Why don't we have High Speed Trains?

[manlymatt83]

1) For non-corridor, Tracks are too old, shared by freight, max speed 89 mph because there's no in-cab signal handling.

2) For corridor, max speed is 124 mph by traditional trains, and 200 mph for Acela/tilt trains. Acela in actuality is limited to 150 mph because it was built 4 feet too wide, and because the tracks curve too much. Overhead catinary also is old, and speed is limited because of that - highest speeds can only go on upgraded catinary overheads.

3) High speed rail is indeed needed, but there's no space to put new tracks that could support the high speed infrastructure.

I know more, so ask questions if you want.

 

[ecom]

That article is a bit misleading. The high speed train in CA supposedly will have a ticket cost equal to or greater than the cost of a plane ticket and take 2 to 3 times as long. Flying Southwest, the tickets cost maybe $40 each way usually between Oakland and Los Angeles.

Also I don't know why Dukakis thinks that a bus manufacturer can make light rail street cars. Boeing makes some nice planes, but their first, and only, attempt to make street cars was a disaster. In Boston, when the cars went into service the availability was less than 50% per Wikipedia. Having rode the same vehicles in SF, I remember those vehicles always breaking down or half the doors not working on the vehicles. The vehicles were only used for about 15 years -- a lot shorter than what it should have been. By comparison, a typical diesel bus has a service life of 20 years.

SF purchased light rail vehicles from Breda to replace the Boeing vehicles. They are supposedly more reliable, but something like 20% of the fleet is out of service at the moment for repairs. Not to mention these vehicles cost twice as much as most light rail vehicles in operation in the US.

SF spends more per capita than NYC by something like 20-25% and yet the service is far inferior.

 

[Newbian]

Because of the oil companies.

A lot of times the companies offer free trains to be built since it would turn a profit in a few years but most of the time the oil companies get it killed so thank god for them.

 

[Newbian]

So, you tax the hell out of gas to subsidize a train system that loses money.

It's far easier to build rail in a far smaller area. The US is simply a huge piece of landmass with populations spread out. The population density is a fraction of Europe, thus, more people can ride trains more easily.

Just like the air ports that loose millions every year somehow even with all the money the government throws their way?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The problem is that America doesn't work that way. How many of you do that drive from SF to LA all the time? Is the 5 really that packed? What about the other cities?

There are so many cheap flights most of the time I would rather book a $49 southwest flight than to deal with a train station. Here's the other thing: THIS IS AMERICA. We drive EVERYWHERE. How is a train station going to solve anything? In Europe or Asia, you grab the subway from your house or the bus to the nearest train station. Usually the MRTs and HSR stations link up now and even traditional rail trains are all accessible by MRT/bus at the worst case. In Asia/Europe you can easily do all this withOUT walking.

In California they want to build a HSR line. I imagine this. People are gonna drive en masse to the HSR station. They will park there. There needs to be gigantic parking structures for the HSR lines if there's gonna be some real ridership. Otherwise, it's gonna be as deserted as most of our Metro lines here because there's no way we can pull 1 million people across a metro line per day unless it's as big as the NYC subway. So we drive there like it's the airport. We all expect to park. There will be exorbitant fees like parking fees (think long term parking @ airport), and then the ticket prices.... yes... How much does Amtrak cost you? They charge you barely enough so you can get on the train for slightly cheaper than a car ride. I paid like $22 or something from Davis, CA to San Jose, CA. It's a 100 mile drive. at 30mpg, I'm shelling out 3.3 gallons. Something like $10 or so. You want me to pay $20+ for public transportation? No thanks. In many other cases, they get by charging just about the cost of gas for you. But the key is if you carpool, public transportation already falls out of price favor. Factor in convenience, ease, and speed, and public transportation falls even further.

The problem in every city is congestion. HSR does not solve this. Subway lines do. Everyone and their mom drives. But I don't think suburbs really allow for subway lines to work well either. LA, SF, Atlanta and many other cities have metro lines, but they are more commuter rails than they are subways like NYC. The transportation problem in the US is a huge one, and building the same things in Europe isn't really going to solve much. When I was in Asia, every metro train that arrived was packed. Not only that, a buttload of people get on and off at each station. Here in the Bay Area, you can wait 20 minutes for a metro train to arrive and see only a handful of people get on and off at the non major stations. It's really pathetic.

HSR is a great program in the end. It's a romantic idea and something we'd all love to have. But I don't think it's a cost friendly and a wise decision for America. There's other things we should be investing in. It's not going to solve our congestion problems. Think of how much money and productivity is lost because people sit in traffic. Why don't we fight that first.

Also, what was the projected ridership for the HSR in SF to LA?

 

[ShawnD1]

Think of how much money and productivity is lost because people sit in traffic. Why don't we fight that first.

I've always felt that buses should have god-like status on the road. The bus would make incredibly good travel time if it always had the legal right of way on top of having its own lane. The bus I take to school every day wastes about 10 minutes to make a right turn then another 10 minutes to make another right turn after that. I think a lot of us would be more willing to take the bus if the bus was legally allowed to cut into traffic and force people to yield to it. Hitting the bus should equal 3 points on your license and a $400 fine as well as all liability.

 

[TallBill]

Think of how much money and productivity is lost because people sit in traffic. Why don't we fight that first.

In Chicago, and I'm sure a few other major cities, the traffic in and out of the city is disgusting. I'd blow my fucking head off if I had to drive in that twice a day, 5 days a week.

 

[idiotekniQues]

The problem is that America doesn't work that way. How many of you do that drive from SF to LA all the time? Is the 5 really that packed? What about the other cities?

There are so many cheap flights most of the time I would rather book a $49 southwest flight than to deal with a train station. Here's the other thing: THIS IS AMERICA. We drive EVERYWHERE. How is a train station going to solve anything? In Europe or Asia, you grab the subway from your house or the bus to the nearest train station. Usually the MRTs and HSR stations link up now and even traditional rail trains are all accessible by MRT/bus at the worst case. In Asia/Europe you can easily do all this withOUT walking.

In California they want to build a HSR line. I imagine this. People are gonna drive en masse to the HSR station. They will park there. There needs to be gigantic parking structures for the HSR lines if there's gonna be some real ridership. Otherwise, it's gonna be as deserted as most of our Metro lines here because there's no way we can pull 1 million people across a metro line per day unless it's as big as the NYC subway. So we drive there like it's the airport. We all expect to park. There will be exorbitant fees like parking fees (think long term parking @ airport), and then the ticket prices.... yes... How much does Amtrak cost you? They charge you barely enough so you can get on the train for slightly cheaper than a car ride. I paid like $22 or something from Davis, CA to San Jose, CA. It's a 100 mile drive. at 30mpg, I'm shelling out 3.3 gallons. Something like $10 or so. You want me to pay $20+ for public transportation? No thanks. In many other cases, they get by charging just about the cost of gas for you. But the key is if you carpool, public transportation already falls out of price favor. Factor in convenience, ease, and speed, and public transportation falls even further.

The problem in every city is congestion. HSR does not solve this. Subway lines do. Everyone and their mom drives. But I don't think suburbs really allow for subway lines to work well either. LA, SF, Atlanta and many other cities have metro lines, but they are more commuter rails than they are subways like NYC. The transportation problem in the US is a huge one, and building the same things in Europe isn't really going to solve much. When I was in Asia, every metro train that arrived was packed. Not only that, a buttload of people get on and off at each station. Here in the Bay Area, you can wait 20 minutes for a metro train to arrive and see only a handful of people get on and off at the non major stations. It's really pathetic.

HSR is a great program in the end. It's a romantic idea and something we'd all love to have. But I don't think it's a cost friendly and a wise decision for America. There's other things we should be investing in. It's not going to solve our congestion problems. Think of how much money and productivity is lost because people sit in traffic. Why don't we fight that first.

Also, what was the projected ridership for the HSR in SF to LA?

you are simply part of the problem.

argue against every major form of fast public trans just because it hasn't been implemented well here and therefore it must be bad.

ignorance. part of the problem.

 

[skyking]

that map shows the issues here in the US. It is so far flung compared to other higher density countries.

 

[ecom]

In California they want to build a HSR line. I imagine this. People are gonna drive en masse to the HSR station. They will park there. There needs to be gigantic parking structures for the HSR lines if there's gonna be some real ridership. Otherwise, it's gonna be as deserted as most of our Metro lines here because there's no way we can pull 1 million people across a metro line per day unless it's as big as the NYC subway. So we drive there like it's the airport. We all expect to park. There will be exorbitant fees like parking fees (think long term parking @ airport), and then the ticket prices.... yes... How much does Amtrak cost you? They charge you barely enough so you can get on the train for slightly cheaper than a car ride. I paid like $22 or something from Davis, CA to San Jose, CA. It's a 100 mile drive. at 30mpg, I'm shelling out 3.3 gallons. Something like $10 or so. You want me to pay $20+ for public transportation? No thanks. In many other cases, they get by charging just about the cost of gas for you. But the key is if you carpool, public transportation already falls out of price favor. Factor in convenience, ease, and speed, and public transportation falls even further.

It costs more than just the cost of fuel to drive. You also need to consider the price you pay for the vehicle, tires, oil, filters, and other maintenance and repairs on your vehicle. If you have a $20000 vehicle and it lasts 150000 miles (assuming you didn't pay interest) it costs you 13 cents per mile for owning that vehicle. The cost of your trip just more than doubled since the cost of the vehicle and fuel is now $23. Now add maintenance cost, say $25 for oil change every 5000 miles, $400 for tires every 40000 miles, $20 air filter every 20000 miles, and $30 for spark plugs at 60000 miles. Your cost is now something like $26 for that trip and that's not even all the maintenance assuming you do your own labor - cost will be higher if you use a mechanic. For insurance, say $1000/ yr and drive 10000 mi/yr, that's another $10. So far, that's $36 for 100 mi.

 

[zinfamous]

Ny> LA?

no, that's just stupid.

major metro areas, it makes total sense. ridiculous that we don't have them.

time for a coup.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem is that America doesn't work that way. How many of you do that drive from SF to LA all the time? Is the 5 really that packed? What about the other cities?

There are so many cheap flights most of the time I would rather book a $49 southwest flight than to deal with a train station. Here's the other thing: THIS IS AMERICA. We drive EVERYWHERE. How is a train station going to solve anything? In Europe or Asia, you grab the subway from your house or the bus to the nearest train station. Usually the MRTs and HSR stations link up now and even traditional rail trains are all accessible by MRT/bus at the worst case. In Asia/Europe you can easily do all this withOUT walking.

In California they want to build a HSR line. I imagine this. People are gonna drive en masse to the HSR station. They will park there. There needs to be gigantic parking structures for the HSR lines if there's gonna be some real ridership. Otherwise, it's gonna be as deserted as most of our Metro lines here because there's no way we can pull 1 million people across a metro line per day unless it's as big as the NYC subway. So we drive there like it's the airport. We all expect to park. There will be exorbitant fees like parking fees (think long term parking @ airport), and then the ticket prices.... yes... How much does Amtrak cost you? They charge you barely enough so you can get on the train for slightly cheaper than a car ride. I paid like $22 or something from Davis, CA to San Jose, CA. It's a 100 mile drive. at 30mpg, I'm shelling out 3.3 gallons. Something like $10 or so. You want me to pay $20+ for public transportation? No thanks. In many other cases, they get by charging just about the cost of gas for you. But the key is if you carpool, public transportation already falls out of price favor. Factor in convenience, ease, and speed, and public transportation falls even further.

The problem in every city is congestion. HSR does not solve this. Subway lines do. Everyone and their mom drives. But I don't think suburbs really allow for subway lines to work well either. LA, SF, Atlanta and many other cities have metro lines, but they are more commuter rails than they are subways like NYC. The transportation problem in the US is a huge one, and building the same things in Europe isn't really going to solve much. When I was in Asia, every metro train that arrived was packed. Not only that, a buttload of people get on and off at each station. Here in the Bay Area, you can wait 20 minutes for a metro train to arrive and see only a handful of people get on and off at the non major stations. It's really pathetic.

HSR is a great program in the end. It's a romantic idea and something we'd all love to have. But I don't think it's a cost friendly and a wise decision for America. There's other things we should be investing in. It's not going to solve our congestion problems. Think of how much money and productivity is lost because people sit in traffic. Why don't we fight that first.

Also, what was the projected ridership for the HSR in SF to LA?

a cheap flight from LA-SF is $49 to you?


how about a cheap flight from Estonia to Brussels = $9? or just about anywhere in Europe, east west.

your concept of cheap is bullshit, and not based in what is really going on elsewhere.

just like your understanding of mass transit.

 

[zinfamous]

In Chicago, and I'm sure a few other major cities, the traffic in and out of the city is disgusting. I'd blow my fucking head off if I had to drive in that twice a day, 5 days a week.

just try and cross the bay bridge twice a day. It's about 3 miles...just a bridge, right? I only mention the bridge b/c that's one simple part of the city-to-city commute over here. It's actually easy, because you aren't moving and have no choice. The rest is inexperienced psychopathic drivers, pedestrians with a deathwish looking for a big insurance payoff, and heavily sedated grandmas, soccer moms, durkas and well, dare I say it...sigh: asian ladies without a license merging into you, WITHOUT FUCKING LOOKING!

seriously. every god damn 10 feet of road out here.

I've lived in Chicago long enough to know that your shit is cake compared to this shit.

CA traffic is dog shit. Empty--fucking EMPTY express buses crossing the bridge during commute hours, every single fucking car is single person, packing 5 lanes each direction, BART is a joke, people commuting from Sacramento to SF??? wtf is that? why are people this retarded?

 

[her209]

Does HSR experience delays due to bad weather?

 

[nCred]

I never quite understood the big push for high-speed trains. Airplanes are faster, more flexible, and more environmentally-friendly, so why would anyone use such an outmoded form of transportation for anything other than bulk freight?

Electric trains are a lot more environmentally friendly than airplanes.

and..

link

All of this means that in fact the door to door Journey time for distances up to 400km or 250miles is faster by high speed train than it is for the aircraft.

 

[darkswordsman17]

you are simply part of the problem.

argue against every major form of fast public trans just because it hasn't been implemented well here and therefore it must be bad.

ignorance. part of the problem.

By all means, what do you suggest then?

If the cost outweighs or is equal to the cost of commuting by yourself in your car, and unless the time saved is huge, people are not going to use it. In most cases, taking the train is not faster than a car, so it would be pointless. Really, which would you take if the cost and time were equal, riding on a train with a bunch of other people, or by yourself in a car? Most Americans would prefer the car.

Now, yes you could argue the cost of the car, but you have to realize for a lot of people it is a necessity just for getting groceries, taking your kids the various places they need to go, and the freedom it allows you. Most places in America do not have corner shops and things like that where you can just walk to and from it. There's other costs than direct costs involved and all must be accounted for. If they were to tally them all up, for instance by doing an average of what it costs (including subsidies, positive and negative externalities) to commute to various places in a city, and then show them to people, they might be willing to think about changing how they commute.

If they could experience a halfway decent example of it, I think people would be willing to use public transport. The problem is, in the US that is going to require things that are going to be difficult to convince people for. The costs to build it alone make people cry foul, and that's with their estimates (which pretty much always are far short of the actual costs).

One of the reasons why AmTrak has been allowed to live on is that the minor amount it does help to alleviate congestion is factored in the cost. It is well known that the government would love to push people into more public transportation, but Americans have routinely rejected it. Most of it is not good enough to get people to be willing to give up their car which offers more comfort and more freedom.

I would love for there to be an extensive network of high speed trains, but there's a lot that stands in the way, and its very tough to make an actual case for it right now. Hell, AmTrak has soured people on trains in general. They need to make small progress. Improving the current passenger train situations in most cities would be a big step. People's perception of public transport needs to change a lot. Right now the average American views it as a disgusting herding of people where you're likely to be robbed, groped, and generally made uncomfortable. Oh, it also happens to make a nice target for terrorists. It is going to be a tough sell to America.

 

[Jeff7181]

I'd rather be on the ground then in a tin can 20,000 feet in the air

May I ask where you got the time machine to go back to the 1940's and steal their view on air travel?

 

[Bateluer]

Since when is 130-220mph considered high speed? Don't the Japanese bullet trains travel at double that?

 

[LTC8K6]

They are money losers...plain and simple.

BART is hemorraging cash...and ticket prices are ever increasing...


http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/10/golden-state-off-the-rails-as

 

[sdifox]

I never quite understood the big push for high-speed trains. Airplanes are faster, more flexible, and more environmentally-friendly, so why would anyone use such an outmoded form of transportation for anything other than bulk freight?

how is an airplane more environmentally friendly than a train?

Also, air travel is pretty bad now.

 

[ichy]

The problem is that too many high speed rail advocates in the US have crazy pipe dreams of building train networks all across the country. What we should start doing is improving high speed train service in the one area where we know it can work, the Northeast Corridor. Even Amtrak's current crappy Acela Express service makes an operating profit, and that's despite the fact that it's one of the worst pseudo-high speed services in the world. Upgrade the infrastructure there to gain experience and show that real high speed rail in the US isn't some loony fantasy. And yes, better high speed service in the Northeast will require taxpayer money for the infrastructure, but so do highways and airports. Right now we're looking at spending billions just to upgrade the airports and air traffic control around NYC because their three major airports are all overburdened. If we replaced some of the short-range feeder flights to NY from places like DC, Baltimore & Boston with high speed train service it could massively reduce the load at JFK, LaGuardia and Newark.

 

[theevilsharpie]

how is an airplane more environmentally friendly than a train?

It doesn't require clearing thousands of miles of land for tracks, for starters.

 

[ichy]

you are simply part of the problem.

argue against every major form of fast public trans just because it hasn't been implemented well here and therefore it must be bad.

ignorance. part of the problem.

People with crazy dreams of building high speed lines from Chicago to LA and NY are also part of the problem. The US is not Europe, we do not have the population density they do. I absolutely believe that high speed rail has its place (the Northeast Corridor being the perfect example) but it'll be a complement to air travel, not a replacement.

 

[Triumph]

I never quite understood the big push for high-speed trains. Airplanes are faster, more flexible, and more environmentally-friendly, so why would anyone use such an outmoded form of transportation for anything other than bulk freight?

I love trains, but I don't think they would work everywhere in this country. They have their place. I'm not sure how airplanes are more environmentally friendly, diesel electric engines are the original hybrid vehicle and airplanes aren't particularly thrifty. Airplanes are faster yes, but not (or shouldn't be) for shorter jumps when you account for the time to the airport, finding parking, arriving 2 hours before your scheduled departure, etc. And depending on the line, rail is much more reliable than air travel. I can't count the number of times I've been delayed at airports due to rain, snow, wind, sunshine and 70 degrees, etc. At least in Europe, trains pretty much run all the time. I never had to wait more than 10 minutes beyond scheduled departure times.

But to do it effectively here would require a massive, massive infrastructure project, and the eminent domain hammer would need to be delivering swift and powerful blows all over the place. If we ever get it, it'd be a half assed attempt.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I love trains. I love Germany's rail network, but even in that country it is becoming the most expensive way to travel long distances. Discount airlines like EasyJet, RyanAir, etc. allows you to fly long distances within Europe for only a few Euro whereas a high speed ICE train in Germany from say Stuttgart to Berlin easily costs you around 100 Euro or more on a normally priced ticket.

High speed rail in the US would only be fun if we consider MagLevs in certain situations. The NE corridor comes to mind as well as the major cities on the West Coast.

I think it is also worth noting that back during the turn of the 19th Century, most US cities had public mass transit systems that rivaled those in Europe until the automobile lobbies (GM, Ford) had them destroyed.