From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.general
Subject: Re: High Speed Rail
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:44:53 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov5.011127.553@sooner> dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:
>	On a flight back from Oklahoma City via Dallas(I'll tell you
>	what, I may not know how to get to Heaven or Hell, but I can 
>	guarantee you, there is a layover in Dallas). I was handed a
>	"Travel Survey" by a Market research company, clearly trying
>	to ascertain the Public's tolerance for High Speed rail fares.

There is a way to figure this one out, and it's done by figuring out
the times that each choice implies.  But after reading the choices I
must admit that some of them are unreasonable.  They'd simply require
too many trains going in too many different directions.

For the questions below, assume that Dallas to Austin is 40 minutes,
which is just about right.  The average times then are -

>	+--------------------------+          +-------------------------+
>	AIR					HIGH SPEED RAIL
>
>	Terminal to Terminal Time		Station to station time
>	 15 minutes more than your		 30 minutes more than
>	 present trip.				 your present trip.
>
>	FREQUENCY		    [  ]	FREQUENCY		[  ]
>	 departs every hour.			 departs every hour.
>	+--------------------------+          +-------------------------+

Air #1 = 30 minute wait + 55 minute trip = 85 minutes
Rail #1 = 30 minute wait + 70 minute trip = 100 minutes

>	+--------------------------+          +-------------------------+
>	HIGH SPEED RAIL			        AIR
>	Station to station time.		Terminal to terminal time
>	 60 minutes more than your		 same travel time as
>	 present trip.				 your present trip.
>
>	FREQUENCY		    [  ]	FREQUENCY		[  ]
>	 departs every half hour.		 departs every 2 hour.
>	+--------------------------+          +-------------------------+

Air #2 = 60 minute wait + 40 minute trip = 100 minutes
Rail #2 = 15 minute wait + 100 minute trip = 115 minutes

The ranking would be Air #1, Rail #1 or Air #2, Rail #2.

However, to have Rail #2 you would have to have quite a few trains on that
track at the same time.  Consider -

Train #1 leaves at 12:00 for Austin from Dallas.
Train #2 leaves at 12:00 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #3 leaves at 12:30 for Austin from Dallas.
Train #4 leaves at 12:30 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #5 leaves at 1:00 for Austin from Dallas.
Train #6 leaves at 1:00 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #7 leaves at 1:30 for Austin from Dallas.
Train #8 leaves at 1:30 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #1 arrives at 1:40 in Austin.
Train #2 arrives at 1:40 in Dallas.
Train #1 leaves at 2:00 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #2 leaves at 2:00 for Austin from Dallas.

Eight trains - just for the Dallas/Austin route.  And those aren't going
to be CHEAP trains either.  The AVERAGE speed for that route is going to
be 120MPH+, which is higher than the peak speeds in the northeast.  Rail #1
is better, because the wait is longer and the trip is shorter -

Train #1 leaves at 12:00 for Austin from Dallas.
Train #2 leaves at 12:00 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #3 leaves at 1:00 for Austin from Dallas.
Train #4 leaves at 1:00 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #1 arrives at 1:10 in Austin.
Train #2 arrives at 1:10 in Dallas.
Train #1 leaves at 2:00 for Dallas from Austin.
Train #2 leaves at 2:00 for Austin from Dallas.

Four trains this time - again, just for the Dallas/Austin route.  These
trains are even more expensive.  A 70 minute trip means an average speed
of about 170MPH.  And that's the AVERAGE.

Yes, the French and Japanese have trains that do this.  But their cities
are much closer and have higher population densities.  We don't which is
why we use planes.

Other issues to be resolved are the length of the train versus the total
number of passengers.  A train with a fewer number of passengers is likely
to have a car that is less full - but the rail owners charge full rental
for using the track, even if the car is empty.  The bad news is that
running more frequently means fewer average passengers per trip.  So the
trip is more expensive because more capital is required to maintain the
schedule =AND= it's more expensive again because of the waste.

High speed rail is a farse.  It is most efficient when the schedule is
very casual.  One or two trips each way in the morning, one or two trips
each way in the evening.  That's four trains total - max.  The trip could
start in San Antonio at 6:00am, arrive in Austin at 7:00am, then arrive
in Dallas at 8:30am.  The opposite train would leave Dallas at 6:00am and
make the same trip in reverse.  This could almost work, but who the hell
wants to wake up at 5:00am to commute to work?  And if you miss the train,
there may not be one for 2 1/2 HOURS.  Starting another train in San
Anontio and Dallas at 7:15am makes great sense.  If you are willing to
spend more money for the trip.

The tracks already exist to give us rail service between Austin and
Dallas with a  2 1/2 hour trip time.  The "speed limit" on most track
capable of handling passenger traffic is 80MPH in this end of the
country (up north it's closer to 120MPH).  But where are the trains?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: tx.general