[cube]

Cube, allow me to ignore your question, as amortizing infrastructure costs over a one-year operating period for any system seems a bit disingenuous, and pose another one.

So you believe paying $172,084 per passenger is a cheap price?
Please allow me to be blunt. No matter how you slice and dice it that is a FCUKING rip off.
The south Korean taxpayers took it up the ass real hard on that one.
Admit it emersonbiggins, for that much money it would of been cheaper to just build a freeway and buy a $12,000 Hyundai for everybody instead.

How many trillions (in current value) in airport infrastructure was de facto turned over from the defense department to individual cities across the U.S., after WWII, (many for one single dollar) to benefit the civilian and commercial aviation industry, and why was all of this absent from balance sheets that would indicate a large subsidy towards airlines? Concrete runways are among the most cost-intensive infrastructures placed on planet Earth.

Haven't we gone over this?
ALL forms of transport are subsidized.
If it was up to me I'd pull the plug on all subsidies and let the puzzle pieces fall wherever they may.
//
What would the world look like in such a scenario?
Obviously there would be much less freeways and airlines but your HSR dream would surely go down the tubes. Nobody would pay that type of money if they had to pay it out of pocket.

[pogoliamo]

Airlines are the cheapest form of travel?

Allow me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-pauses-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahh, thanks for that.

1€ seats on EasyJet are a marketing gimmick, not a viable business strategy.

Yes, airlines are cheapest form of travel. Not only that, they are the fastest, the most energy efficient and ... the most ecological way to travel. That is the reason why they actually make money most of the time.



And more material for you to laugh on -

This is also the reason they got abused the most and billions of people are wasting resources flying around with no purpose. Ah, I forgot, they apparently are considered to be the most pleasant and enjpyable form of travel.

[emersonbiggins]

Airlines are the cheapest form of travel?

Allow me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-pauses-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahh, thanks for that.

1€ seats on EasyJet are a marketing gimmick, not a viable business strategy.

Yes, airlines are cheapest form of travel. Not only that, they are the fastest, the most energy efficient and ... the most ecological way to travel. That is the reason why they actually make money most of the time.

[citation needed]

High-speed rail is SEVEN TIMES as efficient as an airliner, during typical loading conditions.

Here's a link to get you started: strickland.ca

I must admit - you're getting the hook caught in my mouth.

[emersonbiggins]

Cube, allow me to ignore your question, as amortizing infrastructure costs over a one-year operating period for any system seems a bit disingenuous, and pose another one.

So you believe paying $172,084 per passenger is a cheap price?
Please allow me to be blunt. No matter how you slice and dice it that is a FCUKING rip off.
The south Korean taxpayers took it up the ass real hard on that one.
Admit it emersonbiggins, for that much money it would of been cheaper to just build a freeway and buy a $12,000 Hyundai for everybody instead

I dunno; one the one hand, it IS a lot of money. On the other hand, the rails themselves might have a useful life of 100+ years, making the inflation-adjusted cost seem pretty minimal. It's a gamble, and they took it. Unfortunately, they took it at a highly inopportune time for building infrastructure in general, in years where material cost doubling times were measured in months, not years.

I shudder to think what the interstate system would cost were we to build it from scratch, starting today.

I'll throw out $5 trillion, as a starting point.

[cube]

...
Yes, airlines are cheapest form of travel. Not only that, they are the fastest, the most energy efficient and ... the most ecological way to travel. That is the reason why they actually make money most of the time.

Well.......technically speaking......if you have a car that's paid off, there's nothing cheaper than carpooling.

[emersonbiggins]

...
Yes, airlines are cheapest form of travel. Not only that, they are the fastest, the most energy efficient and ... the most ecological way to travel. That is the reason why they actually make money most of the time.

Well.......technically speaking......if you have a car that's paid off, there's nothing cheaper than carpooling.

You know, you could just call him out on his bullsh*t.

I mean the words "airlines" and "profitable" don't exactly go together, unless conjugated by the phrase "are almost never."

[Snowrunner]

Lets do the math here
daily ridership = 104,600
capital cost = 18 billion US dollars

$18 billion / 104,600 = $172,084 per passenger

Yes lets.

The 104,600 are daily ridership. Does Easyjet pay off their jet on the first day?

Let's try the math for, say, a year:

104,600x365 days == 38,179,000
$18 billion / 38,179,000 == $471.46

After one year. Now, ignoring operating costs for the moment, how long do you think the rails and trains last?

And lastly, in the cost for your airplane, have you factored in the cost for the airports? Or do get people on there via Skyhook and drop them with parachutes?

[pogoliamo]

...
Yes, airlines are cheapest form of travel. Not only that, they are the fastest, the most energy efficient and ... the most ecological way to travel. That is the reason why they actually make money most of the time.

Well.......technically speaking......if you have a car that's paid off, there's nothing cheaper than carpooling.

Not if you calculate the risk of crashing your car or the risk of it breaking down. Not if you include the highway cost. Not if you include the health damage which long travel may cause you. Not if you go from place A to Place B and in between there is a huge mountain like the Alpes, lake or a sea. Not if you include the cost of your driving license. Not if you include the cost of your labor and the car maintenance costs. Not if you include the car insurance. Not if you include a hotel costs for a night o two. Not if you add food for a day or two. And it goes on... Not if you get a fine for breaking the spead limits. Not if you take once or twice the wrong highway exit Not if you are in Europe - do you know how much the gas costs over here?

and finally...
Not if you are like me and nobody likes you and want to pool with you

But for one reason I'l do it with my familly. I am so romantic after all

But wait, train travel is romantic too... I'll think again...

[emersonbiggins]

Pog - not that you don't have a playful sense about you , but are you perhaps...



?

[pogoliamo]

Hah, exacly emerson! What a nice picture...

Or if you allow me to express it with music -
Sade - Smooth Operator
http://www.deezer.com/track/858207


Here's a link to SNCF-TGV in case it is of interest
http://www.tgv.com/EN/index_HD.html

[cube]

I dunno; one the one hand, it IS a lot of money. On the other hand, the rails themselves might have a useful life of 100+ years, making the inflation-adjusted cost seem pretty minimal. It's a gamble, and they took it. Unfortunately, they took it at a highly inopportune time for building infrastructure in general, in years where material cost doubling times were measured in months, not years.

Speaking of an "inopportune time".......The South Koreans got slammed pretty hard during the 1997 Asia economic crisis so that obviously didn't help either.
However even if hypothetically the original ridership projections were met (200,000) once you nickel and dime all costs (capital + operational) it's still too expensive.
Running at 170mph means you have to replace wheels and rails continuously to keep the system properly maintained.
That starts to add up $$$ real quick.
//
I remember MonteQuest once mentioning that HSR is for nerds who read Popular Mechanics and has no place in a PO world. At first I disagreed with him but as I fell deeper into the PO doomsday scenario, my opinion has changed.
I think HSR is just another thing amongst a very long list of things that will go out the window once cheap oil dries up.
//
If we go back to the late Victorian Times transportation projects were "reactive" never "pro-active".
It was based on a pay as you go system. It was next to impossible to borrow money because that assumes greater future wealth which does not exist in a steady state economy.
For example if a street car was filled with standing room only passengers rubbing shoulders such that the system paid for itself then (and only then) a 2nd streetcar would be added.
And if that gets filled then a 3rd would be added.
And if that gets filled such that a 4th car is impossible to add because there is not enough space on the surface streets then we end up with the first subway trains.
That's my vision of post PO transportation.

[emersonbiggins]

Hah, exacly emerson! What a nice picture...

Or if you allow me to express it with music -
Sade - Smooth Operator
http://www.deezer.com/track/858207


Here's a link to SNCF-TGV in case it is of interest
http://www.tgv.com/EN/index_HD.html

Man, you are amazing! You got me riled up on a weekend no less!

[emersonbiggins]

That's my vision of post PO transportation.

Man, we are right back to where we usually end up - reality. Ugh.

Too true, cube. The train of the future is a pragmatic one, not a flashy one.

[cube]

The 104,600 are daily ridership. Does Easyjet pay off their jet on the first day?

Who the FCUK said anything about paying it off in a single day?
Capital costs means just that, acquisition costs. There's nothing in there that mentions payoff time.
Stop trying to strawman my arguments.

You think $172,084 is a cheap price to pay to hop on a train?
It would of been cheaper for the taxpayers to just buy a car for each passenger.
Okay fine assume that rails and trains have double the service life of a car or perhaps even triple.
Assume a $12,000 Hyundai for each person
12,000 x 3 == $36,000 / passenger to drive a car

The numbers speak for themselves.
//
oops I forgot toss in some asphalt on the ground so you have a road to drive your shiny new Hyundai and it's still cheaper then the KTX system.

[cube]

That's my vision of post PO transportation.

Man, we are right back to where we usually end up - reality. Ugh.

Too true, cube. The train of the future is a pragmatic one, not a flashy one.

you mean it's not going to look like this?

[emersonbiggins]

LOL - I think the train of the future will have a bar car. It's inhumane not to!

Imagine *shudders* a BYOB train...

[Starvid]

cube: That carriage is the reason one should become rich.

On the same topic, I traveled by sleeper train this summer. Left at 11 in the evening, arrived at 6 in the morning. Incredibly comfortable, really the way to travel!

Another interesting thing is that they have started charter trains from Stockholm down to places like lake Geneva, Switzerland.

[yesplease]

Allow me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-pauses-

Are you ready to cry emersonbiggins?

wiki says:

The Korea Train eXpress (KTX) is South Korea's high-speed rail system. It is operated by Korail. The train's technology is largely based on the French TGV system
...........
On January 9, 2006, Korail reported that average daily ridership in December 2005 had reached 104,600
...........
construction cost grew from an initial estimate of 5 trillion to an actual 18 trillion Korean won (approx. 5 billion to 18 billion US dollars). On January 14, 2005,

Lets do the math here
daily ridership = 104,600
capital cost = 18 billion US dollars

$18 billion / 104,600 = $172,084 per passenger

Yet again, cube graces us w/ teh funny maths. Lemme guess, SK is going to run the train for one day then scrap it.

Thanks to higher oil prices, the ridership as of May 08 has average ~160,000/day.

Throughout May 2008, the average ridership reached 160,000 passengers per day.

For ~$112,000/person. Course, w/ 365 days in a year, that's $306 per person per year. Japan's HSR system lifetime was 40 years last I checked.

Japan celebrated 40 years of high speed rail in 2004, with the Tōkaidō Shinkansen line alone having carried 4.16 billion passengers.

So that's about $7.50 per person over it's lifespan, which could very well be greater than 40 years, dropping the cost further, just like additional ridership would. Now, the kicker is, it shaves the time of the routes on the HS portion in half, so the question is, in terms of wage rates, does it save more in terms of idle time than it costs compared to the older system?

[yesplease]

The 104,600 are daily ridership. Does Easyjet pay off their jet on the first day?

Who the FCUK said anything about paying it off in a single day?
Capital costs means just that, acquisition costs. There's nothing in there that mentions payoff time.
Stop trying to strawman my arguments.

You think $172,084 is a cheap price to pay to hop on a train?
It would of been cheaper for the taxpayers to just buy a car for each passenger.
Okay fine assume that rails and trains have double the service life of a car or perhaps even triple.
Assume a $12,000 Hyundai for each person
12,000 x 3 == $36,000 / passenger to drive a car

Always with the strawmen cube! A car isn't going to last ~40 years, maybe ~8, which is a fifth of how long the trains last. Five cars per forty years means $36k(5)=$180k/passenger to drive. And that doesn't count the externalized costs such as pollution, congestion, additional time spent stuck in traffic, etc...

The numbers speak for themselves.

Your numbers only speak of a troll who is interested in nothing but misleading information.

oops I forgot toss in some asphalt on the ground so you have a road to drive your shiny new Hyundai and it's still cheaper then the KTX system.

So now we're about $180k/person for something that's slower, pollutes more, takes up more space, costs more to maintain, and we haven't tossed in other externalized costs...

[Snowrunner]

The 104,600 are daily ridership. Does Easyjet pay off their jet on the first day?

Who the FCUK said anything about paying it off in a single day?

Apparently you because in your little math experiment you equate the entire cost of the project has to be paid off the first day.

Capital costs means just that, acquisition costs. There's nothing in there that mentions payoff time.
Stop trying to strawman my arguments.

Uhuuu, I am sure you are a very blissful man(?).

You think $172,084 is a cheap price to pay to hop on a train?
It would of been cheaper for the taxpayers to just buy a car for each passenger.
Okay fine assume that rails and trains have double the service life of a car or perhaps even triple.
Assume a $12,000 Hyundai for each person
12,000 x 3 == $36,000 / passenger to drive a car

The numbers speak for themselves.
//
oops I forgot toss in some asphalt on the ground so you have a road to drive your shiny new Hyundai and it's still cheaper then the KTX system.

Yeah, you also forgot for all the tanker trucks, gas stations, environmental impact etc.

And btw, a street isn't just "asphalt" on some grass, there goes way more into the construction on a serious road, the asphalt is the cheapest part of it.



Also, where are you planning parking all your shiny Hundais?