Forget High-Speed Rail: Elon Musk Wants to Build Something Far More Awesome

[The Minsky Moment]

Close your eyes and try to imagine how a sane and obviously good decision like Just import the TGV and run it between the big American cities instead of spending years and fortunes inventing maglev from scratch for no reason could get made in these United States

What a great idea! It's such a great idea it is basically what California decided to do.  Except the project is mired in delays and ballooning cost estimates because it turns out it is really, really expensive to build high speed rail lines through densely populated SoCal and then re-engineer the unruly and mountainous terrain of California for the nice level straight track needed to generate high speeds.  In fact, it became clear that that the project would involve lots of tunneling  - at which point one might well wonder whether a fully underground solution might be a viable alternative.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?

Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband. 

[grumbler]

OK, I am fine with calling the "core of truth" valid points instead.

I took away the basic "core" message that it is silly for the US to be looking at technology to solve a problem that has not been solved in the past 5 or 6 decades with existing technology for reason that have little to do with the technical merits of the solution.

And I think he is right. The problem has not been solved, or even made better, for reasons that even more expensive, new technology won't address either.

"The US" isn't looking at this technology.  It is a private venture.  Sure, it's gotten some tax breaks, like any corporation gets to build in a given site, but the US taxpayer isn't funding this and the US government isn't running it.

I'm not convinced that this is the answer, but it is a potential answer that gets around a lot of the problems that existing high-speed rail doesn't address (like obtaining land for the right-of-way and operating high-speed rail at a profit).  The Japanese system is the only one that consistently operates in the black, and it serves just 17 stations.  TGV has been profitable on average (excluding new construction) and is probably closest to what the US would need, but it has political backing that a similar US government-wholly-owned system might find hard to muster.

"Better is the enemy of good enough" might apply, but sneering articles in sports blogs aren't likely to persuade me that this is true in this case.

[grumbler]

I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?

Journey times have to include getting to and from the airport/station.  High-speed rail is city center to city center, by and large.  Air is not.

[The Brain]

I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?

Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband.

A very common business trip in Sweden is Stockholm-Gothenburg. It's 1h by air or 3h by rail (I would describe Swedish rail as medium speed, they do 125 mph). If you go by air you have to get to and from the airport, go through security, etc. If you go by rail you go city center to city center and have 3h of continuous sit-down time when you can work. Most people I know take the train.

[Tonitrus]

I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?

Journey times have to include getting to and from the airport/station.  High-speed rail is city center to city center, by and large.  Air is not.

I was going to argue...sure, 1 hour in the air, but the logistics of air travel (security, etc) easily make 1-hour in the air over 3 hours.

[grumbler]

I was going to argue...sure, 1 hour in the air, but the logistics of air travel (security, etc) easily make 1-hour in the air over 3 hours.

My understanding is that anything over three hours by rail defeats the purpose of travelling by rail, which is why the US high-speed rail systems are all looking at that time window.

The Japanese high-speed rail system works because it is easier than air travel.  The French system, though, tends to belie that.  It is doing well (where it is doing well) because the trip is so pleasant.  Having taken it I tend to agree.

[celedhring]

I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?

Journey times have to include getting to and from the airport/station.  High-speed rail is city center to city center, by and large.  Air is not.

Yeah, back in the 1990s Barcelona-Madrid was one of the most congested air routes in Europe, and the high-speed train absolutely killed it despite being nominally slower. It's just far more convenient for trips under 3 hours than the air equivalent.

Of course, Spain's approach to building high speed rail everywhere makes it impossible to operate at a profit (IIRC only the BCN-MAD line operates profitably, and the Andalusia corridor pre-pandemic was close to it), even though by and large the construction itself has been  cheap compared to other countries (geography helped here).

[Josquius]

It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads

[Admiral Yi]

It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads

What do you think highway tolls, gas taxes, and car registration fees are for?

[celedhring]

It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads

Well, you have to take into account wether the societal benefits of a high speed railway outweigh the burden of operating it at a loss.  European mass transit systems are money pits, but the benefits are clear. There's still a debate on high-speed rail. As I said, Spain has built a massive high speed rail system, and the debate has always been there on wether it wouldn't have been preferable to just upgrade and expand the existing rail lines.

Roads are very "profitable" on that regard.

[Josquius]

It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads

What do you think highway tolls, gas taxes, and car registration fees are for?

Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.

[Admiral Yi]

Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.

You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

[Josquius]

Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.

You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

OK?
Not getting the point there. The amount paid in tolls, petrol tax, etc... In no way covers the cost of road building and maintenance for the country

[The Brain]

Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.

You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

OK?
Not getting the point there. The amount paid in tolls, petrol tax, etc... In no way covers the cost of road building and maintenance for the country

Do you know this, or do you think this?