From here:
That’s just on one line, but it sounds pretty signifigant to me.
Right, but that’s the line in the Northeast, where this form of travel works well because of population density. Hell, intercity bus service in this region is expanding rapidly - with very high quality service at very low cost.
It is possible to travel round trip DC to New York by bus for around fifty bucks on a bus that has wifi, power outlets and extra legroom - and taking into account security check in times and parking, the trip doesn’t take much longer.
You couldn’t parse that to make sense? 
You didn’t think of splicing the word “regular” before the word “people”? Seriously?
That’s exactly my point! I’m only citing the Acela to counter smiling bandit’s claim that expanded rail travel will bring with it airport-style security. The fact is that we have trains in this country operating at near capacity, and security is not an inconvenience to passengers.
I have misgivings about what the OP has proposed. I have already posted them. I just hate to see these debates get sidetracked (sorry) by bogus objections when the real ones are so much more interesting.
My primary probem with “reviving” conventional rail:
1. What problem does conventional rail solve in the U.S. that isn’t already solved by either commercial jetliners (for great distances) or cars/buses (for shorter distances)?
As another poster mentioned, the optimal distance for rail commuting is between 100 and 200 miles. Any shorter than that, and it’s fantastically more economical and faster to drive. Between 200-400 miles, and it’s fantastically quicker to fly (and ironically, drive and/or bus). Farther than 400, miles and the only way to go is by plane. Unless you’re vacationing. But considering that most domestic travel in the US is completed primarily by business people, its loony to think that companies will pay for their businessfolk to take “the scenic route” by rail for distances of 200 miles.
It’s much different in Europe, where population densities are such that commuter rail makes a lot more sense. And is also why commuter rail DOES work in places like the upper eastern seaboard (Boston-NYC, for example) or other high population density areas (such as Chicago, or Seattle-Tacoma) where land is at a premium and population centers are tight.
Building a “new” conventional rail system, however, through Indiana or Kansas or even central PA, however, takes advantage of neither any population density nor need.
EVEN with higher fuel costs, it is often far more economical for the business passenger to fly, rather than take rail, in most parts of the country. And in those parts of the country where it is far more economica for the business passenger to take rail, such systems already exist (Boston, NYC, etc.)
Remember that if fuel costs go up for airlines, well so too it also goes up at the same time for cars, buses, and yes even diesel train engines. Meaning unless rail travel was heavily subsidized (hint: It already is now!) at the expense of subsidizing other modes of travel, the cost of fuel is a non-factor unless you can build a rail train that is 100% solar powered or something.:rolleyes:
Again the question: What problems does ‘reviving’ passenger rail travel in the U.S. solve that isn’t already solved by other existing methods?
See, that’s where I think the interesting debate begins. Are there other areas of the country where the conditions are also favorable to rail travel, and how can we best prepare for when (or if) there will be?
There is very little reason to take regular speed rail anywhere if you have a car.
Take southern Ontario and Quebec as an example.
We have a perfectly good regular rail service here - VIA rail - that connects the major cities. Multiple trains every day on the Windsor-Quebec corridor. I have absolutely zero interest in using it. It’s inferior to cars or airplanes, unless those simply aren’t options. Trains are much more expensive than driving and is about equal in cost to flying, and it’s slower than flying and no faster than driving. Why would anyone want to take it unless they didn’t have a choice?
High speed rail would present a benefit; it’d be faster than driving, so it would introduce a factor that might make it attractive.
No, they’re made of Soylent Green.
Stranger
I am not speaking for the OP, but I have a reason: the hundreds of billions the US sends to terrorists each year when we purchase oil.
We need to reduce this huge part of our trade deficit, and oil is doing nothing but getting rarer.
Hybrid cars still use some gas; even a 300% mileage improvement would still be using more gas than the US produces domestically. I don’t want to get into all the problems of a hydrogen economy and biofuels here, but they are not a free ride.
All of the issues with private vehicles are going to get worse in the next couple of decades if we keep making them our primary transportation option.
Even ignoring nuke-you-ler and renewables, there is enough coal to keep us electrified for a long time, with nuclear and wind/solar, the balance of available energy will tilt further toward electricity and away from liquid fuels.
So, given that, I think that electrifying existing rails and increasing the number of street cars and electric busses (like in SF) will be the best solution to reduce the use of liquid fuels. (along with a focus on building communities that work without many cars, or at least with minimal long distance travel by car)
As things stand now, it would be hard to justify the expense. But I also believe that we should have a high gas tax, and that money should go toward building this public transportation system. It should be highly subsidized during the decades long transition, and the sooner we get going, the easier the transition will be. The higher cost of gas will shift traffic to the electric powered options.
It costs about the same to fly or take the train from SD to SF, but if gas taxes reflected the actual cost to society, and the rail was electrified, it would turn out that trains are more cost efficient.
Local transportation would be done with small private cars that do use electricity, but are small and have short ranges, but there would also be busses running from the local train station to parking garages around town, to provide a reasonably time efficient service.
Yeah, I know, it’s a pipe dream, but I think it is good to envision what an ideal solution might be, and try to find things we can do now to work toward that general goal. Beefing up the rail lines and other public transportation and slowly increasing the gas tax would be good steps to take now.
Dag
One thing we’re all overlooking is that rail service isn’t just point A to point B – it includes all the cities BETWEEN points A and B.
Logically it makes sense that the train should stop at some of these cities. After all, what’s the efficiency in having a train go between (to use my previous example) Chicago and St. Louis, if you live anywhere between Chicago and St. Louis and still have to drive?
Let’s say you want to stop every 100 miles, so no one has to drive more than one hour to get to a train. That means 2 stops on a 300-mile trip. Assuming 15 minutes per stop, you’ve just added another 30 minutes to the trip. It’s great for the people in Springfield and Bloomington, but it just got less efficient for the people in Chicago in St. Louis.
THIS is the major unintended consequence that bogs down most every so-called “express” commuter method, be it light rail, commuter rail, and even interstate highways!
A mode starts out being “limited access” or “express” – and quickly every one-horse town along the way wants a stop, or exit, or whatever. And sooner or later the mode STOPS being ‘express’ anymore.
This is simply not true. It is 45-50 miles San Jose to SF and it’s cheaper and faster to take the Baby Bullet. This is due to commute traffic and the high cost of parking in SF.
Stops do add to the trip, but I think 15 minutes is too much. There are doors at the ends of each car. The few people getting off at an intermediate stop can gather their bags and be waiting by the door. The train is only in the station for a minute or two. Including the deceleration and acceleration, I’d guess each stop adds 10 minutes at the most.
What we need are rolling roads, so you can get on and off without the train stopping. We’ve almost got the sunpower screens…
Which is again a special case of high population density along the rail line, heavy traffic congestion, and no practical way to expand roadways or provide alternate routes. The same would not apply to, say, Kansas City or Cincinnati, which is why those cities to not have extensive commuter rail line. The Caltrain Southbay line is also pretty heavily subsidized with the justification of reducing traffic congestion, so by price it is not a head to head comparison. The Baby Bullet is pretty nice, and if I lived in SF along the South Bay Corridor I’d definitely consider using it, but it is a particular product of its environment and one that exists in no small measure on the public largess rather than its own revenues.
Stranger
Too vulnerable to sabotage by union goons.
You could simply make the train four times as long and do multiple stops at the same station then run each as an express to a different station. Just make sure the doors don’t open for the wrong section of the train at the wrong time. That way you would still have the physical train 10 minutes apart rather than 3, but carry four times as many people on the same tracks.
Let me explain it again: the front 10 cars pick up at each busy downtown station, it then moves 300 feet and does it again, and again and again. These are the red, blue, green and yellow trains. When the train gets to the burbs, the red train only stops at every fourth station, first and fifth and ninth,etc. So do the other colors. Blue stops at the second station, sixth, etc. Green at three and seven etc. Yellow at four and eight etc. So at each busy downtown stop the train takes more than four times as long to plus movement times, but is generally just as fast in the burbs.
I hereby give this idea to the public, especially the Japanese, who might finally get a seat.
So the four trains would start out coupled together, then uncouple at the city limits so each one could stop independent of the others. Is that right?
Why bother? At station A, the red train loads up, moves forward, and then it has to cool its heels for three more load/unload cycles. What is it waiting for? Cut it loose. Let it move on to station B, load, unload, and then haul ass for the 'burbs.
Or build the platforms at the in-city stations long enough to board the whole train at once. (That avoids the disadvantage I mentioned, but I’m not sure it gives any advantage over separate, shorter trains.)
We get bogged down in these threads by discussing long distance passenger routes which no intelligent transit advocate is pressing for. As mentioned above, and in countless other threads, trains work best in dense corridors over distances that fall between distances that are at the short end for planes but at the long end for car trips. To that end, I think we would do best by focusing on upgrading the existing passenger rail infrastructure between the those type of routes. I believe that this is the gist of Obama’s current “high speed” rail proposal.
High speed trains are needed because they have to compete with driving. They have to significantly cheaper or faster. They have to offer something better. If you factor in the time spent at an airport ,you could beat airlines on time for short trips too.
Going from New York to Orlando , you have trouble competing with planes. To construct a new high speed rail system would become a legal nightmare. The land would have to be bought or confiscated .