I’ll add one more. If you take a train to a city, you have to rely on public transportation and taxis once you get there. If the in-city public transit is good, you’ll be fine; but not a lot of U.S. cities can support that. If you’re going to need a car when you get to your destination, that’s one more reason to take your own.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve taken lots of trains in Europe and it was always a great way to get around. (I find it hard to believe that the Shinkansen could be as much better as the OP claims.) I see the U.S. making baby steps in developing that kind of network, but there are reasons why it hasn’t happened, and will be slow in coming.
You’ve got that backwards. The NJ Transit runs on a portion of the Northeast Corridor, which refers to the entire train line from Boston to Washington DC. Trains operated by Amtrak run on all along the route – It isn’t just NJTransit Commuter rail and it doesn’t consist solely of stops in New Jersey. A lot of it is double tracked to allow the skipping of stops; different trains have different numbers of stops along the Northeast Corridor route. For example, the Crescent (NYC-New Orleans) makes more stops along the NE corridor than Acela, less than the Regional; same for the Old Dominion (Boston - Newport News, VA), Silver Star (NYC - Miami) and others.
So if you were to give me absolutely free of charge the infrastructure and a fleet of trains, I could make it profitable, too.
That’s a good point, but remember that public roads are for the public good, and anyone can use them absolutely free of charge (i.e., they’re included in your taxes). Aside from personal transportation, they open up the possibility of the exchange of goods and services. Contrast this with the Acela. It’s used only for the transportation of people, and there’s a user fee in addition to all of taxpayer subsidies for capital costs. Are the passengers commuters? Are they business travellers? What are their socio-economic demographics? With the competition from the same routes, it seems that only people of means are using the service. Infrastructure is supposed to be a public good, and this certainly doesn’t appear to be one. It’s like using taxpayer dollars to build expensive toll roads that only the rich can use!
I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I think the number one issue is, even for the densly settled, culturally pro-train European countries, cost. I’m ready to bet that the Japanese state sponsors the Shinkansen to a much greater extent than the European countries sponsor their trains. Partly that’s necessity - there is no room in Japan to ever let a car culture develop - no room for highways or parking space. So public transport is the only option, and people have gotten used to that.
If we compare Japan to Europe, only some countries have similar kind of budget though - the southern and eastern countries don’t count, they are pretty broke.
The UK privatized their train system, and private companies won’t invest into a system with that high ground cost and not guaranteed profit. That’s why the state builds and runs public transport in the first place - it’s for the benefit of the community and part of the infrastructure, not something to make profit off. (Only the US sees this different and therefore sinks any project that wouldn’t make profit as being socialist and costing the state too much; all other benefits or comparisions are ignored in these discussions by the nay-sayers. We’ve had this several times before on the board).
France has the TGV and the regional network, which works very well (except for a few strikes now and then :)), but compare how big France is to Japan!
Germany has privatized the Bahn, no matter how many people said that’s dumb, and the Bahn management is hell-bent on competing with established cheap airlines by making customers mad. To explain fuller, they spend millions on the tracks to save 15 mins on a 2hr 30 ride. Yes, nice, and you can calculate how much that saves in the long run. And yes, the ICE only needs 6 hours to Hamburg, which is much faster than a car … but the plane only needs 1 hr, so if there’s a business meeting now, I’ll have to fly.
Because of the many investments and other costs, the train tickets are expensive. To counter the cheap airlines who advertise “Flying for the price of a cab” (10 Euros, then 20 - plus all the fees, but that’s small print on the posters), the Bahn started a campaign “Travel with the super saving price of 29 Euros”. Only hitch - these tickets are always sold out. You might get a saving price of 39 or 49 Euros - but that’s close to customer card prices already. And you are bound to that combination (not always the best, often in the early morning, late evening or with too many changes) in order to get the cheap price. So a lot of people would like to the Bahn, but can’t afford it. *
*Yes, I know that properly considered, a 100 km with the car is not only the cost of gasoline - high here - but additonally the cost of insurance, tax, inspections, write-off etc. Tax office considers some 0.50 Euros per km travelled by car, and the ADAC says that’s far too low, they calculate some 0.70 Euros.
But that’s not how the average citizen calculates - the car is there already anyway, so he only thinks of the gasoline price, but my, the Bahn is expensive!
My understanding is that the current US rail network is old and decrepit in many places, in some cases the last major overhaul being right after the Civil War, and that most tracks are not built to the tolerances necessary for high speed travel (the rail spacing tolerance being unacceptable at bullet train speeds, but OK for lumbering freight and conventional passenger servce).
Again… not at all relevant to my OP… which is why high speed rail in Japan is so much better in practical terms of safety, punctuality and perception than it is anywhere else in the world.
This is slightly off-topic, but as a fellow German who’s quite fond of rail transport I’d like to defend them against these attacks, which one can hear a lot in Germany but which are not entirely justified in my opinion. I think Deutsche Bahn is far better than Germans claim it is, especially in international comparison.
You’re complaining about high fares, while admitting that there are discount tickets available - but these, you say, are “always sold out”. Sure, the €29 tickets are hard to get, because they sell out quickly, but if you book well in advance there’s a realistic chance of getting one. The €39 and €49 tickets are relatively easily available, even if you book just a few days in advance - but the same goes for air fares, where the really cheap prices are sold out quite early as well, and if you book later you pay significantly more. Plus, you can get a further 25 % discount on the already discounted fare with a customer card that costs you just fifty something euros a year - only a few round trips a year will amortise that.
Of course, the discounted tickets are bound to a specific route, time, and day - but again, the same goes for air tickets.
Then you compare net flying times for air transit with net time on the track for rail transit - but you disregard the fact that total travelling time on domestic flights is much more than just net time airborne. You have to get to the airport, you have to clear security, if you want to check in luggage you need to do that…you get the idea. Of course net time on the track is also augmented by things such as getting to the railway station etc. for rail transit - but to a much smaller extent, at least for intercity ICE connections between the major urban areas.
Another advantage, which makes many business people prefer rail over air domestically, is the fact that working while on transit is much more easily possible on trains - you don’t need to switch off your laptop for take-off and landing, you can use wireless internet throughout, etc. And of course leg space and working areas are much more ample and spacious on trains than airplanes, even in business class.
To sum it up, I think that the high-speed ICE trains, the latest generaton of which makes about 330 kmph = 210 mph, are domestically really competitive to planes, and certainly to cars, both in terms of time and also in prices. The reluctance of many Germans to take Deutsche Bahn is often not the result of actual disadvantages of rail as compared to other means of transport, but just an irrational aversion, the notoriously but unjustifiably bad reputation of Deutsche Bahn, and the unwillingness to get your maths right and calculate how much a car ride really costs.
Well, the Twentieth Air Force did Japan the “favor” of removing most old infrastructure in the way of redevelopment, including 35 % of Osaka, 40% of Nagoya, 51% of Tokyo, and 75% or more of 6 other cities. I don’t know for a fact that having this tabula rasa helped speed the development of high-speed rail in Japan, but I suspect it has.
Oh, and I might add that Deutsche Bahn has not been privatised, even though that would be high time (or höchste Eisenbahn, if you allow the pun). It has been turned from a government department into a corporation under private law; but all shares in this corporation are owned by the federal government, and while the Bahn management is professional, business-like and does not share the old civil servant mindset that was responsible for annual losses of hundreds of millions (as compared to today’s profits of billions each year), there is still considerably government influence over Bahn policy. The logical next step would be an IPO, but in the presnet situation on the stock markets this is not going to happen too soon.
Ah, you say “running it” - what about the investments for tracks? Who does the research for trains, who buys the trains? Hidden subsidies? I don’t know, but I can’t imagine that, if the Shinkansen as a whole is “unprofitable” (as has been said before) that all the costs are borne by private companies.
The Deutsche Bahn was state-sponsored before it was privatized, and a lot of tracks were therefore built with state money, for example.
Compare American rail travel with air travel, though. For air travel, the government maintains the infrastructure (airports and the air traffic control system) and private carriers use it to operate, hopefully, at a profit. In most of the country, rail is exactly the opposite, a public carrier running on privately-owned tracks. So why not public rail infrastructure?
(It should be noted that anyone with the means can buy a plane and use the airspace, but few do.)
Again, Deutsche Bahn is not a privately-owned corporation.
As to the state-funded network of tracks: The privatisation scheme I would favour (and many economists would favour too, even though the federal government seems to prefer a different approach to the disappointment of many) would be to either keep the track network state-owned, or privatise it but as a separate company. Deutsche Bahn, just like any other rail operator, would pay fees to the network operator for the privilege of using the network, at non-subsidised rates. That way, externalities would be internalised, and rail fare would represent the actual infrastructure cost.
I understand that this is how the British rail system was privatised - a system that is, incidentally, far better than its reputation, at least when I was using it (I have English friends, though, who say it really was bad until a few years ago).
To sum it up, at least in Europe it is perfectly possible to operate a non-subsidised competitive network of high-speed intercity rail transport - in fact, this segment is the biggest cash cow of many European rail operators. Whether this is true for America is a different question.
Well, compared to the terrible US system, sure it’s better. But I don’t compare to the bottom standard, I compare to the old DB or to what could be improved. You know - things might be moderatly good, but they could be much better, so Germans will complain.
Oh come on. Really, I almost always take a train - I don’t have the option of car, because I don’t even have a license, and airplanes are mostly out because of enviroment and that stupid security idiocy now. I don’t know where or when you drive, but I’ve driven regularly from Munich to NRW this and the past year, and spent hours trying combinations, searching for that wonderful 29,- ticket, and never once seen it. The 39,- is almost always sold out, too, and the 49,- is not a lot of saving. I also have given in and bought a Bahn card 25 now, but that still doesn’t change that the Bahn is much more expensive than previous.
Only with air, I have a wide choice between different companies, and therefore times. Two or three years ago, I went to the UK - I got the London special for the way to, but for the return trip, the system didn’t want to let me book, so I gave in and booked a plane back. That was about one third of the special price for one-way Munich-Birmingham.
Then you compare net flying times for air transit with net time on the track for rail transit - but you disregard the fact that total travelling time on domestic flights is much more than just net time airborne. You have to get to the airport, you have to clear security, if you want to check in luggage you need to do that…you get the idea. Of course net time on the track is also augmented by things such as getting to the railway station etc. for rail transit - but to a much smaller extent, at least for intercity ICE connections between the major urban areas.
Hey, I know quite well how long it takes to get to the airport, get through security, get from the airport to the city center and all. But when my boss tells me to get to Hamburg ASAP, I can’t argue with him that 6 hrs. plus city travel time is preferable to 45 min. + 30 min + 1 hr. + 30 min of flight. When I know today I have to be there tomorrow, I can take the late evening train. And when I travel privatly, I prefer the train (Aside from the cost). But I can understand the argument that business people will default to planes, and I think it’s stupid of the Bahn to concentrate solely and exclusivly on trying to beat planes at the expense of all the other branches. I wish the government would wise up (fat chance, I know) and tell the Bahn that as part of the infrastructure, they have to provide service out in the countryside, too, instead of shutting down side routes to play with their shiny new ICEs. Yes, they are cool, and it’s a nice thing to travel from Frankfurt to Düsseldorf in a few hours, but there are other people besides Men In Suits who need the train also.
Yes, that’s why I’m favour of public transport generally, and what I see as big advantage to cars - you can read or work or sleep instead of concentrating on driving, being stuck in a traffic jam or cursing at that idiot in front of you.
And since the cheap airlines have cut all the luxury from flying and it has become coach, where you have to buy your sandwich, while the Bahn offers free newspapers and seat-service for first class, it’s possible to travel in style with the Bahn, too.
Hey, if I ever win the lottery, I’ll get myself a BahnCard 100 1st class (not worthwile now, though), because I like the Bahn. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t improve.
I did cite how people calculate cars too cheap! I don’t make that mistake. The most common reason people I know give for taking the car over public transport or train are:
Too much luggage (and hauling around a bunch of suitcases or stuff is a hassle)
Bad service out in the country/ late at night (usually correct, it’s lousy outside the cities)
As for bad service - all the commuters who have to take the train regularly, esp. the regional, not-cool ICE trains, complain about the trains being late all the time and no information about it. And Pro Bahn complains rightly about how badly the counter crews are trained regarding help navigating the ticket system. Which must’ve been written by some evil scamster.
An example on how the ticket system is set up to take more money from the customer than necessary (and needlessly complicated): In summer I wanted to travel from Munich to NRW with a bike. There’s one EC non-stop, but that was booked out already. Then there was an IC connection with one change. I had to buy a ticket for my bike, and the reservation would be free - but there was no reservation left over for one bike! However, the counter person found one seat reservation for one person plus bike for each train - twice 7,50 Euro!. So 1 bike + 1 seat = available, but 1 bike + 0 seats = booked out? Something’s not right in that system.
There are some connections which are needlessly complicated or could have different, better, change-overs, but which never, ever show up as possible ticket routes. Only if I would buy a full price ticket could I choose the best route.
Yes, I keep forgetting that they are not technically a stock company yet, because of all the slashings of services and people they took to get ready for the stock market. And the “civil service” mindset of old I don’t find as bad as the current mindset of “suck it up, we’re in it to make a lot of money” that the managers of the last decade show. The actual low-level employees are friendly, yes, but I didn’t have trouble with them before, either. And they aren’t able to go beyond the rules anymore now than before, either - now, because their job is on the line if the go against corporate rules.
I don’t think it was the civil-servant mindset that created losses as much as the requirement to keep services in rural regions that cost a lot of money with little travellers, but necessary for infrasturcture; the new Bahn slashed there right and left. Look at the neglected state of most train stations outside the big cities (and Stuttgart 21) - that wasn’t previously. Or look at how low the wages of the private regional companies are.
