In France, a Truly Low-Cost High-Speed Rail Option

[marmar]

from the Transport Politic blog:


In France, a Truly Low-Cost High-Speed Rail Option




France’s SNCF national rail service has, since the introduction of the TGV in 1981, held to the belief that fast trains should not be segregated to serve only higher-paying passengers. As a result, fast trains have replaced all slow-speed service on most long-distance travel throughout the country; passengers are able to take advantage of fare deals that allow them to journey between cities hundreds of miles apart at €25 or less, as long as they book in advance.

This dedication to opening up speedy trains to people across the income spectrum is unique compared to most other European and Asian countries. In Germany, for instance, train service between major cities is often available at two speeds — fast Intercity-express and slower InterCity, at very different prices. In the U.S., too, a trip on Amtrak’s Acela “high-speed” service in the Northeast is routinely $50 or more than a similar journey on the slightly slower Regional.

SNCF has now extended the principle further with the introduction of its OuiGo* service this week. Attempting to spur more train ridership, particularly among car owners living in the eastern suburbs of Paris, OuiGo will offer 300 km/h TGV speed at very low prices, starting at €10 for journeys between the Paris region and the Mediterranean coast (Montpellier and Marseille, via Lyon), a trip of about 500 miles (10% of overall tickets will be as low as that, with the rest increasing to a maximum of €85). SNCF claims that these ticket prices are the lowest available in the world for high-speed trains. Current TGV tickets start at €19 for similar journeys, but generally are above €50. OuiGo tickets will always be cheaper than equivalent TGV tickets on similar journeys.

OuiGo brings the aviation low-cost concept to high-speed railways. In exchange for a cheap ticket, customers will be charged for a second carry-on bag; they’ll pay more for the use of an electrical outlet; they’ll be unable to change their tickets without a fee. There will be fewer conductors — only four per train, who will also be tasked with some maintenance. Double-decker trains will seat 1,268 passengers, not because seats have been compressed (unlike the airlines, thank god), but rather because the first class and dining car spaces have been replaced by economy-class areas. Trains themselves will be scheduled to run more often than typical TGVs, traveling about 80,000 kilometers per month, double the normal rate. ....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2013/02/24/in-france-a-truly-low-cost-high-speed-rail-option/

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[liberal N proud]

2. Why is it so difficult for this to happen in the US?

What is so different between the US and Europe that we cannot adopt rail travel and moreover, high speed rail?

I travel between Cleveland and Kansas City frequently, the options are fly at the cost of more than $350 per person or drive at the cost of more than $200 per car. Depending on the time I have to make the trip determines how I will travel.

If I could ride the train and not have to fight the traffic through south side of Chicago area, it would be worth the price if the time was comparable with flight but not as long travel time as by car.

[Divernan]

3. Good discussion of pros/cons/costs/benefits in this link.

U.S. high-speed rail 'myths' debunked.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/13/high.speed.rail.fact.check/index.html

CNN -- Are proposed multibillion dollar high-speed railway projects in the United States a smart move or a huge waste of taxpayer dollars?

CNN.com users are challenging politicians, policymakers and each other about whether the Obama administration's push to build high-speed rail lines in the Midwest, West Coast and elsewhere is on the right track. Many users want proof that high-speed rail can be a profitable, efficient job generator to help raise the sagging U.S. economy when compared with other types of transportation.

Read how federal budget cuts have slashed high-speed rail funding.

Experts -- including the two most powerful congressional lawmakers on rail issues, think-tank specialists and policymakers at the Department of Transportation -- have directly responded to CNN.com user comments.

(My thoughts - other countries can afford to subsidize high speed rail, as well as wonderfully comfortable and convenient regular speed rail for passengers and freight, because they are not subsidizing the military-industrial complex in support of endless strings of wars.)

[liberal N proud]

4. We do have our priorities screwed up in this country.

Thanks for the link.

[Maineman]

6. America - the land of greed, guns, corruption, and

corporate profiteering that often looks a lot like organized crime.

The great silent majority, all those people who really do have favorable values, need to reassert themselves.

[Divernan]

7. Remember GE's "Progress is our most important product" ad?

I remember going to a meeting in the 60's (in Florida ironically enough), where some stock brokers were pushing various stocks of the future, and had an animated film showing the "cities and homes of tomorrow". We didn't even need highways - there were skywalks, and skyways and household robots galore. It was pure Jetsons. The audience was made up mostly of engineering types working at Cape Kennedy, and we found the projections totally believable.

Fast forward to today: The USA - weapons of death and destruction are our most important product, and we'll export them to anywhere in the world. In fact, it's pretty much our only export product.

[wordpix]

15. totally agree, I have the same problem traveling between DC and rural CT

It's expensive to take rail or to fly, around $200 for the lowest round-trip fare. Cheapest flights from CT go to BWI and then you have to pay for/wait for ground transportation into the city. And there's no public transportation from any Amtrak station or Bradley Airport in CT to my rural town.

I have traveled using all modes but due to these public transportation problems, I usually drive. I hate it, and it's not cheap, either.

[happyslug]

16. Tracks are owned by Private Railroads in the US, by their National Government in Europe

Thus Europe has, since WWII, always run a better transportation system for passengers then the US. In the US Passenger service was ALWAYS an after thought. In fact the first Railroad across the State of Pennsylvania (The Old Portage Railroad) was freight only from its inception in 1837, it re-construction as a true railroad in 1854 till it was sold to the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1859 (Passengers did take the Portage railroad, but as a tourist attraction, if you actually wanted to go east to west in Pennsylvania you took the Stage Coach till the Pennsylvania Railroad was finished in 1852).

Now, some of the National Ownership is no longer 100% Government owned, for example, the German Railroad before 1992 was 100% government owned, but in 1992 it was "sold" to a private company, that the government owns 100% (The Wikipedia cites gives one comment that the government owns more then 50%, then later on says the Government owns 100%):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bahn

Paper on Swiss Railroads and pointed out, that the rail structure is owned by the State in all of Europe, except Britain, but the actual operations of the train in increasingly done by private companies on these publicly owned rail road beds,

https://wiki.umd.edu/lei/images/3/3a/Cowie1999.pdf

It also points out that Canada (and by implication the US) rail service is primary fright unlike European where it is passenger.

Even Britain has retained government ownership of the tracks, while turning over operations to private companies (Through there is a push to turn over even the tracks to private companies):

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2010/10/25/comment-public-ownership-is-the-only-way-to-a

The biggest single restrictions on high speed rail in the US are the tracks. The tracks have to be upgraded to take the higher speed, but private railroads refuse to do it, for their profit is in freight NOT passengers (Worse private railroads main haul is primary coal and other energy sources thus it can go 10-20 mph and the customer don't care as long as it gets to where the coal is wanted). Thus the private rail roads have no incentives to upgrade their tracks to do high speed rail and will not do so unless some one else pays for it.

[CherokeeDem]

5. I have a friend who lives in Paris...

with no car. She and her children rely on the bus and rail system to get to work and school. Her oldest daughter hops the rail all the time to visit her father in Brussels, or to travel to the coast with her friends for the weekend. It's reliable and much less expensive. We often talk about how much more it cost me to operate my little Nissan Versa, with payments, upkeep, insurance, and gas compared to her bus and rail pass.

She admits there are days when she really hates the walk to and from the grocery store (only three blocks from her house) but on really bad days, a neighbor or co-worker will take her in their car.

When I lived in Miami, I drove two miles to the Metro station and rode the metrorail downtown to work...I loved it. But even Miami needed to upgrade their transit system.

I realize, as someone posted eariler, the money we spend in endless wars would be better spent on our infrastructurem but as long as US car makers (or whoever sells cars in the US), and oil companies lobby against high speed rail, we'll never see the system we really need.

[Divernan]

8. Many Europeans only rent a car when they're going on holiday.

[CherokeeDem]

9. I wish that were the case here....

I'd love to be able to use tranist...when my parents lived in Manhattan...I loved getting around the city by walking or the transit system when I visited.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. That's how a lot of Japanese people live, too,

and in one of the world's major car-producing countries.

[nxylas]

13. There's little correllation between rates of car ownership and car use

Britain doesn't have the highest rate of car ownership in Europe, but it has one of the highest rates of car use, because our public transport is inferior to most of continental Europe (but better than America outside the largest cities).

[noiretextatique]

11. i've been living in the bay area, california without a car for years

great bus and train systems here. you can pretty much get whereever you need to go without a car.

[wordpix]

14. I am in DC a lot and you don't need a car if you live in the city

There are bus stops everywhere that take people to Metrorail.

Even if you live in suburbia, you can get by without using a car as long as you're close to a bus line that will take you to a Metrorail station. The area also has very desirable HOV lanes for carpooling, and a system of good bike trails.

[wordpix]

12. Acela travel in NE corridor typically costs MUCH more than $50 reg. train

Trip on Acela weekdays DC to New Haven, CT is $187 or $240. Regular trains are $82-160, depending on time of day/night.

http://tickets.amtrak.com

And Acela takes 4.5 hr. for this trip compared to average 5.5 hr. on regular.

Not really that much faster and for most times of day, Acela costs a lot more than reg. just to save an hour.