Yeah, I see regional high-speed networks as infinitely more practical than transnational. In the midwest it seems a no-brainer to connect Mineapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Cincy, Cleveland, and Detroit, eliminating the need for much of the existing short-hop air travel between those cities. Same along the east coast. And maybe around Florida, Atlanta, Nawlins, and some regions in the north and southwest. Once we have a few of these regional systems up an running, connecting them could be a logical next step.
Unfortunately, all the proposals I’ve heard about in the midwest impress me as underfunded half-hearted efforts. Sure, it would cost $, but apparently that is no bar to the federal government doing whatever it chooses to do!
Another thing I wanted to add, only tangentially on topic:
How is it that someone hasn’t built an LA to Las Vegas train yet? Most of the trip goes through the desert, right of way should be relatively cheap. Think of the kind of money something like that could make on weekend trips. Hell, have a casino car that opens up once it reaches the Nevada border. Have a fancy dinner car and in seat booze service. The money would be insane.
Part of that calculation ought to be that cars offer the most flexibility once you arrive at your destination, so you don’t need to take taxis and so forth.
Erhm, you can’t be subsidized and overpay at the same time. I can’t verify that this is accurate, but it claims that Amtrak tickets are subsidized at nearly a dollar for each dollar spent by a traveler. Actually, upon googling some, I see that Amtrak’s 2006 revenues were $1.37 billion, and at the same time they received $1.3 billion from the Federal government. How much of the cost of rail travel should passengers actually pay if you claim that a 50% subsidy on Amtrak’s operating costs is insufficient? What do you expect, taxpayers to pay 60%, 70%, or 80% of your train journey?
NY to San Francisco is still city to city. Sure, once you get out west it’s a bit less of city to city, but until Nebraska you have a number of Medium sized to large cities. Connecting New York to Cleveland to Chicago is ‘city to city’.
Another straw man prevalent in this thread.
People complain about Acela not saving that much time. Well the Acela is not HSR, it goes about 70 - 80 MPH, we’re talking about 200 mph, meaning 10 hours to San Francisco plus time for layovers. Also, people aren’t factoring in the 25 per day average cost of parking in NY, Boston and DC, when they do their calculus for the Acela price. So Bridge, Gas, Toll, and Parking is how you need to calculate the price differential. Factor in congestion pricing, which will likely be implemented in Manhattan within the decade. Congestion pricing + parking fee drives up the cost of driving from Boston or DC to Manhattan by about 50 a day.
The transcontinental rail could connect your regional midwest rail providing a hub in Cleveland and Chicago.
If this is such a great idea, how come some private corporation hasn’t tired to make a go of it? I’ll tell you why: Because it’s a loser idea. Passenger rail is a money sink, and I don’t see any reason for the government to support it. If a proposal is worthwhile, then private industry will pursue it. If it is not, then it will die like it should. The feds waste an insane amount of our money already, I see no reason to dig them another hole to pour it down.
Well, yes. Like exploding and rendering several hundred square miles uninhabitable and producing permenantly radioactive waste that no one can figure out what to do with.
I have no issue with taking the train. The problem is that even a maglev train traveling an average 300 mph will still take at least 13 hours to get there, compared to a six hour direct flight.
Regardless of what you call it, Nebraska to California is still a long haul that would not recoup in time or dollars. I think everyone in this thread has supported interlinked regionals. The main objection is why a national HSR initiative should start with NY-LA (or if you prefer, NY-Chicago). The reason is that the long hauls can’t compete with air yet.
People are making this comparison because Acela is commuter rail. HSR is way too expensive to be viable as commuter rail to mitigate a 4-hour transit. I agree express local rail looks good for long commutes when you factor everything in.
Also, ‘strawman’ does not mean ‘faulty argument’. A strawman is when you claim your opponent is saying something that he didn’t say, so that you may easily refute it. I see no strawman arguments in this thread.
The chances of this happening with modern nuclear power plants are extraordinarily slim. How long are we going to let the scaremongering anti-nuke wackjobs keep us dependent on foreign oil before we say “Enough! Take your China Syndrome delusions back to Fantasyland where they belong”.
I mentioned in another thread a while back that states ought to remove barriers to private motorcoach operators so that they could not only expand intercity service, but also provide service to air hubs as well.
Something like liability caps and coordination to improve interconnectivity would be helpful, and these services could serve rail hubs as well.
This works if you’re going from a car-optional city to a car-optional city, and have no desire to leave the city once there. If you want to have the use of a car in the city, you have to add car rental charges on top of parking to the train price. Maybe not a huge deal in Boston DC and NY, but I’d bet people would want a car in Cleveland.
If you don’t need a car at all, you still have the comparison with the airlines. You can get Boston to DC roundtrip for 2 for under $550, about the same as Amtrak’s regional service, and a couple hundred less than Acela. That also offers you a 90 minute ride (plus airport time) instead of a 6-7 hour ride on the train.
If you double the Acela speed, it’s still a 3 hour ride, you’re not saving much time over taking a plane, and there’s no way in hell it’ll be cheaper than Acela. At best, it’s low hassle, and some folks (like businessmen) will pay for less hassle, most people won’t.
All forms of transportation are pretty much money-losers. Airlines, for example, can barely keep afloat. And the government isn’t making at on of cash on those highways. Why do we keep doing it? Because a good transportation system returns many times it’s worth in the ability of other businesses to keep doing their thing.
What on earth are you talking about strawmen? I was merely commenting on what I understand to be the economies of high speed rail, its potential competitiveness with the alternatives of air travel and driving, and what I understand to be a logical progression for improving rail service.
Cars offer flexibility in a city like NY or DC? I always saw having a car in a city to be a huge hassle, not a benefit.
Well, my preferred model would be for the govt. to own the tracks and have private companies run the trains, the opposite situation than what we currently have. In this scenario, instead of subsidies going toward ticket price, it would go to toward building and maintaining infrastructure. Basically the same set up as the highways in other words.
Cite? What list and by what measure? Building high speed train lines is expensive and it may not be worth building new ones in the States but trains are certainly efficient people movers for short and medium journeys.
Yeah - it ain’t as tho the airlines - or autos - operate entirely without gov’t subsidy. Roads, airports, and the FAA aren’t exactly free.
And be sure to consider all of the costs. You generally don’t need to take your shoes off before boarding a train, and when trains crash, they usually don’t stray too far from their tracks!
Well the title of the post is “High Speed Rail from New York to San Francisco”. That’s the context in which I was replying. Subways and light rails may be another matter, as is freight.
Comparing the subsidy of “operating costs” misses the point. For road and air travel, the government doesn’t subsidize operating costs, but it does maintain the infrastructure. The government builds roads and airports, hires the air traffic controllers, and maintains the systems that support navigation; and allows private companies to operate on the public network. Transport has thrived on that model.
Passenger rail travel in the U.S. is exactly the opposite. The carrier is publicly run and subsidized, operating on tracks owned by private companies (the freight railroads). Amtrak has to operate at the times, speeds, and track conditions that those companies are willing to give it. I think the state of passenger rail travel in this country is largely explained by those two funding strategies.
(There are exceptions, by the way. The Northeast Corridor tracks (Boston to New York, at least, not sure about the rest) are passenger-only. The Acela still rarely operates to its speed potential. It’s constrained by turn radius in some places, and by the speed of other trains on the approach to New York.)
I’ve spent some time in Europe, and travelled by train quite a lot. I was running late in Paris; and after a nervous cab ride I got to the station one minute before my train was supposed to leave. I ran inside, found the right track, showed the conductor my ticket, got on board and they closed the doors before I was in my seat. Try that at the airport. It was comfortable, relaxing; I met some very interesting people, saw places, it was great.
I’d like to see something like it in the U.S. My question is how to it from where we are now. I don’t think a trans-continental system makes sense, although regional systems could be built to a common spec that would allow them to join together as they grew. My hope is that the success of the Acela will continue, prompting it to be expanded and improved. I think it will happen slowly enough that we’ll fall further behind Europe, but as long as it’s getting better here, I can live with it.
