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

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think that anyone was planning a Topeka - Wichita Falls high speed connection either. 

Which is why you'd be hard pressed to get Kansas congressmen to vote for funding it. So it'd need corporate investors or state governments probably. California is broke and I don't think NY is doing much better.

[The Larch]

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.

[ulmont]

Yeah, I don't think most of the country is densely populated enough for those to be profitable and most of us don't want the federal government to pump money into extensive lines for those parts that are potentially.

I would like for the federal government to pump money into the Atlanta-New Orleans high speed rail line.

[alfred russel]

Some comments:

First and foremost, I must speak on behalf of mosquitoes. If you think they have ever been easier to defeat than enemy armies, you are sorely mistaken! Mosquito is the ultimate guerrilla warrior, agile, invisible, aggressive and resourceful... truly, when we attack they retreat, when we rest they attack, when we retreat they advance. And what can be more fit for a guerrilla than living on enemy blood?

Second, it's true that in the longest trips trains lose many of their advantages (although any person that has spent 6, 7 or 8 hours sat in a plane will appreciate luxuries like getting on your feet and walking to the wagon-restaurant... not to mention things like metal cutlery and keeping your shoes on, because these days airline passengers are treated too much like cattle, and dangerous cattle at that) but this fact doesn't explain why there is no high speed trains at all in the US. There are lots of high density routes, like Washington DC - New York,  Boston - Philadelphia, or San Francisco - Los Angeles, at "european" distances.

But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?

By no means am I saying this is always the case, but roads in this country often are financed by their users: through gasoline taxes, licensing fees, ad valorem taxes, and tolls (a frequent way to pay for bridges and other construction projects are to finance through bonds that are paid off with toll revenue). Airports are also paid for by Fed Ex and UPS through their fees to use the airport (which are used to pay off bonds).

In the US there are routes that may make sense on their own: San Fransisco to LA is an example you mentioned. The problem is that those are still 385 miles apart. Are you going to build a station in San Fransisco that can only service LA? The next major city to the north is Portland, and it is 630 miles away. Las Vegas to the southeast is 570 miles away.

For a point of comparison, London and Paris are 292 miles apart.

[Iormlund]

Maybe not Cali, but the Northeast Corridor looks ideal for high-speed rail transportation, DC-Balitmore-Philladelphia-NYC-Boston would make a lot of sense.

[Valdemar]

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.

We are talking Spain here, not mexico... there are a plenty of cars in Spain, roads enough to make rush hour, even *gasp* people with several cars...

I wager the density of cars in Spain easily is on par with the rest of western europe.

V

[DontSayBanana]

There's something to be brought up: trains as a potential niche alternative to plane travel.  We've over-tightened security for airline travel so much that if we had a rail infrastructure capable of handling the load, I think we'd see a lot of air passengers bail in favor of rail connections.

[DGuller]

But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?

Agreed, this is very silly.  The point of infrastructure upgrades is that they lift all the boats, directly and indirectly, and makes it hard to charge everyone who benefits from it.  That's why the government is supposed to be in charge of it.  Unfortunately, this point is lost on the penny-wise and pound-foolish libertardians in groupthink tanks.

[Valdemar]

By no means am I saying this is always the case, but roads in this country often are financed by their users: through gasoline taxes, licensing fees, ad valorem taxes, and tolls (a frequent way to pay for bridges and other construction projects are to finance through bonds that are paid off with toll revenue). Airports are also paid for by Fed Ex and UPS through their fees to use the airport (which are used to pay off bonds).

In the US there are routes that may make sense on their own: San Fransisco to LA is an example you mentioned. The problem is that those are still 385 miles apart. Are you going to build a station in San Fransisco that can only service LA? The next major city to the north is Portland, and it is 630 miles away. Las Vegas to the southeast is 570 miles away.

For a point of comparison, London and Paris are 292 miles apart.

You wouldn't need a new station if there is already one in existance, you might need to dedicate a track, or possible a platform.

In France some of the TGV stop more frequently, I took it from Disneyland to Charles de Gaule, a mere 15 min ride.

SF could easily service both LA and Vegas or even for that matter Denver. New trains are faster than the TGV, look at the Shangai magnetic rail

It shouls ofc be competitive to air, but in term of waiting and security you ought to factor that into a comparisson btw rail and air. If you had ecological costs most trains wins hands down over air

V

[alfred russel]

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.

France is quite a bit smaller than the US state of Texas, and much more population dense than our country. Also, its biggest airport is a disaster that any sane traveller would want to avoid.

The Northeast corridor does look like the best bet for high speed rail in this county, the problem is that there has been rail in those markets and it isn't successful. It may just be a function that our interstate system is so strong and car ownership so prevalent that rail isn't the option of choice when travelling those distances for budget oriented consumers.

[Iormlund]

I don't think that anyone was planning a Topeka - Wichita Falls high speed connection either. 

Which is why you'd be hard pressed to get Kansas congressmen to vote for funding it. So it'd need corporate investors or state governments probably. California is broke and I don't think NY is doing much better.

Yes, the political angle is a problem here as well. There is much resentment about the radial nature of the network. Also, some crazy Portuguese are apparently against a high-speed link with Spain because that would make them a colony or something like that.

[alfred russel]

But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?

Agreed, this is very silly.  The point of infrastructure upgrades is that they lift all the boats, directly and indirectly, and makes it hard to charge everyone who benefits from it.  That's why the government is supposed to be in charge of it.  Unfortunately, this point is lost on the penny-wise and pound-foolish libertardians in groupthink tanks.

If we are going to subsidize transportion, I'm glad we chose to focus on roads. When my house is burning down, it would suck of the fire department had to take the train to get to the fire.

[grumbler]

While high-speed lines are probably a bad idea on most of the US, I bet in certain areas (Cali, Northeast Coast) it would be a fairly good idea. The main advantage of these trains as far as I'm concerned is that you can get to the financial district of a big city much faster than in a plane. I can be in Atocha (downtown Madrid) in 90 min or so, including the time it takes me to get to the station here in Zaragoza.

The problem with HSR in the densely-populated areas where it makes sense is that the US has a much higher level of NIMBY than I perceive someplace like Spain to have, and so you have a huge number of people who favor it so long as it doesn't come anywhere near them.

[Strix]

Amtrack is a non-profit organization in that they lose money every year. Last I had seen/heard they were requiring over a billion dollars each year from the government to continue operations. I cannot imagine that bill it would cost taxpayers to start running high speed trains.

The word you're looking for is subsidized, not nonprofit.

I believe the push for the high speed lines is between hubs that are only loosely connected now- for example, getting from Philadelphia to Chicago is a trip that takes a bare minimum of 20 1/2 hours.  If I remember correctly, the push was to connect the Northeast Corridor more tightly to the Chicago hub, and to connect the Chicago hub to the West Coast (train travel from coast to coast is absolutely asinine nowadays).

It was a joke which is why I clarified what I meant by non-profit. Amtrack loses a ton of money now and would lose more if they upgraded to high speed trains. It sounds good as an idea but it is not a practical one.

[The Larch]

While high-speed lines are probably a bad idea on most of the US, I bet in certain areas (Cali, Northeast Coast) it would be a fairly good idea. The main advantage of these trains as far as I'm concerned is that you can get to the financial district of a big city much faster than in a plane. I can be in Atocha (downtown Madrid) in 90 min or so, including the time it takes me to get to the station here in Zaragoza.

The problem with HSR in the densely-populated areas where it makes sense is that the US has a much higher level of NIMBY than I perceive someplace like Spain to have, and so you have a huge number of people who favor it so long as it doesn't come anywhere near them.

If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.