Poll: Would you like to see high speed rail in the USA?

[Mr._Graybeard]

I voted no, my reason is there is almost no free market competition for any one route in most of America for rail. At least with air and other ground transport many different companies compete for our $$.

South Florida has a privately operated passenger rail service that is expanding high-speed routes. Predictably, Florida Man likes to race 80-mph trains across surface crossings. To get real speed, the trains will have to be elevated in densely populated areas.

The suggestion that air travel is "competitive" is inaccurate. Most airlines have nearly exclusive use of hub airports that are publicly subsidized.

 

[audreyh1]

We are way too spread out in the US which is why flying is such a popular form of transportation.

 

[savory]

I'd agree with the many here - sounds nice in theory, probably not practical for the US at this stage, and the reality is it just isn't going to happen.

But talking about theory - I've sometimes wondered if we couldn't have a couple lanes of major highways with rail tracks built right in (level with the road surface so as to not interfere with regular cars/trucks). You could run a 'train' of semi trailers, maybe built like those repair trucks that have drop down metal wheels for the tracks, and regular tires for the road. Passenger trains would just need the steel wheels and some off ramps and switching back to the opposite lane at a few points.

Yes, you'd need to keep debris out of the wheel track, but probably not insurmountable. And most debris would probably just get crushed/deflected by the wheels anyhow.



-ERD50

As a long time active transportation advocate, I was struck by the same types of comments I have heard for years concerning the near impossibility of people changing their transportation habits. While motor vehicles continue to be the dominant form of transport, it seems clear that when alternatives are built, for biking especially, a significant number of people change their motorized commuting habits.

If motorists were charged the actual cost for using their vehicles, gas tax pays a small part of our roads, more motorists would be investigating other forms of transport.


The reason I quoted ERD50 was his suggestion of using existing infrastructure, like our freeways, to overcome many obstacles. I am not an engineer so I do not know how significant that could impact a project like this but it does work very well for active transportation. In most cases, motorists lose little time when roads are narrowed and non-motorized transport finds a safe place for participants. And, participation for active transportation increases. Most people are surprised when this happens given the 'motorist culture' that people feel will not change.

Speed, on-time performance and safety will make a big difference for the success of train travel. Perhaps 500-1,000 miles should be the limit. But in my experience while living in CT and visiting NY and other cities, the train, was a great option. And, while on trips in Europe, the trains provided outstanding service.

I do not disagree that this is a tough change given our attachment to motor vehicles. But given the positive aspects while 'training' during my east coast experience where I could read a book, drink a beer, enjoy a nap while supporting great environmental and other benefits, makes riding a train a choice that people might make and pay for once developed.

 

[RunningBum]

Hyperloop. Even if it's just for cargo, that would get the majority of trucks off the road. You could then have higher speed limits since it would be safer without trucks either slowing traffic down going up hills or having very long braking distance at full speed.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

We are way too spread out in the US which is why flying is such a popular form of transportation.

I, for one, hate to fly. The airlines have made it an unpleasant experience in pursuit of the almighty dollar. If the choice is to fly for an hour (adding an hour of waiting around at either end) or driving for six, I'll drive.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I am actually surprised on how many folks are happy with the status quo. IMHO keeping America from moving forward. No wonder we are potentially falling behind other developed countries. With more and more electric cars coming into play, along with their shorter travel distances, a well-managed (The key) high speed rail system would be an asset.

I would like to know how many folks have actually ever used one (more than once or on a semi regular basis) who think it is a bad idea. I used to w*rk from London through Europe, and it was a great alternative to flying. Now with the airlines playing silly buggers, I think it would be a great alternative and would probably help them to modify their ways too.

Even updating our current rail system would be better than nothing.

 

[braumeister]

But in my experience while living in CT and visiting NY and other cities, the train, was a great option. And, while on trips in Europe, the trains provided outstanding service.

That's the whole issue, I think. I love to travel by train in Europe. Perfectly fine to rely on trains between say, Munich and Frankfurt (around 200 miles as the crow flies). But from Chicago to Denver is closer to 1,000 miles. The whole of Germany would fit easily inside Montana, so it's hard to make realistic comparisons.

 

[ERD50]

I, for one, hate to fly. The airlines have made it an unpleasant experience in pursuit of the almighty dollar. If the choice is to fly for an hour (adding an hour of waiting around at either end) or driving for six, I'll drive.

But if high speed rail became as popular as flying, what makes you think it wouldn't become just as unpleasant? I just don't see anything intrinsic about rail that would make the boarding, waiting, etc any different.

And England has had attacks on their rail system, so we would likely face the same TSA routine getting on a train at some point.

I am actually surprised on how many folks are happy with the status quo. IMHO keeping America from moving forward. No wonder we are potentially falling behind other developed countries. ...

I think you've missed the point people are making. They aren't against progress, they just realize (as braumeister just pointed out), that Europe is not the United States. They are just being realistic.

(edit/add): I quick search didn't get me there, but as an example, what are the two most distant points served by high speed rail in Europe, and how long would it take to get between those two points (considering schedules)? How would that compare with a New York to Los Angeles run in the US?

-ERD50

 

[foxcreek9]

For some reason a lot of people seems to think taking the train in Europe is fast, it is between 2 relatively close cities. But Berlin to Paris - 10 hours train or 2 hours flying. Berlin to Amsterdam - 8 hours train or 1.5 hours flying. Paris to Madrid - 12 hours train or 2 hour flight. In most cases it is just as fast to drive than to take the train.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

For some reason a lot of people seems to think taking the train in Europe is fast, it is between 2 relatively close cities. But Berlin to Paris - 10 hours train or 2 hours flying. Berlin to Amsterdam - 8 hours train or 1.5 hours flying. Paris to Madrid - 12 hours train or 2 hour flight. In most cases it is just as fast to drive than to take the train.

Not so much fast as convenient. Go to train station, buy ticket, get on train, relax, grab a drink, and catch up on things. That is what I remember from my EU working days. As I said it is my opinion. I remember Going from Munich to Frankfurt on a regular basis, it was very convenient.

 

[ERD50]

For some reason a lot of people seems to think taking the train in Europe is fast, it is between 2 relatively close cities. But Berlin to Paris - 10 hours train or 2 hours flying. Berlin to Amsterdam - 8 hours train or 1.5 hours flying. Paris to Madrid - 12 hours train or 2 hour flight. In most cases it is just as fast to drive than to take the train.

Yes, I just took a stab at this site:

https://www.eurail.com/en/plan-your...v=&t=1643220001349&ar=false&rt=&tt=&mc=&mct=0

And the best from Stockholm to Lisbon is 3 days + 6.5 hours and 8 train changes.

That's ~ 2,243 miles, less than driving NY to LA, ~ 2,778 miles in 41 hours (non-stop I assume).

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Not so much fast as convenient. Go to train station, buy ticket, get on train, relax, grab a drink, and catch up on things. That is what I remember from my EU working days. As I said it is my opinion. I remember Going from Munich to Frankfurt on a regular basis, it was very convenient.

That's only 240 miles!

I can get on a train in Chicago, and travel to quite a few places within that distance. It's not high speed, but 240 miles isn't a long time even at US train speeds.

Here's an Amtrak map - Iowa City is ~ 240 miles from Chicago, lots of destinations in that area. The schedules are probably not what they are in Europe, and slower, but it's not like it's non-existent.

edit/add: OK, looks like only one train a day (Burlington came up, not Iowa City), but just $29, and just ~ 3.5 hours.

2:00pm Chicago, IL - Union Station (CHI)
5:25pm Burlington, IA (BRL)
3h 25m
$29

-ERD50

https://www.amtrak.com/midwest-train-routes

 

[Lewis Clark]

I did some research a while back on the NY City subway system. Even with its very heavy ridership, the system still required taxpayer subsidies of at least 50% of its total budget. I suspect the ecomonics are similar in the transit systems in our other major cities.

While I love the concept of high speed rail, and trains in general, I cannot imagine any rail system in this country ever getting remotely close to paying its own way without heavy taxpayer subsidies.

 

[explanade]

With very few exceptions, high speed rail are more appropriately high speed FAIL. They rarely deliver the promised results, cost multiples of original estimates, take far longer to actually be built, and are a continuous money drain that require taxpayer funded supplements every year. In addition the rail has limited locations to get on or off. As pointed out the US is a much larger geographic challenge than Europe where whole countries are more like states in the US.

What the US should do is invest more into the interstate highway stem which is in disrepair. Make improvements to handle current and future traffic loads. This can include upgrades for express lanes. IMHO this would be a far better use of the money vs high speed rail.

Where has HSR failed?

Countries like Spain, France, Japan and China haven't shut down their HSR services. If anything they've added more lines or trains.

It does say something that these other countries are able to pull off these civil engineering feats but the US no longer can?

The plan wouldn't be for transcontinental lines, but in specific high-traffic corridors like LA-SF, some big city pairs in TX and FL.

If they can locate termini near city centers, the transit time will be comparable to 1-2 hour flights which require additional time at departing and arrival airports for security, baggage, etc.


But the excessive costs of these HSR projects in the US also affects other types of transit infrastructure. For instance, it will be prohibitively expensive to add an additional mile to the NYC subway compared to what it would cost in London or Paris.

Problem is that there are too many middlemen -- various contractors extracting large amounts of money at each stage.

 

[W2R]

Louisiana politicians have been absolutely RABID in their push to get high speed rail systems installed, whether needed or not, for several decades. Given that the stereotyped Louisiana politician is mostly based on what they are like in reality, a person would have to be looney-tunes to want to give them the go-ahead for this type of gigantic, insanely expensive, un-needed project here in Louisiana.

They especially want high speed rail between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, and have been pushing that one for at least 25 years that I know of. But why? It's not like I-10 can't handle the traffic. Well, if you ask them it can't, but if you actually drive on it then it's just another interstate with no more slow-downs than one might expect.

Here are my guesses as to the real reasons they are pushing high speed rail here:
1.) First guess is that the politicians want a quick way to get from our state capitol (Baton Rouge) to Bourbon St. (New Orleans), when they desperately feel the intense urge for some sin and degradation.
2.) A good second guess is that the super-pricey high speed rail contract would be awarded to Jim Joe Billy Bob, first cousin to some politician or other.

Pul-eeze! Get them installed in your state, but leave us (and our taxes) alone. We don't want or need high speed rail here.

 

[explanade]

For some reason a lot of people seems to think taking the train in Europe is fast, it is between 2 relatively close cities. But Berlin to Paris - 10 hours train or 2 hours flying. Berlin to Amsterdam - 8 hours train or 1.5 hours flying. Paris to Madrid - 12 hours train or 2 hour flight. In most cases it is just as fast to drive than to take the train.

Not so much fast as convenient. Go to train station, buy ticket, get on train, relax, grab a drink, and catch up on things. That is what I remember from my EU working days. As I said it is my opinion. I remember Going from Munich to Frankfurt on a regular basis, it was very convenient.

You got various stops and I don't think all those routes are served by HSR.


Madrid to Seville is 5-6 hours drive, about 530 kilometers or about 330 miles. Some routes are longer according to Google Maps. Maybe if you want to avoid the tolls.

AVE train trip is 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Flight time is just over 60 minutes but you have check in time, security, boarding retrieving baggage, etc.

Probably about the best case for HSR, since there's transit time to and from both airports while the stations are closer to the center of both cities.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

But if high speed rail became as popular as flying, what makes you think it wouldn't become just as unpleasant? I just don't see anything intrinsic about rail that would make the boarding, waiting, etc any different.

And England has had attacks on their rail system, so we would likely face the same TSA routine getting on a train at some point.




I think you've missed the point people are making. They aren't against progress, they just realize (as braumeister just pointed out), that Europe is not the United States. They are just being realistic.

(edit/add): I quick search didn't get me there, but as an example, what are the two most distant points served by high speed rail in Europe, and how long would it take to get between those two points (considering schedules)? How would that compare with a New York to Los Angeles run in the US?

-ERD50

I've ridden the TGV in Europe, the Shinkasen in Japan and the Chinese high-speed from Shanghai to Beijing. In each case, the seats are large and comfortable and you can get up and move around at your leisure. Compare that to the experience of traveling by air in coach, shoehorned three abreast into those cattle-call seats.

I wouldn't anticipate a chicago to denver high-speed route, but Chicago to Milwaukee already has a couple thousand passengers a day riding the Amtrak Hiawatha. Double the speed on that route, and you'd be downtown to downtown in an hour or less. That would be a nice option to navigating freeway traffic, the route for which was recently widened in Wisconsin to eight lanes (at massive expense) in anticipation of the traffic Foxconn was supposed to bring.

 

[Dtail]

If we’re going to copy anything from Europe, I want an autobahn. I’d love some well maintained roads where I could drive 100 mph for long stretches.

I like this idea.

 

[rodi]

My exBIL used to commute from San Diego to Orange county by train. His workplace was a short bus ride from the train station, and the timing was good. It was faster to go by train than hit rush hour traffic in both San Diego and OC.

My husband used to have to get hospital building plans approved by OSHPD (state agency that deals with hospital infrastructure). He'd take the train, the OSHPD offices were a few blocks from Union Station in LA.

When I lived in Philly I was a witness in an arbitration - the IP lawyers representing our company were in DC. I had to go there 4-5 times prior to the actual arbitration hearings for witness prep. It was *FAR* faster to take the train to DC when you factor in the time to clear security and get there ahead by the recommended time. (This was pre 9-11, so the time was about 30 minutes if you weren't checking luggage. ) It helped that I lived a few blocks from a SEPTA line that took me straight to the PHL train station. A coworker insisted on flying... It took him an hour more to fly... he had a hard time believing it, but we compared notes. And the train was frequent enough I didn't have a hard stop to the witness prep so I could get a taxi to the airport in time to clear security etc... I could get to the train station pretty much anytime for my return trip.

Because my home in suburban Philly was a few blocks from the R1 train line, it was super convenient to get to the airport or the train station. Usually faster than driving to either location. But that's slow regional rail... not high speed rail.

Oh - and my son is commuting home from college for spring break by train. It will take several more hours than plane - but it's a LOT cheaper.

There are a lot of advantages to trains vs planes or cars.

But - as CA shows... high speed rail is not going to happen here and we've wasted a lot of tax payer money so far proving that.

 

[ncbill]

The USA needs more freight rail, not passenger rail.

There's plenty of room to build more airports...switch over to an air traffic control system like Canada's and planes could fly direct routes between them.

 

[ERD50]

I've ridden the TGV in Europe, the Shinkasen in Japan and the Chinese high-speed from Shanghai to Beijing. In each case, the seats are large and comfortable and you can get up and move around at your leisure. Compare that to the experience of traveling by air in coach, shoehorned three abreast into those cattle-call seats. ...

Yes, space/weight on a train is not at such a premium compared to air. But I still don't see why the boarding process should be much different (assumes we need TSA on high traffic trains as well as air)?

...

I wouldn't anticipate a chicago to denver high-speed route, but Chicago to Milwaukee already has a couple thousand passengers a day riding the Amtrak Hiawatha. Double the speed on that route, and you'd be downtown to downtown in an hour or less. That would be a nice option to navigating freeway traffic, the route for which was recently widened in Wisconsin to eight lanes (at massive expense) in anticipation of the traffic Foxconn was supposed to bring.

Chicago-Milwaukee seems do-able. A fair amount of farmland in-between that would be less disruptive to build on. But I'm not sure you'd get the kind of traffic to support that cost for just point-to-point commutes. If there was a network in place, that would also be a section to travel through to get other places, increasing traffic. Say you include other major cities in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, WI and Minnesota.

But then that's a huge network with so much disruption. I just don't think it will ever happen.

We need flying cars!

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

Or maybe people will just permanently work from home and no one will commute. I'd like to see how that plays out more before spending brazillions of dollars making it easier to commute by train.

 

[kgtest]

No, put the $ to education and healthcare, specifically finding a cure to cancer. That's what I would do if elected Help the lower class children get their academic test scores up, and take care of the most vulnerable folks in our healthcare system.

 

[Walt34]

For reasons already well described I doubt the U.S. will ever have cross-country high speed rail. It's just too expensive.

What might be viable will be autonomous flying cars. While I doubt I'll live to see them at a practical point there are a bunch of them in the certification stages and I think they will be "everyday practical" in say, 30-50 years. Maybe sooner, but I'm not counting on it. Yeah, I've been hearing that since the 1950's but this time it's different.

One was just certified by the Slovak Transport Authority. Granted the FAA will probably be a bit fussier but it will happen eventually.

https://news.yahoo.com/watch-flying-car-now-officially-200000754.html

For a couple of years in the mid 1970's I owned a small airplane that cruised at 120 mph. For short trips under about 400 miles I could beat the airlines' door-to-door time because I'd take off 15 minutes after going through the private airport's gate and I'd land at some small airport closer to my destination than an airline hub. So it cut out all the traffic and staging issues involved in launching an airliner carrying 100+ people. I can see some of these concept machines doing that without needing more than a driver's license and it'd be a lot cheaper than high speed rail.

 

[ERD50]

Or maybe people will just permanently work from home and no one will commute. I'd like to see how that plays out more before spending brazillions of dollars making it easier to commute by train.

Well, transporting electrons is a lot faster and takes a lot less energy than transporting people.

Makes a lot of sense for a lot of things.

-ERD50