Royal Tunnel just the cost of building a railway through rock and they are still lower then cost per mile of the California high speed rail project.