High-Speed Rail in the US: why the hell not

[MadBurgerMaker]

Damn. 45 hours for the Seattle to Chicago train.

[Valdemar]

Its crazy, but i also think Amtrak is doing their best to avoid customers.

I took Denver La in the mid 90's for the scenery, and what was suppsed to be 24 hours was more than a day alte due to single track, run down equipment ahead of us in the form of a freight train, worn out tracks, and.. a prarie fire :S

V

[DGuller]

Its crazy, but i also think Amtrak is doing their best to avoid customers.

I took Denver La in the mid 90's for the scenery, and what was suppsed to be 24 hours was more than a day alte due to single track, run down equipment ahead of us in the form of a freight train, worn out tracks, and.. a prarie fire :S

V

I don't think Amtrak is to blame for being grossly underfunded all throughout its existance.  Deferred maintenance can quickly lay waste to rail infrastructure.

[Valdemar]

Its crazy, but i also think Amtrak is doing their best to avoid customers.

I took Denver La in the mid 90's for the scenery, and what was suppsed to be 24 hours was more than a day alte due to single track, run down equipment ahead of us in the form of a freight train, worn out tracks, and.. a prarie fire :S

V

I don't think Amtrak is to blame for being grossly underfunded all throughout its existance.  Deferred maintenance can quickly lay waste to rail infrastructure.

Yeah you need more railroad barons to force new tracks laid by chinese labour


Or maybe mexican?


:p

V

[grumbler]

I don't think Amtrak is to blame for being grossly underfunded all throughout its existance.  Deferred maintenance can quickly lay waste to rail infrastructure.

Amtrak owns little track, IIRC.  They use freight track in most of the country, and the freight rail companies have been hauling in the lucre.

[dps]

For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

For lots of Americans, there aren't distances too long for a car.  The year that Origins was in Fort Worth TX, I drove there from central WV without a second thought.  About 1100 hundred miles IIRC, but it was all 4-lane (or more), and I was able to make the drive in 1 admittedly long day.  And I know plenty of people who have driven on trips longer than that, though it's about the limit of what you can do in 1 day (unless you are travelling with someone else and can switch drivers).   

[Barrister]

For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

For lots of Americans, there aren't distances too long for a car.  The year that Origins was in Fort Worth TX, I drove there from central WV without a second thought.  About 1100 hundred miles IIRC, but it was all 4-lane (or more), and I was able to make the drive in 1 admittedly long day.  And I know plenty of people who have driven on trips longer than that, though it's about the limit of what you can do in 1 day (unless you are travelling with someone else and can switch drivers).

Yeah, I have trouble with this idea of something being "too long for a car" trip.

[Neil]

Yeah, I have trouble with this idea of something being "too long for a car" trip.

I dunno.  I wouldn't want to drive to the East coast or anything, but 1,200-1,500 km is eminently driveable.

[Barrister]

Yeah, I have trouble with this idea of something being "too long for a car" trip.

I dunno.  I wouldn't want to drive to the East coast or anything, but 1,200-1,500 km is eminently driveable.

Only because for that distance it becomes cheaper to fly.

1200-1500?  It's 2400km to Edmonton from here, and I've done that several times.

[CountDeMoney]

My main objection? Tampa and Orlando are both highly decentralized cities with poor mass transit. The fastest train in the world won't solve that problem. The main benefit will be for tourists- they will be able to take a train from the airport to Disney.

Actually, if anyone has the capital and will to do it, it would be Disney.

[Warspite]

How many weeks does the trip take?

Depends. Do you stop to forage for berries, and do you pay the toll to take the ferry to avoid fording?

[Martinus]

I don't think it would be the factor, imho. I mean, in a modern Western country most of the populace should be able to afford a car easily - just look at Poland, where I think the number of cars is probably higher than the number of people, and we are definitely poorer than Spain. I think your argument here would be in reverse - in countries with high quality public transport, people don't buy cars because they are not needed (I don't own a car because I live in Warsaw's centre, and can get everywhere I need easily by foot or by bus/metro; and for longer distances I take a train or a plane). 

The question I asked was not whether people in Spain could afford cars, but rather whether they had them.  You are reinforcing my argument with your own experiences, not demonstrating that levels of car ownership would not be a factor in rail success (or otherwise).  And, of course, the issue isn't how many cars per person there are in a country, but rather what percentage of people own cars.  A person with ten cars still only takes up 1/10 the road space of ten people with one car each, because a person cannot drive more than one car at a time.

Well, as I said, in a typical Western democracy, most people are perfectly capable of affording a car these days.

And car ownership is a variable much easier to change than the quality of national railway network.

So it is only reasonable to assume that it's the state of the railway network that affects car ownership levels (i.e. in a country with good railways network people will buy less cars than in a country with a poor railway network), and not the vice versa.

[Martinus]

Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

[DGuller]

Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

Doesn't it kind of blend things together, though?  It's almost like taking a subway to go from Brooklyn to Bronx.

[MadImmortalMan]

Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

So that's what, Houston to LA in 6.5 hours? Could be worse.