Large Scale Central

High speed rail in this country

General Discussion
#1

With the skies getting ever more crowded and people looking for alternative transport across the country, I wonder how long will it take for us to evolve and build a superior high end high speed rail. All across the country, we have numerous examples of some efforts in this area, but really the only real good example is the Acela by Amtrak. Running between DC and Boston, the Acela blazes by NE sector towns at speeds well over 125 MPH and once it hits MA, the Acela tops off at 150MPH. The whole trip takes roughly six hours and yes, one can fly there a whole lot quicker, but the catch is, you get dropped off at the airport and then must arrange transport from Boston’s Logan Field to wherever you are going. The Acela drops passengers off right inside the city and often within mere blocks or less of ones destination. That is the advantage of high speed rail.

Japan, China, Europe to include France and Germany, all have some form of high speed rail network. The advantages are many, but in this country, politics and government get in the way.

I like the Acela allot. I travelled on it one time and if you thought a regional was fast, Ha, wait to you ride on this puppy and the thing is, 150 is really slow by comparison to our Euro cousins as well as those in Japan and China. Where some trains travel as fast as a slow commercial jet.

High speed rail would create jobs. Lots and lots of jobs. It can be funded entirely by private funding or partial funding by the government. Either way, we need high speed rail in my opinion.

What do you all think?

#2

Love to have it.

Politics will mess it up some, but that is inevitable with huge projects.

Trouble is, we do not have the overall population density like all the other countries you list.

I think I’d rather do without high speed rail if it means living in small spaces and very crowded like Japan, China, Korea, etc.

Greg

#3

I think the biggest obstacle to HS rail right now (besides a complete lack of political backbone) is the proverbial “last mile.” Once you get to the train station, how do you get to your final destination? The airports have built up the requisite support infrastructure of rental car agencies, nearby hotels (or shuttles), and in some cities, light rail connections to downtown areas. Train stations? Not so much. Denver just finished a multi-million dollar renovation of their Union Station, with light rail and bus depots on site as well, but if you want a rental car, you’re taking the light rail–to the airport! (Or will in 2016 when the line opens. For now, you’re taking a taxi.)

I think the first step to High Speed Rail service is to build up the infrastructure of regional public transportation at least close to the level that people find at the airports.

Demand for HSR will take care of itself as the airlines continue on their race to the bottom in terms of being user-friendly. The question is, how far will the airlines sink before there’s sufficient political will to step up and create a viable alternative? I fear–given the current climate–that we may as well wait for teleportation.

Later,

K

#4

Very interesting idea.

So interesting, I thought I would take a look at Washington, DC to Boston, MA for TrainOps in August.

That’s when reality sets in, very quickly.

Taking the Acela Express, downtown to downtown is $684 for 2 people. Takes 6 hour, 42 minutes.

I probably need to add 90 minutes on the front end to get from my house to downtown, park the car and be there on time. I’m going to add 2 hours on the back end to get a rental car and out to Bob’s. Now, I’m up to 10 hours and 12 minutes of travel. I can probably get a rental car for about $50 a day, and I need it for 5 days. Of course, I have no idea how far the rental car is from the train station, and the Amtrak site gives no clues. Anyway, total cost is now about $924. No idea on what additional taxes need to be paid.

Or, I could take the plane. Two tickets non-stop for $518. Travel time is 1 hour, 27 minutes. To that, I add 2.5 hours up front to get there an hour early for check in and parking and shuttle time. I’ll add another 2.5 hours at the back to get my luggage, car, and up to Bob’s. I’m up to 6 hours 27 minutes of travel. Total cost with rental car is $768. Plus taxes.

Or, I can drive. Google maps has it at 7 hours 28 minutes for a distance of 453 miles. Roundtrip, that’s 906 miles. I get about 30 mpg on the hwy (maybe more) and @ $4 gallon, that’s $120. I don’t remember how much the tolls are, but let’s just figure $60 round trip for tolls and I’ve got $180 in total cost. Not only that, but I can leave when I want and I can take my locomotives and rolling stock very easily. No hassle with luggage, and no pat down. Quicker than the Acela, and almost the same as flying.

#5

High speed rail? Read this lot re UK HS R. It is estimated a non stop service will save time on the present journeys. Minutes in some cases.
… Note the HS building costs. Don’t wish for something YOU will eventually have to pay for in taxes (not to mention higher fares)…

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2629579/Is-controversial-HS2-rail-line-budget-Firm-tasked-managing-project-accused-blowing-funds-consultants.html

Today exchange rate £1,000,000 = $1,680,000

Little wonder no one wants it.

#6

Greg sums it up pretty succinctly.

Having ridden the GTV in France I wish we could have a system like it here, although its still really only appropriate in a few areas. The San Diego/Los Angeles/Sacramento corridor, the Boston/ NYC/DC corridor, Chicago/NYC corridor, Chicago/KC/St Louis corridor, as such its pretty limited, and the costs in this country seam to have gotten to a point where nothing big is ever going to get built ever again without protracted political infighting.

Personally I would be happy just to see a reasonably reliable nation wide regular passenger rail service, not the hamstrung halfway Amtrak service, which is severely limited at best. I prefer train travel, I hate flying, not because I’m scared of flying but because flying has become an onerous endurance chore. Today everyone is packed in like cattle, probed and poked like cattle, and treated with the same rights like cattle. Train travel (even as slow as Amtrak is) could be treated more like a mini-cruise if it was funded and handled correctly, something to be relaxing and enjoyable as part of your travel plans, but the powers that be treat Amtrak, which is still 10 time better than flying, as something pariah only poor folks use, like Greyhound. Which I find highly ironic because it is in fact IMO the airlines that are way more like traveling on Greyhound today.

#7

High Speed Rail or High Frequency Long Distance Rail works if there is high population density, high traffic loads on the roads, convenient access points to rail with supporting feeder modes to get to the access points AND an integrated concept regarding service and price.

(http://www.bav.admin.ch/dokumentation/publikationen/00475/01623/01624/index.html?lang=de&image=NHzLpZeg7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDd3t9hGym162bpYbqjKbXpJ6eiKWhm4yf4w--)

The above dates back to 2010 and lists the per capita rail-kilometers. Switzerland is way ahead of Japan, despite lacking HSR. A typical case of the integrated service and price concept.

PS the Swiss pride themselves on being world champions in rail travel.

#8

Plus this country is large when compared to France, England etc… Even from Boston to DC is a large area compared to European countries. Its much easier to fly if the cost is less or even the same. Going from Phily to NY or Phily to DC would be more reasonable. I personally like the car, I can come and go as pleased. No schedules to follow and I can bring what I wan. Plus make side trips to cool places.

#9

High speed rail?
Where?
The insightful regular readers postings above identify the key feature making high speed work: Locality in dense business/population areas whereby public transportation is at both ends of the travel, e.g. London, Washington, D.C., Chicago, parts of New York, etc.

Home state Ole’ California has the X $Billion rail project section between Bakersfield and Fresno still being considered for funding. After four years of discussion NO rail line. The more discussion, the more the land prices go up for the rail. This short section through the several farm towns is to show feasibility. Sure, no grade crossings of significance and no worry about who would ride it since it is just a test section. The eventual project destination is supposedly San Francisco – unifying Los Angeles with San Francisco by rail instead of by car and by plane.

Won’t work.

Check out Bruce’s math (above) for a terse, meaningful, recap of the problem of car vs. train over long distance at “high speed.”

#10

HSR is nothing but a horribly expensive political boondoggle. At best it might take some customers away from the airlines. No one who drives city-to-city will stop doing so, when the time, costs, and risks of HSR are so much higher.

Unlike privately run airlines, HSR is a form of public transportation, and the politicians love anything that makes people more dependent on the government. That plus the fact that it’s not possible to hijack a train and crash it into government buildings.

#11

I am against it. The reason we don’t have it now or any other effective mass transit is because gasoline is so cheap, highways are so good and cars are far more convenient. It is too easy and far less hassle to get in the car and drive. It’s been that way in the US for 100+ years. You will have to come up with an extremely compelling incentive for an American to give up the car.

Comparing the US to Japan is pointless. 70% of Japan is mountainous and unusable. Most of the usable land is in agriculture. The population lives in high rise apartments around train stations because there is simply no place else to live. And absolutely no place to park a car. You are stuck with a train or a bus. The truth is that the Shinkansen is a huge money loser. Ticket prices cover very little compared to the cost to run it.

I lived in Europe twice. It was great riding the Chunnel. We could take the car to the UK.

There is talk of building high speed rail between Los Angles and Las Vegas. Actually it will service Victorville CA and maybe Sloan NV, most likely Jean NV. Look at a map and tell me how many people will give up the car to ride the train. That plan is brainless.

Here are some questions:

  • Who is going to pay for it?

  • Who will use it?

  • What problem will it solve?

  • Will the benefit outweigh the cost?

#12

In my opinion,and I am unanimous in this is that to change to High Speed Rail you haft to eliminate all road crossings and broaden all curves .Which is fare to costly. The only thing that makes sense is to start from scratch with a new system. ( Mag-Rail ) the only thing that can compete with Flying.

#13

Next summer, I am planning a trip to Sandy Eggo for the De-Commissioning of a ship that I helped put in Commission in 1983 (Good Lord, am I really that old!?). While I would love to go by train, it just is not economically feasible.

I tried booking a round trip via Amtrak on their web site, from Spokane, WA to San Diego, which required changing trains in Portland, OR and in Los Angeles, CA, before finally arriving in San Diego. The web site told me that 4 hours was not enough time to change trains in either Portland, or in LA, I’m not sure which, as I just don’t have the patience to fool with it, so I don’t know how much it would cost. If AMTRAK wants me to wait for 28 hours in Portland and LA for the next train, that will definitely put it out of my league.

I think I’ll drive. I can get there faster, and with less hassle, though not in as good a mood.

#14

i don’t believe in high speed trains.
what really is helpfull is a good “standard” rail service.

in europe i often traveled by train.
a sleeping compartment for me, a place on the car transporter for my car and reaching the destination in the morning.
the saving on fuel and one night’s hotel cost made the passage cheap.

#15

Ray Dunakin said:

HSR is nothing but a horribly expensive political boondoggle. At best it might take some customers away from the airlines. No one who drives city-to-city will stop doing so, when the time, costs, and risks of HSR are so much higher.

Unlike privately run airlines, HSR is a form of public transportation, and the politicians love anything that makes people more dependent on the government. That plus the fact that it’s not possible to hijack a train and crash it into government buildings.

The problem is that airports are at maximum capacity, and most have zero room to expand, yet demand continues to rise. LAX is maxed, John Wayne and Long Beach are a joke, Lindberg field down your way is a tiny postage stamp that pilots have to literally thread buildings to land at. To expand any of them means lengthy protracted State run Eminent Domain legal proceedings against the adjacent property owners, which by the time they have reached resolution you probably could have built an HST system just in the lawyers fees.

Same for widening freeways, out in the wide open spaces its not such a big issue to widen highways to increase traffic capacity but when you need to do that in urban areas where the natural choke points are, that’s when it gets very complicated. It was investigated here to widen the 101 freeway thru North Hollywood, by the time the estimated legal as well as construction costs to procure the existing residential properties was released it showed that widening the highway could costs as much as $1 BILLION dollars per mile, and the proposal was scrapped. That would be typical anywhere in an urban area so widening freeways is a non-starter for most all cities.

Of course airports could be built farther away from the cities, or smaller airports could be expanded, Burbank, Ontario, and Brown Field down your way are prime examples, yet up here every discussion to expand their use get met with violent opposition from surrounding home owners.

So what are we going to do? While HST service may not be viable at this time there is absolutely no reason Amtrak cannot be expanded and improved, its only the politics of “not with my money” that keeps stifling any real progress in this country. If they made cross country rail travel something more akin to a mini-cruise, good food, activities, nice accommodations, they would probably have alot more consumer support. But as long as a small but vocal minority in DC continue to try and kill Amtrak (so we can all have to pleasure of forced cattle-prodded by TSA agents) its going to continue to be under Damocles Sword.

#16

Steve;… Drop in on Dave Goodson on your drive West…to visit him is a “Must”…he is an ex"Boatman", but don’t let that bother you…they can be great people, if approached with caution…!!!

#17

Bruce Chandler said:

Very interesting idea.

So interesting, I thought I would take a look at Washington, DC to Boston, MA for TrainOps in August.

That’s when reality sets in, very quickly.

. . . .

Or, I can drive. Google maps has it at 7 hours 28 minutes for a distance of 453 miles. Roundtrip, that’s 906 miles. I get about 30 mpg on the hwy (maybe more) and @ $4 gallon, that’s $120. I don’t remember how much the tolls are, but let’s just figure $60 round trip for tolls and I’ve got $180 in total cost. Not only that, but I can leave when I want and I can take my locomotives and rolling stock very easily. No hassle with luggage, and no pat down. Quicker than the Acela, and almost the same as flying.

Bruce,
Nice work, but you’re not comparing apples and apples - you got oranges in there. The cost of your car trip to Boston has to include depreciation and maintenance, besides the gas. (You’ll have to buy a new car sometime, and change the oil, right?) The airlines and railroads already factored in those costs.

The IRS lets you claim $0.56 per mile, so let’s use that. Your 906 miles will cost you more like $507.36.
What annoys Amtrak is that the states and feds (your tax dollars at work,) pay for airports and highways, whereas it pays the entire cost of the Northeast Corridor (which is profitable, btw.)

#18

There is another factor that few North Americans seem to care about…“Sitting behind the wheel, staring at the road”…risking life and limb, driving that automobile…hoping that some lunatic won’t go off the deep end and crash into them…suffer the fatigue of driving…and causing the death or injury of their passenger…oh…it won’t happen to me…I haven’t had an accident in years…oh…I relax when I’m driving…

#19

Steve Featherkile said:

…

While I would love to go by train, it just is not economically feasible.

I tried booking a round trip via Amtrak on their web site, from Spokane, WA to San Diego, which required changing trains in Portland, OR and in Los Angeles, CA, before finally arriving in San Diego. The web site told me that 4 hours was not enough time to change trains in either Portland, or in LA, I’m not sure which, as I just don’t have the patience to fool with it, so I don’t know how much it would cost. …

That’s precisely what I mean by “integrated price and service concept”. One needs the frequency to get the people to take the train, but you can’t get the frequency if you don’t have enough people using the train.

But let’s turn back the clock by 60 or 70 years. There used to be good passenger rail service in NA, it went away when everyone “needed” a car. Not necessarily for strictly practical purposes, but to “keep up with the Jones” amongst other reasons. BTW same thing happened with public transportation of any kind. Streetcars? Who needs them! Interurbans? Another relic! And on and on it went.

Reading up on what happens at AMTRAK and VIA - from the start and ongoing - sure opened my eyes (even wider) to the assinine transportation policies we have in NA.

#20

Fred Mills, BSc, BS, SD said:

There is another factor that few North Americans seem to care about…“Sitting behind the wheel, staring at the road”…risking life and limb, driving that automobile…hoping that some lunatic won’t go off the deep end and crash into them…suffer the fatigue of driving…and causing the death or injury of their passenger…oh…it won’t happen to me…I haven’t had an accident in years…oh…I relax when I’m driving…

I agree, Fred, but when AMTRAK says that 4 hours is not enough time to change trains in Portland, OR, where they only have less than 10 trains that even have a baggage car a day, what is a guy to do?

I would much rather take the train. I refuse to fly, for numerous reasons, unless the guy who signs the plane as fit for flight goes with me.