Maybe were not so bad (at major Rail projects) after all...

[onyx39]

Plans for California’s high-speed rail took another one on the chin yesterday as state planners announced that the project would cost more than twice its last estimate — now a jaw-dropping $98.5 billion — and would be completed 13 years behind schedule.

The original cost was estimated in 2008 to be $33 billion and scheduled for completion in 2020.



http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/califo...

[ezakimak]

Thanks, interesting reading. any idea why they need a high speed route there. how does it rate in terms of comparing it to the number of plane flights on a daily basis.

the Melbourne to Sydney air route in australia takes about 1.5 hours flying time and is the fifth busieset air route in the world with something around 80 flights a day. There has been plans for a high speed rail line for ages but it never gets of the ground.

i read a report the trains emit 1/10th of the carbon of a plane per passenger per kilometer and 1/8th of the carbon per pasenger per kilometer when compared to a car so if more of the carbon taxing stuff comes in that will help make it a viable alternative as it will force the cost of the airfairs up.

[Vytalis]

ezakimak said:

There has been plans for a high speed rail line for ages but it never gets of the ground.

I think that is kinda the point.

Edit: a things progress with fuel price and security legislation I get the feeling that there will be an exodus from air travel. It seems to be already happening with ferry crossings over here. The cost of transporting the fuel to airports alone starts to become a contributing factor to the business case, whereas an electric rail system has practical advantage. Rail and ferry coupled with emerging power technologies may be the final nail in the coffin of the dominance of air travel in its current format (especially shorter flghts) with alternative travel having a resurgence. I think the wary investment in rail infrastructure is just starting to take this into account

Edited by Vytalis on Sunday 1st January 13:36

[andytk]

Vytalis said:

I think that is kinda the point.

Edit: a things progress with fuel price and security legislation I get the feeling that there will be an exodus from air travel. It seems to be already happening with ferry crossings over here. The cost of transporting the fuel to airports alone starts to become a contributing factor to the business case, whereas an electric rail system has practical advantage. Rail and ferry coupled with emerging power technologies may be the final nail in the coffin of the dominance of air travel in its current format (especially shorter flghts) with alternative travel having a resurgence. I think the wary investment in rail infrastructure is just starting to take this into account

Edited by Vytalis on Sunday 1st January 13:36

Hmmm, assuming you can ignore the phenominal cost of purchasing the land for railways. The big advantage aircraft have always had (aside from speed) is that an absolute minimal amount of land is required (one large field at each end essentially)

Once you start taking NIMBY's into account, it becomes impossible to build a high speed rail route economically.

I mean, do you think that most taxpayers will be happy to be lumped with the bill (over £1k per family for the UK high speed bondoogle) when most won't even see it, let alone use it?
Aviation had the distinct advantage of being entirely private enterprise. Plus it pays tax. The railways are already a tax sink, building a high speed network will ony make it worse.

The investors that are looking at railways (both here and the USA) are really only interested in heavy freight.

Unless government tax aviation out of existance (which they're trying hard to do), it will retain its dominance.

Classic example; its cheaper for me to travel from London to Glasgow by air (and faster) despite the fact that there it tax on the air ticket and the rail fare is subsidised.

I have nothing against railways but if they're such a great idea, why won't private enterprise build them? (at least without massive loan and revenue guarantees from the taxpayer)

Andy

[davepoth]

California is quite handy for rail because it's quite long and thin. Sacramento to San Diego is 500 miles, more or less. 8 hours by car, maybe 3 by high speed train, city centre to city centre. You'd never do it that fast by air. I imagine there are some powerful special interest groups involved here though, which is why the price has gone up so much.

[Fat Albert]

LA used to have a great Rail network, but then the car lobby gathered power and most of it was torn up....

[Vlad the Imp]

andytk said:

Unless government tax aviation out of existance (which they're trying hard to do), it will retain its dominance.

Andy

You are Micheal O'Leary and ICMFP.

If the government introduced fuel duty and VAT on airline fuel (as paid by other transport sectors) that statement might be true, in the meantime it's just repeating the airline industry's PR

[onyx39]

Fat Albert said:

LA used to have a great Rail network, but then the car lobby gathered power and most of it was torn up....

Same as UK then?