HSR is definitely cool. But it's not the important part of the equation. While we have high speed capable trains here in Switzerland, we don't technically have HSR. And that's a good thing, for Switzerland.
The important thing is that the push to build HSR doesn't take funding away from the local networks. If you lose a dependable local network (bus, tram, local trains), then HSR can end up being a mess. See Germany and DB for a great example of how NOT to do things.
For sure. As I said in the piece, HSR has to connect to effective public transit at the destination...and for sure that should be the priority. Switzerland doesn't really need HSR! Besides, it's the size of South Carolina!
While Switzerland doesn't really need HSR, Europe as a whole does. And Switzerland lies along those lines. See the follow-up video to the one I linked. And, I'd certainly not complain if I could get to the pizza place I went to yesterday in 1-1/2 hours instead of 3.
Good history in that video. Though, I think there's often an over emphasis (including in that video) on the staggeringly amazing and exquisite quantitative efficiencies of the SBB. Nobody loves a good CBA/ROI more than the Swiss! AND, I suspect another under-explored driver of that determination is the more qualitative need/desire to keep the canton's connected. Though, even that can quickly become quantitative given the voting power individuals have over individual political decisions! That is, if those in a rural canton feel left out they'll vote to be included. And there are more of them than pizza and beer loving transplants who need a fix in an hour not three! 🤣
I did like how that video ended making the point better than I did about the need not just for fast moving major arteries (HSR) but healthy and plentiful capillaries (local transit) that deliver blood (humans) as well as goods (oxygen and nutrients) to individual cells (social infrastructure). This is where Germany's 'debt brake' comes in. They put the brakes on delivering adequate social infrastructure and it's not just trains that are hurting.
Excellent framing of the path dependence problem. The Hong Kong Rail + Property model point is especially sharp because it shows land-use capture isnt just financing, it's the actuall mechanism for creating the dense catchments HSR needs to work. I've been watching California's project struggle with exactly this issue where stations end up surrounded by parking lots instead of development. The growth paradox angle dunno gets enough attention in transit debates.
Thank you! Yes, so many rail projects end up with the Park and Ride dilemma. Car dependency is so baked into the US political economy and cultural norms that driving is linked with progress, prosperity, and the American dream. Add in the norm of low-density, single-family housing — backed by financial systems that favor it — and you get a powerful mix that keeps car dependence firmly in place. But new paths of dependence can be forged!
High-speed rail has encountered economic challenges:
High Construction Costs: Spain invested over €55 billion in HSR since 1992. Many lines were built to sparsely populated regions, raising questions about cost-effectiveness.
Low Ridership on Some Routes: While Madrid–Barcelona and Madrid–Seville are profitable, lines to smaller cities (e.g., Cuenca, Huesca) have very low passenger volumes. Some trains run nearly empty.
Debt Burden: ADIF (the infrastructure manager) carries significant debt from building the network, and subsidies are often required to keep services running.
Uneven Returns: Studies show that only a handful of routes generate operating profits; most require ongoing public support.
Opportunity Cost: Critics argue funds could have been better spent on regional commuter rail or freight infrastructure, which remain underdeveloped.
Thanks. It is true that this money could have been spent building out more local rail and public transit. At the same time, I suspect Spain was going after something bigger than economic efficiency -- equity and nation-building.
Spain's peripheral HSR lines like Castilla-La Mancha or Aragon to Madrid, indeed reduce disparities in a post-Franco democracy, even if ridership lags. It's worth noting Spain is leading the EU in GDP right now, so they might be doing something right economically too!
But, as I mentioned in the piece, I do think the Hong Kong model helps to ensure the numbers work out long term.
HSR is definitely cool. But it's not the important part of the equation. While we have high speed capable trains here in Switzerland, we don't technically have HSR. And that's a good thing, for Switzerland.
The important thing is that the push to build HSR doesn't take funding away from the local networks. If you lose a dependable local network (bus, tram, local trains), then HSR can end up being a mess. See Germany and DB for a great example of how NOT to do things.
This video covers those particular issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y9hGofgy9c
The same guy also produced a follow-up video as to why small countries might indeed want HSR.
For sure. As I said in the piece, HSR has to connect to effective public transit at the destination...and for sure that should be the priority. Switzerland doesn't really need HSR! Besides, it's the size of South Carolina!
While Switzerland doesn't really need HSR, Europe as a whole does. And Switzerland lies along those lines. See the follow-up video to the one I linked. And, I'd certainly not complain if I could get to the pizza place I went to yesterday in 1-1/2 hours instead of 3.
Good history in that video. Though, I think there's often an over emphasis (including in that video) on the staggeringly amazing and exquisite quantitative efficiencies of the SBB. Nobody loves a good CBA/ROI more than the Swiss! AND, I suspect another under-explored driver of that determination is the more qualitative need/desire to keep the canton's connected. Though, even that can quickly become quantitative given the voting power individuals have over individual political decisions! That is, if those in a rural canton feel left out they'll vote to be included. And there are more of them than pizza and beer loving transplants who need a fix in an hour not three! 🤣
I did like how that video ended making the point better than I did about the need not just for fast moving major arteries (HSR) but healthy and plentiful capillaries (local transit) that deliver blood (humans) as well as goods (oxygen and nutrients) to individual cells (social infrastructure). This is where Germany's 'debt brake' comes in. They put the brakes on delivering adequate social infrastructure and it's not just trains that are hurting.
Excellent framing of the path dependence problem. The Hong Kong Rail + Property model point is especially sharp because it shows land-use capture isnt just financing, it's the actuall mechanism for creating the dense catchments HSR needs to work. I've been watching California's project struggle with exactly this issue where stations end up surrounded by parking lots instead of development. The growth paradox angle dunno gets enough attention in transit debates.
Thank you! Yes, so many rail projects end up with the Park and Ride dilemma. Car dependency is so baked into the US political economy and cultural norms that driving is linked with progress, prosperity, and the American dream. Add in the norm of low-density, single-family housing — backed by financial systems that favor it — and you get a powerful mix that keeps car dependence firmly in place. But new paths of dependence can be forged!
High-speed rail has encountered economic challenges:
High Construction Costs: Spain invested over €55 billion in HSR since 1992. Many lines were built to sparsely populated regions, raising questions about cost-effectiveness.
Low Ridership on Some Routes: While Madrid–Barcelona and Madrid–Seville are profitable, lines to smaller cities (e.g., Cuenca, Huesca) have very low passenger volumes. Some trains run nearly empty.
Debt Burden: ADIF (the infrastructure manager) carries significant debt from building the network, and subsidies are often required to keep services running.
Uneven Returns: Studies show that only a handful of routes generate operating profits; most require ongoing public support.
Opportunity Cost: Critics argue funds could have been better spent on regional commuter rail or freight infrastructure, which remain underdeveloped.
Thanks. It is true that this money could have been spent building out more local rail and public transit. At the same time, I suspect Spain was going after something bigger than economic efficiency -- equity and nation-building.
Spain's peripheral HSR lines like Castilla-La Mancha or Aragon to Madrid, indeed reduce disparities in a post-Franco democracy, even if ridership lags. It's worth noting Spain is leading the EU in GDP right now, so they might be doing something right economically too!
But, as I mentioned in the piece, I do think the Hong Kong model helps to ensure the numbers work out long term.