High Speed Rail from New York to San Francisco

[Ravenman]

@Robot Arm

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. … I think the state of passenger rail travel in this country is largely explained by those two funding strategies.

I’m just not following. Why would subsidizing the rails (as opposed to the trains) be so much better?

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’ve had good experiences on Europe’s rail system, too. But so what? Those rail systems really are not comparable to our geography. Paris to Brussels is a nice 150 mile ride. That’s like DC to Philadelphia. Nobody is arguing that passenger rail in the Northeast Corridor is a bad idea.

But New York to San Francisco is like 3,000 miles. That’s something like Paris to Moscow and back again. Who would want to take the train from Paris to Moscow, even if it was high speed and a network of local systems? It doesn’t make sense.

[mswas]

Why not make the rails government owned, and the operators buy leases?

[Troy_McClure_SF]

@BrainGlutton

A European or a Japanese would report very different experiences with rail travel.

Bully for them, but we’re talking about the US here.

[BrainGlutton]

@Troy McClure SF

Bully for them, but we’re talking about the US here.

We’re talking about (rail transportation in) the U.S. as it could be, not as it is now.

[RedFury]

@Mr. Moto

…There is no reason to develop these systems in light of replacing air travel - our country is too big for that. But supplementing and feeding that system wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

Busiest air-traffic corridor in the world is the one that links Madrid and Barcelona. Just this past year the Spanish Gov finished the AVE connection between the two (Madrid-Seville was the original, opened for World Expo in '96 I believe) and it already has the airline industry in a tizzy.

Not sure the idea posted by the OP would be operable in the US due to the fact brought-up priorly by many other posters such as yourself – its vast dimensions make long-distance travel between train and planes rather, well, incomparable. OTOH, having HST transport cover busy, short corridors such as NY/DC, Boston/NY, and many others I am not aware of, not only makes sense, but I think they would become an immediate hit.

Where you go from there – expansion – can only be dictated after the fact. For instance, if you click on the AVE link you’ll see (I think it’s there. Like HS trains and read numerous articles about them) that there are plans to link not just all of Spain and Portugal but to expand to Paris – where conceivably you could simply expand your HST experience to many other EU nations. For instance there is one already running between Paris and London.

Guess it’s a matter of just getting started.
BTW, Spanish HS manufacturer Talgo is already providing some fairly fast (125 mph, limited by track design) units for Amtracks’ Pacific Northwest service.

[Mr.Moto]

The thing is, these threads typically devolve into train enthusiasts talking up the train and ignoring all other possible transportation options. I find this shortsighted.

Already, several major cities in the Northeast are linked by a number of bus companies providing very cheap intercity travel. Originally intended to link various Chinatowns and provide low cost transportation to Asian immigrants, these have become popular with students and budget travelers as well.

On the other end of the spectrum, a motor coach company is catering to NY-Boston passengers who would otherwise fly or take the train. Their buses provide business amenities and considerable comfort, and get you between the cities for less than $100 and in about 4 hours. That’s a bargain as well.

Why can’t bus service be factored in to this sort of planning?

[RedFury]

@Mr. Moto

…Why can’t bus service be factored in to this sort of planning?

Won’t deny the “train enthusiast” label, but that’s an easy one: speed.

Get a Greyhound going at 325 kph on I-95 at rush hour and I might change my mind.

Mind you, we’re not talking about ‘fairly frequent’ travelers, much less about ‘occasional’ travelers but commuters. IOW, people that do this on a daily (or nearly) basis

[RedFury]

Might find this article of interest as well as informative vis-a-vis this topic:

Can Spain’s AVE Train Kill the Airplane?

[Mr.Moto]

@RedFury

Won’t deny the “train enthusiast” label, but that’s an easy one: speed.

Get a Greyhound going at 325 kph on I-95 at rush hour and I might change my mind.

Mind you, we’re not talking about ‘fairly frequent’ travelers, much less about ‘occasional’ travelers but commuters. IOW, people that do this on a daily (or nearly) basis

I’m not denying the utility of trains, but buses can go places they haven’t run track to yet. This makes them quite useful for local service , and if they were more ubiquitous and private, they could shift routes as needed to take advantage of new business.

Government run bus service isn’t as flexible.

[Mr.Moto]

@RedFury

Might find this article of interest as well as informative vis-a-vis this topic:

Can Spain’s AVE Train Kill the Airplane?

Given that most European countries make extensive uses of buses, and that Spain has a network of fine ones (privately owned for the most part) I wonder why you in particular are dismissing them.

[RedFury]

@Mr. Moto

I’m not denying the utility of trains, but buses can go places they haven’t run track to yet. This makes them quite useful for local service , and if they were more ubiquitous and private, they could shift routes as needed to take advantage of new business.

Government run bus service isn’t as flexible.

I feel we’re talking at cross-purposes. I have no beef with improving bus services to the hilt. But again, given a choice of commuting between DC and NY in 4/5 hours and doing so in less than half the time for about the same price, I know what I’d chose.

And that’s even without touching the enormous energy efficiency between the two.

[kidchameleon]

@mswas

2. 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.

From where? Chicago?

[mswas]

@kidchameleon

From where? Chicago?

Sorry 15 hours.

I still think the issue of the east coast leg of the trip hasn’t been properly addressed. New York to Chicago still seems feasible to me. Everyone is talking about NY - Boston or DC, but that already exists to a degree. Definitely something along the California coast would be nice, but it seems to me that the best options would be to link areas that aren’t currently linked by rail.

As someone said ancillary rail systems could serve local needs. Also, part of the point is that better connection to midwest cities might revitalize them.

[RedFury]

@mswas

…I still think the issue of the east coast leg of the trip hasn’t been properly addressed. New York to Chicago still seems feasible to me. Everyone is talking about NY - Boston or DC, but that already exists to a degree.

Tried and true and with an almost guaranteed clientèle. What/where is a better place to start/experiment?

As someone said ancillary rail systems could serve local needs. Also, part of the point is that better connection to midwest cities might revitalize them.

Just curious, what did that someone mean by “ancillary”? Because HST need their own especialized tracks (and even that somewhat depends on the chosen system; they are not all the same gage)…not something ancillary. IMHO, if you’re going to lay down track for passenger purposes, you’d be actually saving money by doing so with tomorrow’s technology than yesterdays.

[mswas]

The HSR could be like the interstate and then have local commuter rail radiate from it.

Just curious did anyone take a look at hte links BrainGlutton posted earlier on in the thread? The plan presented there seemed rather cool.

[Kent_Clark]

I don’t see enough demand to justify any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

Back on page 1, griffin1997 pointed out that in 2007, the Acela train boarded 593,000 passengers from Boston to New York. I just looked on Amtrack’s site and counted 49 Acela trains each day from Boston to New York. That’s Monday through Friday only (there are many less runs on weekends).

Assuming 250 days per year with 49 trains each day, that gives us 12,250 chances to take the train from Boston to New York. With 593,000 passengers that averages out to 2,372 passengers per day and just 48.4 passengers per train.

Let’s fly all 593,00 passengers from New York to San Fransisco Checking American Airlines, I get a last-minute, one way fare of $389. That means Amtrak could fly all of its Acela passengers each year for $230.67 million.

Now I’m having a devil of a time trying to find a cost estimate for building a high-speed NY-SF rail line. Digging through BrainGlutton’s link, I see South Korea is spending $16.3 billion for 412 km of high speed line. Just for the sake of jolly number crunching, let’s say the U.S. spends $23.067 billion for a transcontinental rail line.

Get where I’m going here? Assuming a huge ridership with each passenger paying as much as a full-price airline ticket, it would take years just to earn back the construction costs.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

I think it would. For one thing, there would be a stimulus to local tourism. A day trip by HSR to some town a few hundred miles away might be a way to spend a weekend – faster than driving, cheaper than flying.* And – this is the kicker – to get there you ride across the land, seeing everything, as you can’t from an airplane, and can’t afford to (pay attention) from a driver’s seat.

• I spent a year living in Homestead, at the southernmost end of Miami-Dade County. In all that time I went to Key West only once – it’s an effin’ four-hour drive! And I couldn’t afford to fly.

BTW: Once a few years ago in Miami, I did a temp job and a couple of young Cuban-American women in the office confidently predicted that (after certain things have changed) not only will Cuba one day be a state of the Union, but there will be a bridge between Key West and Havana. An actual bridge, one you could drive across.

I don’t see that happening – not Cuban statehood, and not a bridge. But maybe a rail tunnel, like the Chunnel. Various proposed routes for a Florida HSR system all terminate in Miami. But if it extended down to KW, someday it could then continue on to Havana.

BTW: Has anybody proposed HSR for Canada? I think a single transcontinental line would be enough to link all the major cities.

[RedFury]

@kunilou

I don’t see enough demand to justify any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

Back on page 1, griffin1997 pointed out that in 2007, the Acela train boarded 593,000 passengers from Boston to New York. I just looked on Amtrack’s site and counted 49 Acela trains each day from Boston to New York. That’s Monday through Friday only (there are many less runs on weekends).

Assuming 250 days per year with 49 trains each day, that gives us 12,250 chances to take the train from Boston to New York. With 593,000 passengers that averages out to 2,372 passengers per day and just 48.4 passengers per train.

Let’s fly all 593,00 passengers from New York to San Fransisco Checking American Airlines, I get a last-minute, one way fare of $389. That means Amtrak could fly all of its Acela passengers each year for $230.67 million.

Now I’m having a devil of a time trying to find a cost estimate for building a high-speed NY-SF rail line. Digging through BrainGlutton’s link, I see South Korea is spending $16.3 billion for 412 km of high speed line. Just for the sake of jolly number crunching, let’s say the U.S. spends $23.067 billion for a transcontinental rail line.

Get where I’m going here? Assuming a huge ridership with each passenger paying as much as a full-price airline ticket, it would take years just to earn back the construction costs.

Dude, will you pay for the Tylenol?

---

BG, exactly what I am talking about (including The Chunnel). And I can’t quite figure out why any of it is “visionary” seeing as it is already a reality in many other First World countries.

Besides I can think of no nation that spends more (or wastes, which goes along with the territory) on R&D than your own US of A. In this case you need stop being the caboose and man the engines. Or easier/cheaper still, get the nations that already have a HST system in place to help suit your needs.

Progress. Not.A.Bad.Thing.[sup]®[/sup] regardless of what all those evil Conservatives will tell you.

[Mr.Moto]

First of all, I see no reason to adopt European models for transportation blindly. As has been pointed out, we are a good bit bigger than any single European country. We will need to adopt solutions that fit us.

That being said, several European countries have airports that act as intermodal hubs of the type I have described. These seem to work well, and I see no reason they wouldn’t transplant here well and work at a regional level.

[Spoons]

@Mr. Moto

The thing is, these threads typically devolve into train enthusiasts talking up the train and ignoring all other possible transportation options. I find this shortsighted.

I’m a rail enthusiast, but even I am willing to admit that rail has its limitations. Unless you’re really committed to rail, you won’t put up with a two or three day trip to cover huge chunks of the country, for example. FTR, I have. But that’s just me; I’m well aware that not everybody likes riding trains as much as I do.

North American rail works well in heavily-travelled corridors (NY to Washington in the US, or Windsor to Montreal in Canada). Where it does poorly is on longer trips: NY to San Francisco, Los Angeles to Chicago, Toronto to Vancouver. But stop for a minute and consider: that Toronto to Vancouver train (I’ve taken it a few times) is going via Sudbury, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, and Jasper, among other places. Like a city subway train, people can get on and off between the two “end-of-the-line” points. This allows the railroad to sell the same seat twice, unlike an airliner going nonstop between Toronto and Vancouver. It also allows people who do not live near an air hub to get going on their way without having (in some cases) to go out of their way and/or backtrack to a hub and change planes.

The beauty of trains (sorry, it’s the rail enthusiast in me) is that they are damn near impossible to hijack, they make it through nearly all kinds of weather including that which would shut down airports and highways, and their terminals tend to be located in or near downtowns, so connections to the rest of the city are easy to make. For us longhaul diehards, the dining car provides cooked meals, the lounge car provides relaxation and conversation, and I do appreciate the fact I can stretch out in a real bed at night.

The downside, of course, is that trains take time; and even I, as a businessman, can’t always afford the time needed to take them. I was very thankful for air travel, for example, when I had a 10:00 am meeting in Toronto and a 4:00 pm meeting in Vancouver on the same day. Thanks to an airline that flew to schedule that day and the time zone difference, I made each meeting. Couldn’t do that on a train.

I’m a rail enthusiast, but I’m also well aware of other transportation options and how circumstances can affect one’s choice of transport, as you can see. Looking at rail is not necessarily a shortsighted approach, but merely one of many options. There are many advantages to rail, though there are disadvantages. At any rate, it disturbs me (and undoubtedly other rail enthusiasts) to see rail so quickly dismissed in discussions such as this.