A specific rail transport plan for North America

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=flickster]
Boston to …Atlanta???

Why on earth would you pick Atlanta? So you could stop off in Roanoke & Knoxville along the way?

If this was at all anything more than a pipe dream, it seems to me that after heading south from DC the likely stops along the way would be Charlotte, Charleston, Jacksonville and Miami.
[/QUOTE]
Atlanta’s airport currently has the greatest passenger volume in the world; kinda makes sense that the city would be a stop. I’d love to be able to take a high-speed train from downtown to Boston.

Thirty-something years ago, I really thought we’d have a nationwide high-speed passenger rail system in place before now.

22

[QUOTE=put down the sabre]
Please don’t pull the low population density American exceptionalist line on me- this isn’t some kind of drastic new project that America would be pioneering. Japan did this a long time ago with a shinkansen line to Hokkaido, which I’ll bet (no cite, sorry) passes through more empty areas than a Boston-Atlanta line would.
[/QUOTE]

I’m at work so take these figures with a grain of salt…this is from a quick google search. First let me say that I’m well aware of the fact that the Japanese have built these things…I’ve actually ridden on one of their earlier bullet trains and it was a blast. However…having actually been to Japan I can tell you that the distances involved are vastly different.

I make the longest distance on the Hokkaidō Shinkansen to be 360.2 km (Shin-Aomori station to Sapporo). And some of this rail was used in an earlier system.

The distance between Boston and Atlanta would is aprox. 1,500 km with no existing infrastructure in place that could be reused (afaik anyway). Just a WAG, but I’m guessing you could go pretty much from one end of Japan (at least the main island) to the othen in less than 1500 km.

What did the Hokkaidō Shinkansen line cost again? Billions of yen? 10’s of billions? Hundreds? And the Japanese are disposed to use that kind of mass transit…whereas folks in the US currently aren’t. How are you going to force them to use it?

To be sure, eventually we will need such a system unless some alternative to our current oil based personal transport technology comes on stream (if it ever does)…but such a system would cost a ton and essentially languish until and unless it’s ever needed. American’s aren’t going to stop driving their cars and take the train unless things change.

And this is just one line you guys are proposing. The distance between San Francisco and LA is something like 550 km (though some rather prime real estate)…gods know what THAT would cost.

-XT

23

[QUOTE=Baldwin]
Thirty-something years ago, I really thought we’d have a nationwide high-speed passenger rail system in place before now.
[/QUOTE]

And where’s my air car, jetpack, robot butler, and Moon colony?! :mad:

24

[QUOTE=xtisme]
And the Japanese are disposed to use that kind of mass transit…whereas folks in the US currently aren’t. How are you going to force them to use it?
[/QUOTE]

Put the money we invest in the un-sustainable highway system into public transportation? We can’t just keep building until we have 30 lane highways.

25

Uhuh…and how are you going to push that legislation through exactly? By fiat? Who would support it? Do you think the American voters (who would be footing the bill for it) would?

Since I guess we are now throughly grounded in the reality that no private company is going to invest in something like this because it’s going to lose money, how would you fund it exactly? What are the realistic costs? Just use the costs of a similar system in Japan (it would be more here but that is a good baseline).

-XT

26

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The distance between Boston and Atlanta would is aprox. 1,500 km with no existing infrastructure in place that could be reused (afaik anyway). Just a WAG, but I’m guessing you could go pretty much from one end of Japan (at least the main island) to the othen in less than 1500 km.
[/quote]

Tokyo to Hakata (northern end of the southern island) is 1175 km. From Tokyo to Aomori (northern end of the main island) is 714 km, though the last 125 km is still under construction (opening 2011). The Hokkaido Shinkansen would be a 360 km extension, at an estimated cost of $4.4 billion.

We’re talking here about long-distance inter-city transport. Americans are already dispose to use mass transit (airlines) for inter-city travel.

27

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Just use the costs of a similar system in Japan (it would be more here but that is a good baseline).
[/QUOTE]

Why would it cost more in the US? The US population density is lower. (Japan has only 20% more population now than when the first Shinkansen was constructed.) And as you know, the Japanese terrain is very mountainous, requiring numerous tunnels for a high-speed line. IIRC, 70% of the Hokkaido Shinkansen line will be in tunnels.

28

[QUOTE=xtisme]
What are the realistic costs?
[/QUOTE]

Probably about what we’re sinking into Iraq.

29

I once rode the Acela from NYC to DC.

It drove me crazy. There were three stops in NJ plus, Philly, Baltimore and then DC.

The stops in NJ were completly worthless and slowed the trip considerably but, for political reasons, the train can’t travel through NJ without stopping in NJ.

Same with CT. You can’t go direct from NYC to Boston without stopping a few times in CT.

30

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Probably about what we’re sinking into Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

No doubt. Do you have a plan to magically get that money back…or divert it from the war into this project? :wink: If so I’m all ears…I actually think the money would be better spent on such a project than this stupid war in Iraq. Problem is, reality comes crashing in…

[QUOTE=scr4]
Why would it cost more in the US? The US population density is lower. (Japan has only 20% more population now than when the first Shinkansen was constructed.) And as you know, the Japanese terrain is very mountainous, requiring numerous tunnels for a high-speed line. IIRC, 70% of the Hokkaido Shinkansen line will be in tunnels.
[/QUOTE]

My GUESS is it would cost more for a variety of reasons. First of all, while I think the engineering challenges to the Japanese were costly (you are quite right about the mountains), I think aquiring the right of ways (not to mention getting the land and building the stations) would be MUCH more expensive in the areas you guys are proposing to put this thing. Also, unless I’m remembering wrong the Japanese were able to use some existing infrastructure from older systems in their latest one…the US would have to build from scratch.

Also, as you noted, the Japanese have more practical experience with this technology (and they also build the trains themselves I believe), while there isn’t as much of that kind of experience here in the US…and experience takes money to aquire. Also, I think US salaries on this would be higher.

I may be way off here, but I thought I read somewhere that it would be something like a billion dollars (US) for ever 100 km…and that doesn’t include the stations or terminals or the trains. That’s simply the cost for the track infrastructure. It’s been a while so maybe that cost has come down (though I think it was an estimate, so perhaps it’s higher).

[QUOTE=scr4]
Tokyo to Hakata (northern end of the southern island) is 1175 km.
[/QUOTE]

So…I was high by a couple hundred kilometers. Not a bad guess though, ehe? :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=scr4]
We’re talking here about long-distance inter-city transport. Americans are already dispose to use mass transit (airlines) for inter-city travel.
[/QUOTE]

True enough. But what is the air traffic volume between those two endpoints…and how many people would make the switch? My guess is that some would, to be sure…but most would continue to fly as it’s bound to be quicker.

If we HAD such a system in place then I have no doubt that it would be better in the long run over air travel. However, we don’t…which means we have to build it from scratch. While air travel in the long run may be more expensive, we HAVE all that infrastructure in place, so the costs are incrimental…upkeep, maintenence and occational capital purchases of new planes or equipment.

-XT

31

[QUOTE=flickster]
Boston to …Atlanta???

Why on earth would you pick Atlanta? So you could stop off in Roanoke & Knoxville along the way?
[/QUOTE]

In this and the previous thread, people dismiss the idea because so few people would want to ride a train all that way. It’s a train. It stops in the middle, too. I got on an ICE (Inter-City Express) in Frankfurt and rode it to Nuremberg. I don’t know where that particular train started its journey or where it finished, but the two hours in the middle were perfect for me. Maybe we’ve all been taking planes for so long that we only think in terms of the end points.

Which could it make it comparatively cheaper to build in this country. Research and Development cost money. Japan, France and Germany (at least) have already spent that money. We can get companies from those countries to compete against each other and drive the cost down.

I don’t know if high-speed rail will come to pass in the U.S., or even if it should. But I do hear arguments against it that I think are fallacious. I just think we should figure out the right way to do it, and then decide if the idea has merit.

32

I would love HSR along the northeast corridor. The problem is cost. People are looking at HSR as the “cheaper than flying” alternative, which I’m not sure is the case.
The best prices for Acela regional is about 120 dollars one way BOS-NYC.
A bus, which takes about the same amount of time and is not significantly more inconvenient (at least I hope not), costs about one-tenth that.

So how much do people anticipate the fares to be between these destinations? I’d pay 150 to get from Boston to New York in two hours, but I don’t think I’d pay 300.

33

It is true that building it would be very expensive, but that’s what government’s for.

Now, it may also be true that the United States simply can’t afford it. Let’s say the cost comes to a trillion dollars, which is about the same as conservative estimates for the Iraq war. I think very few people would deny that the US would have been better served by a HSR network (which could be nearing completion now?) than an invasion.

So:

  • let’s stop pretending that everything the government does must return a direct profit. This is demonstrably false for the things governments do: does the NHS turn a profit?

  • let’s not pretend that, if something is worth doing, it’s worth it for private companies to do it. This just doesn’t seem to be the case for large infrastructure: roads, airports, the internet, water and electricity distribution. Not to mention the shinkansen… all financed by governments and then recently run privately.

  • though it may be the case that America can’t afford it (huge war costs, massive medical costs fiasco, weak dollar), let’s admit that it’s not outside the cost range for things big governments do.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

I’m at work so take these figures with a grain of salt…this is from a quick google search. First let me say that I’m well aware of the fact that the Japanese have built these things…I’ve actually ridden on one of their earlier bullet trains and it was a blast. However…having actually been to Japan I can tell you that the distances involved are vastly different.

[/quote]

  • having actually spent a large fraction of my life in Japan, I can tell you that the distance from kyushu to hokkaido is comparable to that of the US routes being considered.

pdts

34

[QUOTE=put down the sabre]
Firstly, I think we should use only tried-and-tested technology, such as wheels-on-steel (not maglev). Let’s assume they can do a maximum of 200 mph, which is roughly in line with Japan and French trains.

Build the following lines to start with:
West Coast Line: Vancouver BC - San Diego

[/quote]

What!!! Let the Canadians build their own!

I kid.

Please God let this happen. It would be so much better than flying, and virtually eliminate the air travel market on those routes. Think how much better off we’d be if we could just hop on a train and get there in two hours, instead of driving ourselves (6 hours), or going through the hassles of air travel (almost as long as driving, sometimes). Then think how much better off you’d be when you do fly. Only those traveling longer distances would need to use the airports.

35

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I think aquiring the right of ways (not to mention getting the land and building the stations) would be MUCH more expensive in the areas you guys are proposing to put this thing.
[/quote]

It’ll definitely be costly, but land in Japan isn’t cheap either.

The Shinkansen is built from scratch, not even the same right-of-way. That’s the whole point of a high-speed network, really - it has gentler curves and grades than conventional rail lines, and no level crossings at all. (Incidentally, lack of level crossings is important for safety - the Shinkansen network has had zero passenger fatalities in its 44-year history.)

Perhaps you’re thinking of the TGV trains, which are used on both conventional lines and dedicated high-speed lines.

A rail line connects a string of cities, not just the two at the end.

36

[QUOTE=put down the sabre]
I think it’s pretty accepted that, when you factor in capital costs, infrastructure rarely turns a direct profit. But we still build bridges, which bring in no income whatsoever-why? Because we think it’s an acceptable use of public money which benefits everyone in the long term, like roads, education, medical care and military defence.
[/quote]

Sure, big bridges are useful for the people who use them every day. That’s why they tend to get built near cities for commuters. Building or improving light-rail systems within cities can be quite beneficial, to reduce congestion where population density is already high. Building rail lines between cities is more of a question mark. You’ll have to make a rough estimate of how many people already travel these routes by other means (air, interstate freeway, existing rail, etc.) and how often, and would high-speed rail be preferable.

Rather than coastal routes that’ll cost serious bucks with as-yet unproven benefit, why not get the Feds to support local-rail projects like high-speed links from a city’s airport to its downtown core, or with the specific plan to alleviate traffic at known local bottlenecks. Could a rail link from Pasadena to Ventura alleviate congestion along US 101?

Fine, once you can demonstrate that a massive number of commuters live (or would live given the chance) in Boston but work in Atlanta (or vice-versa), you might have the beginning of an argument. Tourism alone isn’t going to cut it. Boston and Atlanta benefit more from better access to their own suburbs than they would to each other.

37

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
I would love HSR along the northeast corridor. The problem is cost. People are looking at HSR as the “cheaper than flying” alternative, which I’m not sure is the case.
[/QUOTE]

This is one of two significant problems I see for a California line.

  1. The next flight from Oakland to LAX, right this minute, is $121. I don’t really see this brand-new, expensive HSR beating that, especially since a few years ago, I spent 12 hours on Amtrak from Riverside to San Francisco and paid $99 for the pleasure.

  2. The routing. Santa Rosa-SFO-San Jose-(Santa Cruz)-Monterey-SLO-(Santa Maria)-Santa Barbara-LA-SD (essentially the 101 corridor, plus Monterey) would be the most useful (maybe with a spur to Sac), but it’d never happen. It’s almost all coastline, and it’d never fly. So that leaves us with the I-5 corridor, which everyone in CA already knows and hates, and wouldn’t go through anything useful between Sac and LA. Add in a spur to Oakland, but you’re still taking a very, very slow bus to Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Santa Rosa.

If you made it a bigger-picture thing, Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-(Redding)-Sac-(SF spur)-LA-SD, you might have an efficient route, but I don’t see a lot of people taking the SF-LA route. (I dunno what Seattle-SoCal traffic is like, but if there’s enough SF might not matter, but I kinda doubt that).

38

The only way this would make sense would be if airport capacity were completely maxed out. And yes, we are sort of right on the tipping point in that regard, but there is still plenty of capacity at auxiliary airports surrounding the major hubs, and plenty of space still in the skylanes. NYC already has 3 major airports, more will surely come on-line (Stewart up in the Hudson Valley is ramping up in this regard). San Francisco already has 3. Even little Portland is starting to use Hillsboro airport in a more major capacity. So inter-city passenger transit will likely remain fast, cheap, and flexible by air.

39

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Fine, once you can demonstrate that a massive number of commuters live (or would live given the chance) in Boston but work in Atlanta (or vice-versa), you might have the beginning of an argument. Tourism alone isn’t going to cut it. Boston and Atlanta benefit more from better access to their own suburbs than they would to each other.
[/QUOTE]
scr4 had it right, this is NOT for people to ride from Boston to Atlanta. This is for:

Boston to Providence
Boston to Hartford
Providence to Hartford
Boston to New York City
Providence to New York City
Hartford to New York City
Hartford to Trenton
New York City to Trenton
Hartford to Philadelphia
etc.

Those are some of the trips where this makes sense; faster and easier than driving or flying. A lot of people travel between those pairs of cities. It could be a success even if no one ever rides it from one end to the other.

40

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Sure, big bridges are useful for the people who use them every day. That’s why they tend to get built near cities for commuters. Building or improving light-rail systems within cities can be quite beneficial, to reduce congestion where population density is already high. Building rail lines between cities is more of a question mark. You’ll have to make a rough estimate of how many people already travel these routes by other means (air, interstate freeway, existing rail, etc.) and how often, and would high-speed rail be preferable.

[/quote]

That’s true - but do you deny that in principle that, if the rail system is expected to return more in broader economic growth than it costs to build, it could be worth it, even if it doesn’t return a direct profit in ticket costs?

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

<snip>
Fine, once you can demonstrate that a massive number of commuters live (or would live given the chance) in Boston but work in Atlanta (or vice-versa), you might have the beginning of an argument. Tourism alone isn’t going to cut it. Boston and Atlanta benefit more from better access to their own suburbs than they would to each other.
[/QUOTE]

Frankly, this is ridiculous - is an air link between Boston and Atlanta pointless because of the lack of daily commuters?

pdts