Toll roads should make a profit, or at least break even, and I’m not aware of any major U.S. airports operating at a loss. There’s another difference when it comes to roads versus passenger rail infrastructure, though. We already have roads; we’ve already paid for them (less maintenance); and adding on a rail system is (rightly or wrongly) seen as something extra, additional, optional, and unneeded, and so of course those strange people that choose to use them shouldn’t dig into my pockets to pay for their personal pet projects.
Of course we could have said we already had a working system before the US Interstate System was built, but that was framed as a defense measure. I wasn’t around then, but I imagined that it appealed to people’s sense of nationalism in a way that a train to nowhere doesn’t.
I don’t think public transit should necessarily be required to turn a profit, as I see it more like a part of responsible infrastructure. That does not mean it should be run inefficiently - as stated, high-speed rail can only accommodate high-speed trains. To me it would be wiser and more efficient to invest in strengthening existing urban and inter-urban routes by creating bypasses so freight and commuter lines can operate better (and with more safety) on the same tracks.
Well, yeah, roads and rails aren’t exactly the same things and don’t work in exactly the same ways. I’m not sure why that means one of them is worth doing and the other isn’t. Once you take a train to where you’re going, you can take transit, a cab, or Uber right to the doorstep of where you want to go. It’s different from driving in that you have to switch from one vehicle to another. It’s also different in that you don’t have to pay for a place to park. So what?
Lots of people in cities don’t own cars, and some don’t even know how to drive. Assuming you drive, why did you get to dig into their pockets to pay for your personal pet project?
I don’t know if this project in California is a good idea. Maybe people will flock to it the day it opens, maybe it will change land development plans and in 50 years they’ll be glad they did it, maybe it’ll be a massive white elephant. But if the argument against it is “this is something different and it isn’t perfect for me”, that’s pretty weak.
It’s a simplification. Urbanredneck described the differences between roads and rail. Balthisar seemed to be saying that he shouldn’t have to pay for something that doesn’t meet his needs. I think those are weak arguments.
Now we’re on to something. That is a good argument against it. If there isn’t enough demand for the service to justify the cost, then it shouldn’t be built. I hope the study was done impartially. If a similar study was done in California and said that there would be enough riders to justify the cost, should they build it? Los Angeles to San Francisco isn’t exactly a bridge to nowhere.
Your location says you’re in Ohio, which seems like it might someday be a good candidate for high speed rail. Did your state’s study identify any factors (like increasing population density) that might tip the balance in favor of such a project, or any steps that should be taken now (like securing rights-of-way) to prepare for building one in the future.
I didn’t mean me, personally. I thought I was speaking with a larger voice, i.e., society’s voice in general. Thus my appeal to nationalism later, i.e., you might change society’s voice that way.
For the sake of argument, all of those people benefit directly by the transportation of goods and services that make their lives meaningful or bearable. High speed passenger trains don’t really do that for them.
The state is pretty broken up as far as large cities go. Cincinnati and Columbus have grown beyond their interstate beltway which is saying something. I doubt the bus system would fill the gap needed for a high speed train.
But as it has been pointed out, there is an interesting change in the parameters of a rail system that didn’t exist when it was originally proposed and that’s uber. I don’t know how that works in a large metropolitan area. For high speed rail to work it has to have limited stops. How does that work in an area that’s 400 square miles for one city?
I personally would take a handful of train rides just for the hell of it. But if I need to travel around a city when I get there then I would have to have something reliable to use. For me that would have to be a cheap rental car focused on 1 day use and I don’t see why that couldn’t be built into the project. But again, I’m not going to utilize the train much and it takes ridership.
If I lived on the East Coast I would be much more excited about high speed trains but they already go reasonably fast (to me) so is the difference worth the money? If it took an hr to get to work and they cut 10 minutes off then not really. That’s the trouble with a commuter line. It has a lot of stops in it. An electric train is already going to do well on short halls because electric motors kick ass. But if the train can’t go much faster than 100 mph before the next stop then nothing changes.
High speed rail would be great between Chicago and Los Angeles, or Seattle. Not so much between Chicago and Milwaukee.
I’m sure there are some people in America for whom high-speed rail would be a godsend, just as there are people who rely on highways or air travel infrastructure.
I’m not sure what’s so special about transporting physical goods. Consider a financier from L.A. who meets with a tech startup in San Francisco; they form a partnership and create a new technology that you use every day. Or someone who lives in Bakersfield and gets a job offer in L.A.; it’s only practical for him to accept it if there’s a fast way to commute. I just don’t see why transporting freight should be considered a public good (and meriting public infrastructure) and transporting people shouldn’t.
The difficulty in getting around certain cities is a factor against rail travel, but there’s no reason that can’t change. If Cincinnati and Columbus keep growing, they’ll have to deal with how to move more people more efficiently. Things like Uber and Lyft are catching on, as you mentioned, there’s also Zipcar, and Boston has a bicycle sharing service that I hear is doing well. Even if the conditions aren’t right for high-speed rail now, it seems to me that we’re heading in that direction.
The east coast (really the Boston-New York City-Washington corridor) is an interesting case. There’s high-speed service, but it’s still far short of what’s technically feasible. It’s less to do with with distance between stops and more about the quality of the track, the shaprness of curves, etc. I saw a proposal for planned improvements, including new track on a new route through Hartford, which would cut Boston-NYC times by more than an hour. Even with the service we have now, it gets plenty of riders.
I think you’re wrong about Chicago to Los Angeles or Seattle. Routes that long would still be dominated by air travel. There’s a sweet spot, something like 150-400 miles, where rail would be faster than driving or flying. I’ve seen proposals for Ohio, Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, etc.
One of the big issues with the last Ohio proposal (beyond the fact that it was going to start at an average speed of 35 MPH and inch its way up to faster speeds over decades) is that the only stations were going to be in the three downtowns. The only way rail makes sense here in the short and medium term is if it meshes well with the huge majority of the population that lives in suburban areas and drives to get around. And you need stations that make it easy for drivers to get on the train to do that. If you tell a suburban driver to deal with all the inconveniences of driving downtown to get on the train (with ~50% of people having to backtrack to get there too), they’ll just skip the train and drive to the downtown they actually want to be in.
But it would have to be unrealistically fast to be great between Chicago and Los Angeles. Any existing technology would still be the slow option, and the huge expense of high-speed rail doesn’t make sense when the train is going to be the slow way to travel.
I certainly could be wrong about it. depends on the cost of the ticket. In my youth I took a bus ride of similar distance because it was cheaper than flying or driving. If I did it again I think the car would win out just because the bus ride was more of an adventure than I’d wanted.
That is simply not true. The core of the French TGV system has been profitable (but not some of the provincial expansions that did not follow the original economic logic)
The pure passenger traffic can be profitable according to a certain traval time and population density ratio.
For your american prairies your observation would be true, but it is an observation that is based on a narrow experience.
Then it is not high speed trains like the TGV
they are completely incompatible and it would make no sense at all.
the medium speed can co-exist but is best if there is the multiple tracking so that the service schedules for the passenger services are not disturbed, which can easily happen by the different needs of the freight and the passangers.
It’s not just that the train schedules interfere with each other. High-speed passenger trains are very light, and require the tracks to be built and maintained to a high standard. Freight trains are heavy and put a lot of stress on the tracks. If the rails flex and are a few millimeters further apart than they should be, that can be too much for the passenger trains to operate as they should. Plus, HSR trains are electric and run off a wire suspended over the track; freight trains in the U.S. are diesel.
Yes, I know the high speed trains well. My comment on the tracking is about the medium speed passenger trains like that exist in your country on the east coast.
Too expensive you say,holy smoke,you should see the cost over here for the HS2 train line from London to Birmingham 125 miles long and at a cost of £42.6 billion …no doubt that will be higher for sure.
Sadly,we in Scotland being tied to England,roll on INDEPENDENCE DAY,have to pay around £4.6 billion for nothing,it’s bad enough that they steal our oil but we have pay for something we will never use,as well as paying £1.8 billion for the London sewage system,farcical indeed.
You will never see high speed rail in the US, like you see in other countries in Europe and Asia. The primary reason are the property rights and our judicial system in the US. For high speed rail to work it needs to be straight. So that limits the options on which property would need be taken and then the ultimate value ascribed to that land. Even with imminent domain, the process would be held up in the courts systems for decades.
High speed rail works in europe, but with that said there a doctor’s visit + a referral to a specialist + 3 prescription meds out of pocket, no insurance, came to less than $150 - unheard of here. With the US’s concept of charge as much as you can I’m not sure if people are willing to pay for a train trip which is over the cost of a plane ticket. So it depends if they are willing to forgo the ferengi rules of acquisition.
Rail has a huge advantage in doing that. In fact, it has such a large advantage that passenger rail kinda… died. The rail companies flat didn’t want to operate it, because it was just too expensive for the gain.
The U.S. has the world’s best rail network. We don’t move people on it, as they tend to do things like whine about the time involved or complain about the food.
While the rail authority’s board met in closed session on Nov. 15 to discuss the CEO opening, there’s no public evidence of progress. Perhaps a choice has already been made. But it’s quite possible that high-powered transportation executives want nothing to do with California’s debacle.
