# What are the prospects for a three-tiered rail transit system in the U.S.? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900 "2004-08-02T01:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/101 "2004-08-08T10:15:32Z")
No, scratch that, that’s the wrong way around. But in any case, those statistics can’t be talking about true high-speed railways, only about the fastest in the US. Where you still have roads crossing tracks, etc. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/102 "2004-08-08T10:30:24Z")
Here’s some stats from the EU, partly to show how it changes according to the measurment used: (from [this large PDF](http://www.etsc.be/statoverv.pdf)) > [@](#): > > Deaths per 100m-person-km: > > Road (all) 0.95 > Car 0.7 > Ferry 0.25 > Air 0.035 > Rail 0.035 > Deaths per 100m-person-hours: > > Road (all) 28 > Car 25 > Air 16 > Ferry 8 > Rail 2 ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/103 "2004-08-08T10:56:49Z")
Another point that should be made when comparing air and high-speed rail travel is passenger capacity. For example, the Eurostar seats 800, and there’s 14 weekday services between London and Paris. That’s the eqivalent of 61 flights by 737-800s. And IIRC, the original TGV line between Paris and Lyons reached a train every three minutes, before they had to introduce double-deckers seating nearly 600. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/104 "2004-08-08T13:26:14Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The point is that all forms of transit—public and private—are subsidized to some extent, and all of them provide some indirect benefits to people who don’t personally use them. Sure I may get a tiny benifit from the few people that ride the bus. The bus that I pay for that runs on the roads that I pay for. I don’t mind paying, but it bugs me when people, people that ride public transport (that in my case is FULLY subsidized, it’s free for crying out loud) complain that they are subsidizing cars. But then, we where talking trains… I don’t live in an area that could be served by trains. Nor would I use one it where somehow magically made available. To inconvenient. I do already pay a tax to provide a free bus service. I don’t mind to much. But I think the riders should at least cough up a token payment. It may not make any difference though. And just hurt readership. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/105 "2004-08-08T14:12:11Z")
**enipla:** _But I think the riders should at least cough up a token payment. It may not make any difference though. And just hurt readership._ (You mean ridership, right?) Actually I agree with you on this; transit alternatives to cars ought to be funded partly by farebox revenue (i.e., direct payments from riders), just as car use is funded partly by direct payments from car owners. (And in fact, most transit systems do get about a quarter to a half of their operating costs from farebox revenues.) There could be a means-tested system of free (or off-peak hours free) passes if you want to make sure you’re not pricing the transit out of reach of really poor people. The only situation I can see where a totally no-fare transit system is justifiable is in heavily congested downtown areas with highly variable traffic loading—that is, where you get lots of traffic with commuters during working hours but little activity otherwise. Then it makes sense to try to keep the streets clear for commercial activity by providing free, convenient loop shuttles so that most commuters will just never need to use their car between the time they come in and the time they go home. In other words, if your ridership is composed mostly of people who have the easy alternative of using their cars and you want to lure them away from it, you have to make the system more attractive than you do if you’re serving mostly riders who don’t have that easy alternative. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/106 "2004-08-08T14:56:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **enipla:** _But I think the riders should at least cough up a token payment. It may not make any difference though. And just hurt readership._ > > (You mean ridership, right?) Yep. I live in a rural mountain comunity that lives off the recreation industry. Mostly skiing. It bugs me a little that I support something that has very, very little benifit to me without the riders at least paying SOMETHING. But, what the heck. I’m off to a convention for a week, so that’s probably it for me. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/107 "2004-08-08T17:57:49Z")
So you live in an area heavily indebted to tourism income, and object to a free travel service which is surely of great benefit to out-of-towners, who are there to spend money in the local economy? In Basel, Switzerland, any resident at a hotel (or even the youth hostel) gets a free travel voucher for all city transport for the duration of their stay. Compared to what I’d have spent on travel in a week while there, that was an extra £20-30 I spent in bars, restaurants and shops. I’d say that I paid something back. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/108 "2004-08-08T18:04:11Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Here’s some stats from the EU, partly to show how it changes according to the measurment used: (from [this large PDF](http://www.etsc.be/statoverv.pdf)) So, no matter how you measure safety, cars are still the most dangerous mode of transport and rail is still the safest. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/109 "2004-08-08T18:05:36Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > But then, we where talking trains… I don’t live in an area that could be served by trains. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/110 "2004-08-08T18:17:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So, no matter how you measure safety, cars are still the most dangerous mode of transport and rail is still the safest. Yes, sorry, I was going off-topic about air safety. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/111 "2004-08-08T19:35:08Z")
**BG** replied to **enipla** : \*“But then, we where talking trains… I don’t live in an area that could be served by trains.” Why not? \* Man go conference, answer not. Just me speculating: Mountain funicular-type railways are AFAIK kind of a beeyatch to install and maintain, and pretty expensive, and probably there are serious right-of-way issues. Rural mountainous Colorado doesn’t have the Alpine tourist culture of small trains taking people up practically every peak. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/112 "2004-08-08T20:57:36Z")
There’s an 1895 map of Colorado [here](http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/states/1895/co_1895.jpg). Someone with a knowledge of the geography of the area can tell us which of the railroads shown are in mountainous areas. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/113 "2004-08-08T21:00:13Z")
…although immediately after typing that, I notice that the railroad reaches Aspen. Now if _that_ wouldn’t serve the ski industry, what would? (BTW Eurostar runs many popular ‘ski specials’ from London to the Alps) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/114 "2004-08-08T23:18:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The only situation I can see where a totally no-fare transit system is justifiable is in heavily congested downtown areas with highly variable traffic loading—that is, where you get lots of traffic with commuters during working hours but little activity otherwise. Seattle has something like this… there’s a “free ride zone” for buses, and as long as you enter and leave the bus while it’s in that zone, your ride is free. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/115 "2004-08-09T01:18:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Man go conference, answer not. Just me speculating: Mountain funicular-type railways are AFAIK kind of a beeyatch to install and maintain, and pretty expensive, and probably there are serious right-of-way issues. Rural mountainous Colorado doesn’t have the Alpine tourist culture of small trains taking people up practically every peak. That might apply to regional rail. But I see no reason why a high-speed rail line couldn’t go through Colorado with a stop in Denver – since, after all, the Interstate Highway System already goes through the Rockies along several corridors, and that must have been just as much of a bitch to build. Nor is there any reason by the larger metro areas on CO – Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs – could not have their own light-rail transit systems. In fact, Denver’s already got one (map at [http://www.lightrail.com/maps/denver/denver.htm](http://www.lightrail.com/maps/denver/denver.htm)). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900/116 "2004-08-09T02:26:24Z")
Here’s some interesting info from the Wikipedia. (Note to mods: All contents of the Wikipedia are “copyleft” material, meaning unlimited duplication is expressly permitted provided no alterations are made ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights)).) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed\_rail:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail:) > [@](#): > > **High-speed rail** is public transport by rail with a possible speed above 200 km/h (125 miles per hour). > > Typically high speed trains travel at top service speeds of between 250 km/h (150 mph) to 300 km/h (180 mph). Although the world speed record for a wheeled train was set in 1990 by a French TGV which reached a speed of 515 km/h (320 mph), the experimental Japanese magnetic levitation train has reached 581 km/h. > > \ > > **History** > > Railways were the first form of mass transportation, and until the invention of the motorcar in the early 20th century, had an effective monopoly on land transport. In the decades after World War II, improvements in automobiles, highways, and aircraft made those means practical for a greater portion of the population than previously. In Europe and Japan emphasis was given to rebuilding the railways after the war. In the United States, emphasis was given to building a huge national highway system (at great expense and with public funds) and airports. Urban mass transport systems in the USA were largely neglected. > > High-speed rail was conceived as an attempt to win back railway passengers who had been lost to other means of travel; in most cases it has been quite successful to this end. > > **High-speed trains vs. automobiles or airplanes** > > There are constraints on the growth of the highway and air travel systems, widely cited as traffic congestion, or capacity limits. Airports have limited capacity to serve passengers during peak travel times, as do highways. High speed rail, which has potentially very high capacity on its fixed corridors, offers the promise of relieving congestion on the other systems. Prior to World War II conventional passenger rail was the principal means of intercity transport. Passenger rail service has been seriously downgraded since, due to the small proportion of journeys made by rail. > > High-speed rail has the advantage over automobiles in that it can travel at speeds far faster than those possible by automobile, and avoid congestion. For relatively short distances, of less than around 650 km (400 miles), high-speed train travel has an advantage over air travel, in that it does not require long check in delays, which eliminates the speed advantage of air travel for short-haul flights. Train travel also permits far greater capacity and frequency of service than is possible with air travel. > > For most journeys that don’t connect city centre to city centre, the door to door travel time and the total cost of high speed rail is comparable to that of driving, a fact often mentioned by critics of HST. Supporters argue however that journeys by HST are less strenuous and more productive than car journeys. > > \ > > **"High-speed" trains in the U.S.** > > In some ways, high-speed efforts around the world can be traced to the streamliners that cris-crossed the United States in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s. However, several factors contributed to the stagnation of rail transportation in the country just as Europe and Japan were pushing forward. There has been a resurgence of interest in recent decades, with many plans being examined for high-speed rail across the country. However, current service remains relatively limited. > > The major passenger carrier in the United States, Amtrak, has been operating Acela trains between Boston and Washington since 2001. These trains tilt, because of curves along the track, and the top speed is 150 mph (240 km/h). This maximum speed might not be considered fast enough for this train to be designated a high speed train, though the average speeds suggest that it should be. The average speed from Washington to Boston is about 82 mph (132 km/h): 5 h 30 min for 450 miles (724 km). > > Depending on how it is defined, high-speed rail in the United States today remains in an early, conceptual stage. The United States efforts have been multi-pronged. Various states have promoted study and design of high speed rail lines, and six corridors have been designated by US DOT for study: > > Chicago, Illinois to Minneapolis, Minnesota, St. Louis, Missouri, Detroit, Michigan > (See also Midwest Regional Rail Initiative) > > Miami, Florida-Orlando-Tampa > > Washington, D.C.-Richmond, Virginia-Raleigh, North Carolina-Charlotte > > San Diego, California-Los Angeles-Sacramento > > Eugene, Oregon-Portland-Seattle, Washington-Vancouver (Canada) > > New York City-Albany, New York-Buffalo > > The Clinton Administration proposed a High Speed Rail Development Act (1993) to study the issues involved and provide seed money. Money was set aside in ISTEA (1991) for mag-lev development, and proposals for deployment have been made in Orlando, Florida and Texas, but there is still no operating maglev in revenue earning passenger service in the United States. Amtrak’s northeast corridor has been electrified and seen elimination of grade crossings. > > In terms of its top-down planning, the development of high-speed rail in the United States borrows conceptually from the interstate highway system. Typically modes emerge without either significant or central planning at the outset. Examples include air travel, highways, and rail. Later, central planning is tacked on, as when the government established specific trans-continental routes, or began funding airports or the interstate highways. In all likelihood this probably confirms high speed rail’s role as a successor to conventional rail rather than holding status as a new mode on its own. > > Operationally, the systems are largely adapted from conventional rail systems, with similar labor organization and ownership in Japan and France and similar architectures in many other respects. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light\_rail:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail:) > [@](#): > > **Light rail** is a particular class of railway that includes trolleys and trams as well as modern multi-car trains that operate at street level. In the context of light rail, regular freight, commuter and longer distance railways are called heavy rail (but see also that article for a different usage of that word). Light rail systems that do not contain level crossings are called metro systems. > > Light-rail systems can handle steeper gradients than heavy rail, and curves sharp enough to fit within street intersections. They are typically built in urban areas, providing a frequent service with small, light trains or single cars. > > There are two general types of light-rail system. Firstly there is the traditional type where the tracks and trains run along the streets, and share space with road traffic. And secondly there is the type where the trains run along their own right-of-way and are separated from road traffic. There are also many light-rail systems which have a combination of the two, with both on road and off road sections. In some countries, only the latter is described as light rail. In those places, trams running on mixed right of way are not regarded as light rail. > > They are generally powered by electricity, usually by means of overhead wires, but sometimes by a live rail, also called third rail (a high voltage bar alongside the track), requiring safety measures and warnings to the public not to touch it. Some systems are automatic, dispensing with the need for a driver. > > The light-rail systems constructed in the late 19th century and early 20th century typically included single cars called streetcars, trolley cars, or trams. Light-rail lines were also built over longer distances (typically with a single track) before good roads were common; these were generally called interurbans in North America, or radial railways in Ontario. > > In North America, many of these original light-rail systems were decommissioned in the 1950s and onward as the popularity of the automobile increased. Although some traditional trolley or tram systems still exist to this day, the term “light rail” has come to mean a different type of rail system. Beginning in the 1980s, some cities began reintroducing light-rail systems that are more like subway or metro train systems that operate at street level. These light-rail systems include modern, multi-car trains that can only be accessed at stations that are spaced anywhere from a couple blocks to a mile or more apart. Some of these systems operate within roadways alongside automobile traffic, and others operate on their own separate right-of-way. > > Light-rail systems are generally cheaper to build than heavy rail, since the infrastructure does not need to be as substantial. Moreover, the ability to handle sharp curves and steep gradients can reduce the scale of building work required. > > \ > > Some of the issues involved are: > > compatibility of the safety systems > > power supply of the track in relation to the power used by the vehicles (voltage, and third rail vs. overhead wires) > > width of the vehicles in relation to the position of the platforms > > height of the platforms > **[Monorail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail)** > > A monorail is a railway in which the track consists of a single rail or a beam. The term is also used to describe the beam of the system, or the trains traveling on such a beam or track. The term originates from joining "mono" (meaning one) and "rail" from 1897, possibly from German engineer Eugen Langen, who called an elevated railway system with wagons suspended the Eugen Langen One-railed Suspension Tramway (Einschieniges Hängebahnsystem Eugen Langen). > Colloquially, the term "monorail" is o... > [@](#): > > A **monorail** is a metro or railroad with a track consisting of a single rail, as opposed to the traditional track with two parallel rails. > > There are two main types of monorail systems. In suspended monorails, the train is located under the track, suspended from above. In the more popular straddle-beam monorail, the train straddles the rail, covering it on the sides. The straddle-beam style was popularized by ALWEG. There is also a form of suspended monorail developed by SAFEGE that places the wheels inside the rail. > > Modern monorails are powered by via electrical motors. > > Modern monorails generally have tires, instead of metal wheels like you find on subway and light rail trains. These wheels roll along the top and sides of the rail to propel and stabilize the train. > > Most of modern monorail systems have switches. Some early monorail systems, notably the suspended monorail of Wuppertal (Germany), dating from 1901 and still in operation, have a design that makes it difficult to switch from one line to another. This limitation still figures in discussions of monorail. However, both for the suspended and for the straddle-beam type monorail the problem has been surmounted. > > \ > > Advantages and disadvantages > > Advantages: > > The primary advantage of monorails over conventional rail systems is that they require minimal space, both horizontally and vertically. The width required is determined by the monorail vehicle, not the track, and monorail systems are commonly elevated, requiring only a minimal footprint for support pillars. > > Due to a smaller footprint they are more attractive than conventional elevated rail lines and visually block only a minimal amount of sky. > > They are quieter, as modern monorails use rubber wheels on a concrete track > Monorails are capable of climbing, descending and turning faster than most conventional rail systems. > > Monorails are safer, since the monorail wraps around its track and thus cannot derail and unlike light rail system, there is not risk of collision with traffic or pedestrians. > > They cost less to construct and maintain, especially when compared to underground metro systems. > > Unlike street level forms of transit such as light rail, tram, or buses, monorails do not have to contend with car or pedestrian traffic in any way. > > Disadvantages: > > Monorails require their own guideway > > While a monorail’s footprint is less than an elevated conventional rail system, it is larger than an underground system’s. > > Most countries (although not Japan) do not have standardized beam specifications for monorails, thus most tend to be proprietary systems. > > There are also some lingering concerns over the speed and capacity of monorails. > > \ > > Monorails can be found in the following places in North America: > > Disneyland in Anaheim, California > > Disney World in Orlando, Florida > > Seattle, Washington - short monorail (Seattle Center Monorail) built for the Century 21 Exposition in 1962 > > Jacksonville, Florida - public transit > > Las Vegas, Nevada - public transit > > Tampa International Airport in Tampa, Florida - people mover > > Newark International Airport in Newark, New Jersey - people mover > > Six Flags La Ronde in Montreal, Quebec - once part of a larger monorail systems built for Expo 67 > > Minnesota Zoo in Apple Valley, Minnesota [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-three-tiered-rail-transit-system-in-the-u-s/257900.md?page=5)