Why don't we have High Speed Trains?

[ichy]

Here is my pipe dream of national high speed rail system.

National subway. Yea, it would cost a shit load and take a while to build, but it would avoid all the hassles of dealing with road intersections and weather. Could be problematic in earthquake and or high water table places.

It wouldn't be problematic, it would be utterly impossible. I suggest you read about the construction of the Paris RER (commuter train system that runs like a subway within the city.) That cost a fortune to build a few lines within one city. You'll see space elevators before you see a "national subway."

 

[Modelworks]

I would prefer to ride a train vs a plane over long distances. The only benefit a plane has is speed . On a train I can eat on a real table, stretch out my legs without paying for first class, and use a real bathroom not a closet with a toilet.

 

[Modelworks]

It wouldn't be problematic, it would be utterly impossible. I suggest you read about the construction of the Paris RER (commuter train system that runs like a subway within the city.) That cost a fortune to build a few lines within one city. You'll see space elevators before you see a "national subway."

I wonder what it would cost to build tunnels that could be built on land then submerged off the coast.

 

[LookingGlass]

I bet the Amtrak took damn near as long as it would have to drive. And what did you do once you got there? Take a bus to where you were staying?

Yes, it did take just as long, which is worse? I'd rather take the train. No hassle, no fatigue from driving an ungodly amount of time. I've done it before, it sucks. Plus we had a funeral to attend to as well. I'd rather be rested, which we were for the most part. We slept in the seats, you could get a sleeping car, for more money of course.

Driving, would of taken over 24 to 26 hours, give or take. Train was 26.5 hours. My brother came and picked us up, he was not too far.

The seats were decent, like first class passengers seats on a plane. Nice big seats. Long distance trips, there was an observation car, you could plug in your lap top, phone, etc. Which was nice. You could get up and walk around, eat in the dining car. Can't do that driving. Get snacks from the snack bar, of course they get you cost wise on the snacks. It was quiet compared to a plane, no drone of the engines.

I've always wanted to take the train, now we did. With the way flights are these days, the ungodly stupid rules, waiting time. I'm in no hurry to fly again. I used to fly all the time up to Michigan. Not right now, maybe someday again, when the airlines get their shit together.

If you fly, you still need to rent a car once you reach your destination.

 

[theeedude]

I went to Europe, and I was looking forward to being demonstrated how inferior we in US are in terms of transportation, but frankly DB high speed rail was good, but I don't think it lived up to my expectations. I took train from Frankfurt to Paris, and while it was high speed in France, it was not in Germany, and made too many stops. I think some people were saving money by taking low speed regional train to French border and then getting onto the high speed one to Paris. Also, it was very expensive, more than it would cost me to fly same distance in the US, and you did have to buy tickets ahead of time too. So I am a bit on the ropes about this one. If they have true high speed rail from SF to LA in a couple hours that has few stops for about same price as airfare, I would definitely rock it, but if it's like DB train, probably not.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

I went to Europe, and I was looking forward to being demonstrated how inferior we in US are in terms of transportation, but frankly DB high speed rail was good, but I don't think it lived up to my expectations. I took train from Frankfurt to Paris, and while it was high speed in France, it was not in Germany, and made too many stops. I think some people were saving money by taking low speed regional train to French border and then getting onto the high speed one to Paris. Also, it was very expensive, more than it would cost me to fly same distance in the US, and you did have to buy tickets ahead of time too. So I am a bit on the ropes about this one. If they have true high speed rail from SF to LA in a couple hours that has few stops for about same price as airfare, I would definitely rock it, but if it's like DB train, probably not.

I took DB throughout Germany a couple years ago and I was pretty impressed with the service. I didn't take high-speed rail, but even the major routes (Frankfurt-Stuttgart-Munich, for example) were fast, at about 150mph, and the trains were always on time.

As for the cost, I was using a Eurail pass (currently priced at $319 US for 5 travel days within 3 countries). I could probably have flown for a bit cheaper, as European flights are ridiculously cheap, but the trains are still cheaper than flights within Canada or the US.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The railroads have paid their own way since day one. Airlines, truckers, etc. could never make it if they had to supply their own infrastructure. We build highways that never recoup their cost through the gas tax, and use "time saved by the public" as the justification to spend the money. Unfortunately, "time saved" does not mean actual cash, and it costs money to maintain the roads.

If they could use the same concept to justify investments in rail transit (i.e. "time saved" per person is assigned a value, and that justifies the cost) by that standard you could claim every transit system in the country would be profitable even if they didn't charge any fares.

You can't build your way out of traffic congestion. Where the need is the greatest for mass transit, there's no way to build more roads. NY, southern CA, Boston, Chicago, and other areas don't have the room or the money. To build a 4-lane highway through an urban area in southern CA now would cost more than $200 million PER MILE.

And in fact there will never be another national railroad built by private enterprise. The cost of acquiring rights-of-way, and dealing with each state's quirks make it simply prohibitive.

If we as a country want High Speed Rail we are going to have to do it partially with tax dollars. Trains are so much more fuel-efficient than cars or trucks, it may take until gas reaches $5 a gallon before people decide they are willing to change, but if we don't start before that it will be too late. It will take years as it is.

Yes and our congestion going from SF to LA is not in the I-5 linking the two cities together. It's in the cities themselves. HSR is NOT going to solve inner city congestion. Commuter rails that we have are barely going to solve it. LA has no real subway and nor does SF. They just can't use it. While there is a metro, it's more a regional commuter rail. People still have to park and ride. The fact is you HAVE to drive to get anywhere in the US. Maybe in NYC and downtown SF you can get away with it, but the fact is in suburbs you HAVE to drive.

To deny that we need more highway lanes is ridiculous. We flat out need it. Yes it's more expensive because planners were dumb and laid down 2 lane roads in the beginning. Of course it's gonna cost a fortune to widen them to 4 or 6 lanes. I know somehow building 5 lanes across the new Bay Bridge span will bite us in the ass one day when we realize it's not enough again.

Even if you build HSR stations,you need people to drive to them like airports. The bottom line is we need roads.

But if you want to weasel your way out of roads, then I suggest following Europe and Asia and building a massive subway network in each one of your cities first. We lack that unfortunately.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

When they cant afford a bigger home than what our poor can, cant drive because of the cost of gasoline, higher taxation, and their food costs are through the roof. I dont really care what metric somebody comes up with to justify their opinion. What next, the misunderstood GNI gets brought out? They have a lower standard because they dont have the same individual freedoms we do here. They take Mass transit the govt provides for them because what else are they going to take? A 2 seater toy car that costs 7 bucks a gallon to drive?


BART never reduced congestion in any meaningful way. There are real rare instances of light rail reducing congestion in any city.

If govt is honestly motivated to reduce congestion. It should be providing subsidies to business to promote telecommuters. People who never get on the road in the first place. hell of a lot cheaper and would boost the happieness, productivity, and quality of life for all involved. While reducing our need for massive infrastructure maintenance and expansion costs.

Your measures of prosperity are as arbitrary as any other. While some people derive happiness from owning a larger home or driving a larger car, others find a smaller home in a walkable environment to be more enjoyable and affordable.

Individual freedoms? Way to distract the debate. We are comparing developed democratic countries here - all of which have similar levels of freedom. I can link to plenty of studies that would actually show that European countries rank ahead of the US because of factors such as more open media, lower incarceration rates, lower crime rates, etc, but none of that relevant to the thread.

I'll grant you that there is debate in the literature about light rail's effectiveness at reducing congestion. It may have to do with the routing - the network needs to be accessible enough that there is a reasonable level of ridership.

However, most of these studies cite highway and bus expansion as alternatives. Both of those rely on increased oil consumption, which is not a sustainable option. Rail (at least when electricity is generated from sustainable sources) has the potential to be powered by renewable sources.

Telecommuting is an option for some workers (so I would agree with tax incentives there), but there are many jobs where people simply must be present in the workplace to perform their work. Not to mention the intangible social benefits of being around your coworkers, as opposed to working from home.

Keeping infrastructure costs under control is definitely key, but keep in mind that constructing and maintaining effective infrastructure also creates jobs and is an economic boon - definitely good in the current climate.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

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.

No a cheap flight is actually $25 when Southwest had the $25 deals. The point is HSR isn't going to be cheaper than $49. The LA to SF cost is going to be more than $55 as pointed out in multiple studies.

When I'm talking cheap I'm talking about the metro lines around the world. I've taken the metro in Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Even just GLANCING at the rates they charge, you can figure that it's dirt cheap.

It costs something like $4.05 for my girlfriend to take BART down a 25 mile route. I can go that same distance in Asia for something like $2 or less. The idea is our public transportation like buses and trains are so underused that if you know basic economics, they aren't at the most cost effective point. Thus, they count on massive subsidies, and need to charge rates that barely seem profitable. $1.75 for a bus ride? Tell that to my sub 50 cent ride in Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan.

Now when it comes to HSR, I think the rates are more comparable. It's simply because HSR's market is a little different.

In any case, my main argument isn't cost. My main argument is that in the US you DRIVE everywhere. In other countries, the car isn't that big of a deal. Subway and buses are. We lack that in the US unfortunately. It's just how the US is built. You have downtowns that might be able to make use of subways, and NYC is a good example of that, but any other city is just not the way to go. Look at the ridership numbers for other cities' metros. Doesn't even compare to Europe and Asia. I'm not blaming the US for this, but it's just the way we live. We drive to our local grocery store. We drive to go shopping. It's just not cost effective for us to build massive subway networks unless we live in heavy urban areas (not suburban).

We also have one of the best highway systems in the world. So to ask someone to take HSR from SF to LA for $60 is reasonable. But once you talk about road trips and holiday getaways, you carpool or put multiple people in a car. It's no longer cost effective to take public transit.

And so the idea is really to pit HSR against a plane. That's the main competition, not the car. I don't think HSR will pull that much share from autos. It's more about pulling marketshare from planes. So we're going to spend $40 billion to do this? Are we going to have so much congestion at SFO and LAX that we can't afford to fly between the two cities that we need $40 billion? $40 billion can build a pretty damn large airport and expand our roads and improve our subways.... Intracity congestion is the main problem.

Also for the guy who count in the cost of a car, maintenance, everything for $36 for 100 miles, then HSR isn't just $55 for 400 miles. It's also all the taxes you gotta pay the government, the ridiculous $40 billion CA is spending for this project, etc etc. Fares should be more comparable to gas. The idea is to get you to take it because it's cheaper than driving the same distance.

 

[her209]

Even if you build HSR stations,you need people to drive to them like airports. The bottom line is we need roads.

Why do people have to drive to the HSR station?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Why do people have to drive to the HSR station?

Are you going to have HSR stations littered all over the area? The plan in the Bay Area only calls for a few. After all HSR isn't about local connectivity. It's about getting people around larger regions. The more stops you make locally, the worse your line gets. In Taiwan, there's only what... 6 HSR stops? It runs the whole island in a little over 90 minutes with minimum stops.

You have 3 airports in the Bay Area. You probably get 6-7 HSR stations in the Bay Area.

Now all the drivers who used to drive to airports are all of a sudden going to appear at HSR stations without their cars? I doubt it. It'll be the same. They'll build massive park and ride parking lots. That's not a bad thing, but given how the US is built, this is probably going to happen. Unless you're telling me we all have wonderful public transportation links established in the US. That's not the case.

The SF Union Station? Probably. It'll have a lot of public transportation links, just like the SF Bart stations. People will make it there without cars. But from there on? I doubt it.

 

[syrillus]

The main reason we can't have high speed trains:

We wouldn't use them efficiently.

 

[ichy]

We wouldn't use them efficiently.

Acela Express is already well used, despite the fact that it's one of the sorriest excuses for high speed rail in the world.

 

[kranky]

To deny that we need more highway lanes is ridiculous. We flat out need it. Yes it's more expensive because planners were dumb and laid down 2 lane roads in the beginning. Of course it's gonna cost a fortune to widen them to 4 or 6 lanes. I know somehow building 5 lanes across the new Bay Bridge span will bite us in the ass one day when we realize it's not enough again.

Even if you build HSR stations,you need people to drive to them like airports. The bottom line is we need roads.

But if you want to weasel your way out of roads, then I suggest following Europe and Asia and building a massive subway network in each one of your cities first. We lack that unfortunately.

The problem is that expanding choked highways in urban areas is now simply unaffordable. The cost is just too high. And it's now unappealing to the public to spend billions to make it easier for more cars to be on the roads. It's not "green". So you won't find too many politicians fighting for money to widen highways. It's a lot more palatable to fight for mass transit.

I think we'll see people migrating back into city centers and away from the suburbs, and as the price of gas goes up perhaps the need for more highways will lessen.

Urban subways are out of the question - too costly. $1-2 billion per mile.

 

[lokiju]

They're building one in Tampa now.

If they had one that went from NY to Miami with stops along the way that'd be very sweet.

I'd take it, if it made more sense to ride than a plane, money wise.

 

[K1052]

The problem is that expanding choked highways in urban areas is now simply unaffordable. The cost is just too high. And it's now unappealing to the public to spend billions to make it easier for more cars to be on the roads. It's not "green". So you won't find too many politicians fighting for money to widen highways. It's a lot more palatable to fight for mass transit.

I think we'll see people migrating back into city centers and away from the suburbs, and as the price of gas goes up perhaps the need for more highways will lessen.

Urban subways are out of the question - too costly. $1-2 billion per mile.

Bingo. It is simply impossible to expand existing freeways in built up urban (and close in suburban) areas anymore due to community opposition.

Urban subways, while expensive, are immensely useful to a city's growth. Grade separated transit is an absolute must anymore for congested cities.