At $3.00 gallon for gas and 25 mpg, that 12 cents per mile so a 15 mile each way commute has a real variable cost of $3.60 just in fuel to the consumer. Factor in a very low parking rate of $2.00 for the day and u get $5.60.

Yes, there are costs like insurance, depreciation and maintance but I think if the value is built on daily out of pocket expense, you can avoid alot of argument.

As far as time savings, be careful because all a person cares about is door to door time so the rail alternative has to account for

home to station drive
parking and waiting time for train
train transit time
destination station to office transit time

the high speed of rail buys some time but a system has to provide value in total time to win over opponents.

I am all for well executed rail and not a repeat of the toy train Houston ended up with.

Japan’s maglev system has been tested at 1.47, but the test track has a U-shaped vertical profile, with inclines of 3-4% at both ends; gravitational acceleration is free in terms of both energy and passenger comfort.

On operating costs, please see the previous reply to Christof.

This piece isn’t HSR, it’s regional commuter service. I am not pretending this is the same as HSR, I’m proposing that if a private-sector HSR effort were to be successful its starting point would need to be a short, high-traffic, commuter corridor.

The goal is to demonstrate a private-sector concept, not a public sector concept. Also, congestion reduction is a myth, any traffic absorbed by the rail will be replaced by latent demand soon enough. The purpose of a rail system is to provide an alternative mobility system. It can’t and won’t eliminate automobile congestion, so it shouldn’t pretend to try.

The rest of your points on standees, acceleration, and quality of service are valid. I used an acceleration factor of .15g, which is the best estimate I could find for typical subway operation in major cities. To be honest, I had a hard time finding a good source of data on what was acceptable acceleration. If you’ve got a good source of data on transit acceleration rates, please share it.

Regarding Alignments:
- There are two TMC stations, between the two of them the vast majority of the TMC is within a 1/4 mile radius. No, not every single job is within that radius, but at some point you need a circulator bus or other similar services to reach every single thing in such a district. Also, it’s foolish to assume that nobody will ever walk more than 1/4 mile if it’s a pleasant walk or an indoor walk – in the TMC nearly all the buildings are interconnected with skywalks etc, and the sidewalks are decent enough that you probably can get better walking distances than in the random middle of suburbia.
- Service from Pearland would go directly to the TMC Central station, which means no transfers.
- The Downtown Station is merely access point #1 – specifically located in a redevelopment area so the train builders can capitalize on TOD at the beginning. It’s also close to St. Josephs hospital (increasing the value of the rapid connection to TMC). Look to the next post in this series to see next stage of a downtown configuration.
- Also, it’s absurd to assume that the existence of the stations doesn’t dramatically change daily life in their vicinity. Not only would there be rapid development around the stations (esp. with a private sector option as the development of the station areas is a primary financial concern), but major shifts such as changes in METRO bus routes (circulator service) and private services (like the REV taxis downtown or car-shares etc etc) will very quickly react to new opportunities created by rapid commuter service to help bridge that last mile gap. Those things aren’t as ideal as having the train station stop directly in front of someone’s office, but it can’t stop at every building, and the reaction of the urban fabric to the presence of a station is not an insignificant contributor to the success of the system.
- As for whether people would like maglev above their street, nobody ever likes anything to happen on their street. At a minimum, the maglev is extremely quiet compared to normal bus service, and doesn’t obstruct traffic. If and when someone actually tries to build something, they can divert the route to avoid NIMBYs if they must. I’m going to stick to drawing what I believe to be the most effective route.

Cost:
Your observations on cost are valid. I don’t know how many stations they could include in a figure of $17M / mi, but since their price targets range from $15-$17 I’d guess that some basic platforms could be squeezed in there. Nicer stations would have to be absorbed on the TOD side.

Operations costs are not trivial, but frankly I don’t have the time or the data to model them. The capital cost is the more immediate problem, and my only goal was to give a guess as to what the capital cost per rider would be. The purpose of that illustration is to show that this idea is within the realm of possibility, not that it’s already perfected.

I do think that there are huge opportunities for revenue generation outside of fares that could probably account for the operating costs in the short term until the proceeds from station area development sufficiently offsets the capital cost of the track. The correct way of designing the station, from a private sector point of view, would be to develop enough stuff around the stations to more than pay off the capital cost of the track. At that point all the fares are going to operations and profit, and the economics are totally different.

This isn’t a proforma, nor is it pretending to be. The models involved in predicting the performance of this kind of thing would be extremely complex, and frankly I’m not getting paid to develop them, so I’m comfortable sharing some of the simple back-of-the-envelope numbers and sparking a discussion. That’s what makes this a blog, not a business plan.

Thanks for your feedback.

in any HSR system, the cost of electricity and especially, the cost of maintenance of both rolling stock and infrastructure are decidedly non-zero. You cannot just ignore them because you’ve got a tech fetish with this AMT maglev system.

You should also be honest enough to admit that this South Corridor would implement regional/commuter transit service, not HSR. If there are tightish curves in your right of way, you’ll need to bank the track severely or slow down. Based on your table above, my guess is that equipment rated for 80mph top speed would achieve nearly the same transportation value but possibly at substantially lower capital and operations cost.

You’ll need some ridership analysis to see which price points will be feasible. If the system is built using public funds, expect pressure to minimize fares such that nearby roads are effectively decongested. That means running longer trains every few minutes, especially during rush hour. Standees limit the feasible acceleration/deceleration rates and also mean extra attention has to be paid to jerk (change in acceleration, ideally a continuous function of time).

If a private investors steps up to the plate, which is unlikely without taxpayer operating subsidies, fares will have to be higher and the city/county may not achieve the hoped-for road decongestion. For the higher ticket price, passengers will expect a somewhat higher level of service in every respect. Things like cleanliness and seat availability rates matter at least as much as line haul time.

Let me emphasize that I offered that example only as a hypothetical possibility in the same category as corporate sponsorship or benevolent donations (like a wealthy individual purchasing naming rights to a station). I certainly don’t think that any serious system should be dependent on grant funding, and I would consider the private sector a far more productive target for fund-raising efforts. However, with all the money that’s flying around for “shovel-ready” projects and the like, if a public entity decided they wanted to contribute a grant to support the system, no private enterprise would rationally say no to free money.

The reason I included that remark is simply to illustrate the impact any outside contribution would make on the financing cost of the project, and to show how significantly that could lower the minimum fare.

I hope that adds some clarification to my thought process, and I’m glad you liked the idea otherwise.

-Andrew

It would be interesting to look at some statistics for those going from Pearland to the Med Center area and looking to see what % would be within x meters from the drop off point(s). Downtown Park and Rides show that people are definitely willing to walk a few blocks from a bus stop, I assume there is similar mobility in the Med Center area as far as easy walkways to get from place to place.

Cost comments:
-The cost of construction is heavily dependent on the context. Building a guideway in an open field is much easier and much less expensive than building a guideway in the middle of an active street.
-An elevated guideway is not immune from the difficulty of building in an urban environment. What if you’re putting pylons down the middle of the street and there turns out to be a sewer line right in the middle of the street?
-The cost of stations is a large component of the cost of any transit system but particularly an elevated grade separated system (where each station is essentially a 2-story building). I’m not sure these costs take that into account: the presentation that American Maglev has on their website for Orlando explicitly does not include station costs.
-The cost of maintenance facilities isn’t trivial, either. And those facilities (which take a fair ammount of land) need to be on the first operating segment.
-Any time a new technology is implemented operationally for the first time there are unexpected costs. We can’t assume that a system that works at 35 mph will scale to 150. Transit has a really bad track record for new technologies — they almost always take much more time and money than expected.
-Drivers are a part of operating costs, but only part. Fare collection costs money. Cleaning costs money. Security costs money. Maintenance costs money (and getting rid of wheels doesn’t make vehicles maintenance-free). The control systems required for automated operation involve maintenance costs, too. So far no advance in transit technology has resulted in systems covering their operating and capital costs. In places where transit does make money (i.e. Japan) it’s because of economic systems and demographics — all modes of transit make money. Data point: the fully automated SkyTrain system in Vancouver costs over $1 a trip to operate.