Shinkansen is coming to Texas

[Demetrius]

Hey everyone! We all love our little shinkansen models and love riding on them even more over in Japan. For those of you who live in the US, your calls to have the shinkansen to be built here have been answered.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U97lI7UmHiI

 

In the video above, I interview the President of the Texas Central Railway company, Judge Robert Eckels, whose company is partnered with JR Central to bring the N700-I from Dallas to Texas.

[Guest keio6000]

Thank you for a very professional and informative interview.  Unfortunately, it was with this guy:

 

 

 

 

i truly hope this guy's "company" is not receiving a dime of tax money "think-tanking" on this project that will not happen anytime soon.  The guy talks about the positives but has no real answers for any of the many very serious obstacles to this project.  Obviously this cannot be built with private money and never will be.   However, even if we accept that this guy is just BSing about "private money" to open the door to eventual government investment, it still strikes me as nonsense.  The TCR's slick web page doesn't have anything that even pretends to be a financial business case for this train - all that we hear is a claim that there are currently 50,000 "super communters" apparently who travel between dallas and houston multiple times per week.  One of the major disadvantages of high speed rail is that it pushes virtually everybody into the same pricing categories. 

 

- one way on megabus on the route costs you $9 currently.

- the route currently takes 4h by car, door to door, and costs around $36 at current US petrol prices.

- one way on an airplane costs around $100-$150.

 

i can't see how there is a real market for a train in this environment.  even if the track, station, right of way, and trains were free, i doubt this company could cover its daily running costs without a subsidy.

 

TCR marketing bullshit:

"Sophisticated: A variety of retail stores, restaurants and shops located in passenger stations, each with a distinctly Texas style of service provided by well-trained staff who are eager to please."

 

Sorry, but this is a well meaning pipe dream at best, and a small con job at worst.

 

The question you should have asked him is: Who currently pays for your washington office, slick website, and other expenses?

 

And of course, talking about a specific model train (N700i) at this stage of the game is barking mad.

 

If i'm wrong (this is to the guy you interviewed), show us the numbers.  how much would a ticket cost on this thing?  how would passengers reach their destinations from the station?  please provide door to door exmaples including times and costs.

 

I'm no fan of buses, but I'd suggest that a guided busway that is engineered to allow operations at speeds of around 120mph makes infinitely more sense here and for non-coastal USA in general.

[kvp]

The business case could be that they could provide a price/speed point between airplanes and buses. The real question is if there will be enough travelers to support the system. Without the government funding that goes into highway maintenance, a train operator could not go down to bus prices, while track maintenance is even higher than airport fees. People who travel by car can mostly be removed from the equation, as many won't switch to train because that is not door to door. Bus and plane travellers are already using mass transit, so they would be as happy with a train as with a bus or plane. To be viable the train must be as cheap as a bus (for 3rd/cattle class) and as fast and comfortable as a plane (for 1st/gran and 2nd/business class) to attract both passenger groups. This could even require separating passengers even on the station floor, but that's doable. The only question is if they can be as cheap as a bus and as fast as an airplane without getting the government subsidies that bus operators get with cheap, taxpayer maintained roads. Most of Japan's shinkansen network is government funded, except the financially profitable Tokaido route. The estimated passenger numbers between the Tokyo-Osaka route and the Texas-Houston route is imho very different. This difference can be the decisive factor between financially viable and non viable. Based on the numbers above, the right price would be 9-10 usd for a 3rd class and 80-100 usd for 1st class. We could check the plane/bus passenger figures, train capacity and frequencies, operating costs and see if what would work.

[Demetrius]

I understand where you are coming from, Keio. According to TCR, a mix of the funding will be from private investors (debt and equity) and federal loans may be on the table. Seeing that JR Central is heavily involved with the mapping and planning, I'm sure that it's not as pipes dreamy as California's HSR fiasco.

Florida is doing a similar project as well, however the lines already exist for a majority of the route, they've began construction of immense stations and buildings, and they'll be running a Siemens diesel electric that'll run 125mph - for about the 5th of the cost.

They're both private companies claiming to connect two of the largest cities in their respective states, but the largest money maker, in Japan and in Hong Kong (both run mixes of private rail services) is not entirely the tickets, but rather the real estate, development and the stations. Of course they'll lose money the first 5 or so years, but long term, it will ultimately be a profit.

[speedie]

When looking at the economics of HSR you need to look at the big picture and the long term. HSR is a commuter train for business people and those who want safe but fast transportation. These people will never take a bus. The real competiition is airlines. The idea that these types of projects should not be publicly funded in some way is absurd. The projects are beneficial to the public and promote economic growth. If the same mentality existed in the fifties the national highway system would never have been built. I dont think anyone today would say the highway system was a money wasted project, yet it cost billions of tax payer dollars to build and took decades to pay off. Our roadways are too congested and fuel costs will rise again and make airlines more expensive, never mind that air travel is also getting too congested. Transportaion planning for any large city in the U.S. has to include HSR if it is to meet the publc's needs. I agree that these projects need to be properly vetted from a cost standpoint but to say they are not needed, or should not be publically funded, denies reality and lacks vision.

[kvp]

 

If the same mentality existed in the fifties the national highway system would never have been built. 

Let's see... that would mean most of the freight would still move on rails, as most people who want to travel long distance. Wouldn't that be so bad? Environmentally and even financially (at least nowdays) it would be more profitable to use rail travel and transportation only for medium to long distances. Also if the government money spent on national highways could have been used to speed up and increase capacity on long distance rail routes, which would be even more profitable for businesses. But of course in that era of cheap fuel the environment wasn't a concern and road transportation costs were low.

 

 

HSR is a commuter train for business people and those who want safe but fast transportation. These people will never take a bus. 

That's not much of a market in the US and could be served by airlines just fine. The trains need so much infrastructure, that they can only be profitable if most highway traffic (passengers and freight) is moved onto the rails and not across them. This means both business people and the poorest commuters. Building heavy infrastructure, especially if government money is involved for those people who could afford to fly is just wasting money.

[katoftw]

I'm no fan of buses, but I'd suggest that a guided busway that is engineered to allow operations at speeds of around 120mph makes infinitely more sense here and for non-coastal USA in general.

Do you mean 120kph?  I don't see a bus doing 192kph.  Building and engineering a BRT laneway that allows buses to travel at that speed safely, then you might as well spend the money on engineering a railway that allows 260kph.

 

60 minute flights with boarding and exit times, so anywhere between 90 to 120 minutes.  And maybe even more time in transportation between the airport and city center.

 

BRT @ 192kph = 120 minutes + 10-20 mins boarding and exit times.

 

But realisticly I buses traveling safely at 120kph, so 3h12m + 10-20min boarding/exit.

 

So a HSR @ 260kph is the only viable answer to slot in between the available options.  90 minutes travel time with boarding and exiting time similar to buses.  Otherwise commuters will just use the same options that are already available.

Edited May 23, 2015 by katoftw

[Guest keio6000]

When looking at the economics of HSR you need to look at the big picture and the long term. HSR is a commuter train for business people and those who want safe but fast transportation. These people will never take a bus. The real competiition is airlines. The idea that these types of projects should not be publicly funded in some way is absurd. The projects are beneficial to the public and promote economic growth. If the same mentality existed in the fifties the national highway system would never have been built. I dont think anyone today would say the highway system was a money wasted project, yet it cost billions of tax payer dollars to build and took decades to pay off. Our roadways are too congested and fuel costs will rise again and make airlines more expensive, never mind that air travel is also getting too congested. Transportaion planning for any large city in the U.S. has to include HSR if it is to meet the publc's needs. I agree that these projects need to be properly vetted from a cost standpoint but to say they are not needed, or should not be publically funded, denies reality and lacks vision.

 

i'm not arguing against HSR.  i'm saying that this particular plan will not happen and that it is dishonest of this particular plan's pushers to be plowing ahead claiming to not need public money without so much as a basic business case laid out.   Please don't put words in my mouth and please retract your idiotic "lacks vision" comment, assuming it was directed at me.

[Guest keio6000]

Do you mean 120kph?  I don't see a bus doing 192kph.  Building and engineering a BRT laneway that allows buses to travel at that speed safely, then you might as well spend the money on engineering a railway that allows 260kph.

 

60 minute flights with boarding and exit times, so anywhere between 90 to 120 minutes.  And maybe even more time in transportation between the airport and city center.

 

BRT @ 192kph = 120 minutes + 10-20 mins boarding and exit times.

 

But realisticly I buses traveling safely at 120kph, so 3h12m + 10-20min boarding/exit.

 

So a HSR @ 260kph is the only viable answer to slot in between the available options.  90 minutes travel time with boarding and exiting time similar to buses.  Otherwise commuters will just use the same options that are already available.

 

A railway has very high fixed costs.  Once it's built, it can't be moved.  This is very much unlike, say, Buses and planes, where resources can be moved to match demand.

Yes, I did mean 120mph buses on a guided, segregated busway.  The costs of making a guided busway are much less than making fixed rail   The buses can be repurposed and perhaps even the system can be built along existing infrastructures.  A high speed guided busway approaching 200km/hr probably requires a frictionless system.   The huge advantage of a busway is that it requires no specialized investment in the end cities.  When it approaches the outskirts of a destination city, it can resume operation on normal roads to the station.  Alternatively, even if a

 

Yes, technology needs to be developed. But the expected cost for this is tiny compared to shinkansen and the system would be immediately expandable as necessary.  Most importantly, it matches Texas' geographic and political needs.

 

HSR - or at least "limited express speed R" for florida makes more sense.

[katoftw]

Yes, I did mean 120mph buses on a guided, segregated busway.  The costs of making a guided busway are much less than making fixed rail   The buses can be repurposed and perhaps even the system can be built along existing infrastructures.  A high speed guided busway approaching 200km/hr probably requires a frictionless system.   The huge advantage of a busway is that it requires no specialized investment in the end cities.  When it approaches the outskirts of a destination city, it can resume operation on normal roads to the station. 

This is alot of money to spend to improve a small section.  Dallas to Housten is roughly 384km from each city center.  So if a BRT section of 300km was made from outskirt to outskirt.  You are only speeding up the sections where buses already travel at 100kph.

 

It is currently is a 5 hour bus trip. Taking the 300km section where buses already do 100kph and attempting to go 200kph (I'm doubtful off buses travelling this fast).  Then you have saved 1.5 hours of the trip.  90 minutes saving for completely newly designed and engineered buses and 300km of BRT laneway?  So 210 minute trip? 

 

But if you built 84km of BRT laneway from city centers to the outskirts, then have buses run 100kph on normal highways and BRT laneways, then the trip takes 230 minutes, (70 minute saving).  And no new designed buses saving huges amount of $$$.  And 226KM less BRT laneways built saving more $$$.

 

But the problem I see with both these models is they are only saving 70 to 90 minutes travel time from 300 minutes.  I don't see anyone switching to these options if they don't have much extra time bonuses compared to current buses.  You need to be much closer to the airlines 60-90 minutes before people will wanna switch.

Edited May 23, 2015 by katoftw

[cteno4]

But the issue here even with short air trips is now it usually takes up to 2 and even 3 hrs on the front end of plane trips here in many metro areas by the time you figure in the traffic, trip, parking, security, etc. then a good hour on the other end. This is the issue on the dc/ny trip and why rail is so successful here. Getting into the station here can take time, but if you use the metro it's pretty much leave an hour ahead. Then at the ny end you are pretty much w.in a sort cab or subway ride of most of the general stuff there.,it works well enough at the 2.5-3 hr train trip that they can price it just below the airplane shuttle price and turn a good profit. The pricing works even with a heavy bus alternatives that are ultra cheap now as the bus has a bad stigma still and traffic can expand a 4.5-5 hr bus trip into 6+ compared to the 3 hr or less train for basically the same end points.

 

One thing I'm still baffled about is why business has not embraced teleconferencing a lot more and jsut cut out a lot of mundane travel. I've used it so successfully on projects doing even design meetings with the right setups 20 years back. Even better for production meetings as you can do so many more but shorter checkin meetings with dispersed groups. Yes you need to set up the relationships first, but that can be partofmthe project meetings in the early phases and then work in the teleconferencing as folks know each other. It's all about being smart which meetings you do virtually when. I was always surprised at how much the bank my wife worked for would spend on a meeting trip that was really not anything that important and they were pretty savvy with tech, teleconferncing, virtual offices, etc... Never seemed to be much thought into what should be virtual and what in person.

 

Jeff

[bikkuri bahn]

If the airlines in the U.S. were like ANA or JAL, I would understand that HSR would be a tall order, but throw in TSA lines with its grabbing junk/scanning and US customer service, I would see intercity travellers seeing HSR as an attractive alternative.

[kvp]

A cheap highway bus system can be built easily by placing the intercity bus terminals on the highway end points with a good urban mass transit connection. This allows people to go to the bus anyway they like (bus, metro, taxi) take the bus and do the same at the other end. Highway congestion can be avoided if you mark a BRT bus lane in the inner lane, like the freight lane on the outside. It works on any 3+ lane highways and now you have a nice slow lane for trucks slow and high speed lanes for cars and bus lane for the high speed highway buses. Most standard ones can go around 160 km/h, at least based on the top speed markers i see on european highway buses. Being in the inner lane means most traffic won't disturbe them and the mostly empty bus lane can be used by emergency vehicles in case of an accident. The 160 km/h top speed is similar to what you can achive with non rebuilt conventional double track lines used in mixed freight/high speed passenger mode.

 

A true high speed like has to be faster than this, have the same conventionally placed terminals (or be routed fully into the city centers) and to be a real mass transit, it has to cost the same as the mostly government funded bus system. One option is to provide the tracks free or cheaply as in case of the highways, but there is usually no money to maintain two separate systems, so this model would have to choose between highways and rails. Private money will only arrive is there is a good business case and without taking account the poor migrant workers, who are more than 50% of the travelers, you can't make a good land transportation case in the US, only around high density urban areas, like the east coast corridor, which already has a good and profitable rail service.

 

Another option for high speed rail is high speed commuting, for example a new commuter line in San Francisco to serve the employees of tech companies now transported by private bus would be viable, but the distance there is relatively short. This falls into the urban transportation category, which makes up most of the profits of the JR companies. Maybe US high speed rail builders should start there and build a 120-180 mph grade separated commuter rail system in each big city they want to serve. Then later these networks can be connected by a higher than 200 mph rail link. The commuter systems then could be used to pick up and drop off passengers around each city, near their destination by mixing commuter and high speed trains within the city limits (with separate platforms at stations). Many high speed lines in Germany and Austria do exactly this, resulting in a high utilisation rate for the rails and getting profits from both intercity express and statsbahn (city train) services. This also lowers the construction costs for each service and commuter trains can also serve as feeders for the high speed network.

[toc36]

This is one of my favorite blogs.  Lots of stuff on rail and light rail:  http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/category/rail-and-mass-transit

 

Right now in the DC area, they are looking at $230M-$250M, yes millions for each mile of the Metro.

 

Here is a recent research report on AMTRAK:  http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013/03/01%20passenger%20rail%20puentes%20tomer/passenger%20rail%20puentes%20tomer.pdf

 

Here are links to some recent articles:   

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/05/07/amtrak-turns-40-called-a-massive-failure-by-its-founder/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/01/amtrak-loses-a-ton-of-money-each-year-it-doesnt-have-to/

http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/05/freakonomics-quorum-can-amtrak-ever-be-profitable/

 

Of note, only 3 of 44 routes are profitable. 

OBTW, it take me 11 hours to drive from my home just south of DC to Chicago.  It takes almost two days by AMTRAK.

[Guest keio6000]

 

Right now in the DC area, they are looking at $230M-$250M, yes millions for each mile of the Metro.

 

the toei oedo line cost upward of usd $400m per mile if my math and assumptions are reasonable.

the critical difference, of course, is the oedo line has up to 800,000 users per day = this is more than the daily ridership of te entire dc metro system.

 

 

[kvp]

 

OBTW, it take me 11 hours to drive from my home just south of DC to Chicago. It takes almost two days by AMTRAK.

If you don't count the east and west coast higher speed routes, then Amtrak essentially operates as a passenger carrying freight service, so the speeds are comparable with other freights on the lines and if they would be allowed, then long distance passenger trains on most Amtrak routes would consist of 80-100 container flats with one or two combine coaches for mail and passengers.

 

 

Right now in the DC area, they are looking at $230M-$250M, yes millions for each mile of the Metro.

I was speaking about city train services, so essentially at grade or semi street running heavy rail with some lightly elevated or cut and cover sections in downtown areas. Mostly the old streetcar networks, but with 10-12 car heavy rail trains. The costs for these are way less than for building a metro line, but i'm not sure people would choose noisy, street covering elevated lines over underground tunnels or allowing heavy rail into most city centers. (i'm sure motorists and pedestrians would rediscover that the trains are stronger and can't stop on a dime within the first few months after the first 1000 or so street level accidents) Imho this is the only cheap way to bring heavy rail back into most cities, since proper underground lines are too expensive. Also trains can't really handle the low density residential zones that are so popular in the US, but park and ride only works if at least one end of the commute is at a high density area (so either the industrial/office area has to be high density or even better the residential too for mass transit to be viable).

 

The only chance for the Texas project is that land is cheap there, the quality of the line doesn't have to be at Japan level (so ground level running is ok) and there might be an existing low and high end commuter market between the two cities. (currently using bus and planes) The existence and size of this market is the big quiestion.

[toc36]

One point to realize is that Japan has a population that is approximately 40% of the US living in a land mass the size of California, of which only about 10%-15% is able to be urbanized due to the mountainous terrain. Japan has very dense corridors where the major population centers are aligned linearly. 

 

Similarly, AMTRACK's North-East Corridor that runs between DC-Baltimore-Philidelphia-NYC-Boston and is the only profitable line.  San Diego to LA break even.

 

Even where land is cheap (Arizona), passenger rail requires substantial subsidies.

 

The unfortunate truth is that little is done for the benefit of the public.  If a rail system is built, it will done because some politician wants to give his friends money from the taxpayers.

Edited May 28, 2015 by toc36

[Mudkip Orange]

Thank you for a very professional and informative interview.  Unfortunately, it was with this guy:

 

Eckels is a serious player who has a political and legal career going back to the 1970s. He ran Harris County (home of Houston) for awhile, a position which in Texas politics is confusingly called "judge."

 

Your 120mph busway is straight out of The Onion:

 

[kvp]

 

Your 120mph busway is straight out of The Onion:

Make it 130 km/h (~80 mph) and move the bus into the inner lane and you have a real working american solution. It's about half of what a basic high speed train can do, but at basically no cost. Afaik there is already a highway in Texas that has an 80 mph speed limit and it's a pretty standard speed limit in Europe (in Germany even more than that is allowed). Most newer european buses can go well above 80 mph, so even 100-120 would be realistic, especially on dedicated lanes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq7VDIye4K8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16BGwDs92Hg) It's not as energy efficient as a high speed electric train, but much cheaper due to the low cost of fuel in the US and the government funded road network.

[katoftw]

Good old Onion Report. haha

[railsquid]

Texas bullet train 'one step' closer to reality

 

... Walmart to get ammo deliveries by rail...?

[Kb4iuj]

Houston to DFW... Let's hope they go over every road like they do in Japan.

 

But, is there really that much demand to go to Houston ? Course, having rode the Texas Express bi-level train to Ft. Worth and back to Dallas. And found that it was just as slow as the Miami to Palm Beach "Tri-Rail" metro rail. Which ironically Robert Crandall ex-CEO of American Airlines is against a N700 like train from Miami to Orlando. As I guess he probably is thinking American Airlines is going to miss out on some customers and no telling how many car crashes and bus accidents along the I-95 & Turnpike traffic corridor. They'll be missing out of. It's cheaper to have a advanced high speed rail system in place which will pay for itself over time as opposed to relying on insurance payouts from maybe Obamacare or from some International travel insurance companies.

 

As will they really pay to get someone back 100% well again ?

[bikkuri bahn]

But, is there really that much demand to go to Houston ?

 

3 million passengers/year, so not too shabby.  Not in the top 10, but most of those routes are long distance continental or interregional, with only San Francisco- LA and LA-LV being shorter distance and thus within the HSR route length sweet spot. Must also figure in induced demand and population growth.

 

http://blog.airtimesapp.com/2013/08/26/americas-busiest-air-routes.html#.VepsT7vovVI

 

Course, having rode the Texas Express bi-level train to Ft. Worth and back to Dallas. And found that it was just as slow as the Miami to Palm Beach "Tri-Rail" metro rail.

 

Heavens!  please don't equate these with what will be offered.  It's like saying a ride on a Model T is the same as on a M-Benz S class :) It really is a different galaxy.