China tests 300 mph train.

[mongers]

I took the Acela from NYC to DC and back. Broke down both times.

It was an emotional experience for me too, though not to that degree.

[alfred russel]

Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?

There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.

If we take a 5 hour car trip vs. ~1 hour plane trip, the hastle of flying makes driving a competitive choice, but even though a train may be less hastle, it is still a hastle. You have to go to the train station, figure out parking, wait for the train, and then at the terminus figure out how to get where you are going (in Texas, that would often mean renting a car). Until there is a strong intra city public transport system, I think this will be a tough sell (due to needing cars on both ends).

It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.

[Josquius]

Maybe its a problem of the difference between European and American cities?
Here in Japan they seem to follow the American model. A large degree of urban sprawl with worthwhile things scattered all over the area of the city, you really have to travel quite a way for a lot of stuff. In Europe meanwhile we tend to have more well defined city centres where if you get to a city most businesses are within walking distance. Perhaps due to European cities being older and having old central cores which were originally all that was the city.
Yet...trains are popular in Japan
Guess its the shittyness of the roads (it can take all day to go 60km...)

[alfred russel]

Maybe its a problem of the difference between European and American cities?
Here in Japan they seem to follow the American model. A large degree of urban sprawl with worthwhile things scattered all over the area of the city, you really have to travel quite a way for a lot of stuff. In Europe meanwhile we tend to have more well defined city centres where if you get to a city most businesses are within walking distance. Perhaps due to European cities being older and having old central cores which were originally all that was the city.
Yet...trains are popular in Japan
Guess its the shittyness of the roads (it can take all day to go 60km...)

Generalizing: gas is way more expensive in Japan and Europe than the US. Also US cities to a large extent are new cities, that grew after cars were widespread. Even in the rebuilding post WWII Europe and Japan didn't have the widespread car ownership that the US had.

Even if you gave some newer US cities great public transport, it still wouldn't be used like in Europe (or NYC or Boston) for quite some time, because the cities have been zoned and built with cars in mind.

[Zanza]

If we take a 5 hour car trip vs. ~1 hour plane trip, the hastle of flying makes driving a competitive choice, but even though a train may be less hastle, it is still a hastle. You have to go to the train station, figure out parking, wait for the train, and then at the terminus figure out how to get where you are going (in Texas, that would often mean renting a car). Until there is a strong intra city public transport system, I think this will be a tough sell (due to needing cars on both ends).

I don't try to sell it.
It's just an observation that, given the right infrastructure, a train network in Texas could work because of the distances and population figures. It would not work in other parts of the USA as the population density is not there or the distances are too high.

It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.

Definitely. Urban or at least metropolitan area public transport should be the priority.

[dps]

Maybe its a problem of the difference between European and American cities?
Here in Japan they seem to follow the American model. A large degree of urban sprawl with worthwhile things scattered all over the area of the city, you really have to travel quite a way for a lot of stuff. In Europe meanwhile we tend to have more well defined city centres where if you get to a city most businesses are within walking distance. Perhaps due to European cities being older and having old central cores which were originally all that was the city.

Most American cities, even with suburban sprawl, have pretty well defined cores as well.  The problem is that those cores largely rotted out years ago.  Even where urban renewal has been relatively successful and the rot has be expunged from the city centers, those centers are often filled with offices and the like, not residential areas and retail businesses.

But the real difference is what ar points out--most American cities have infrastructure that essentially assumes most people get around by private automobile.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?

There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.

It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.

That may be true in Texas, but on the east coast, even the interstates between cities, like I-95 between Fredericksburg & DC, between DC and Baltimore, and I-66 between DC and Fairfax and further out, are packed during rush hour, and it's only getting worse. Plus there's no room for much more expansion or alternate routes.

[garbon]

Same on some of those bay area roads and LA!!!

[Capetan Mihali]

The only areas that seem suitable to me for high speed trains in the USA are the area between Boston and DC (maybe Richmond and Norfolk)

I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice.  Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland).  Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. 

[dps]

Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?

There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.

It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.

That may be true in Texas, but on the east coast, even the interstates between cities, like I-95 between Fredericksburg & DC, between DC and Baltimore, and I-66 between DC and Fairfax and further out, are packed during rush hour, and it's only getting worse. Plus there's no room for much more expansion or alternate routes.

By Texas standards, that would probably still count as "in and immediately around the cities".

Heck, even in West Virginia, I-64 right around Charleston is a mess at rush hour.  And getting around town to and from the Interstate was a pain.  When I worked there and lived at my mom's, I had a 60-mile commute, which broke down into 3 parts--about 10 miles of narrow, 2-lane backroads from home to the Interstate, about 40 miles of Interstate to the Charleston area, and another 10 miles of Interstate and major non-interstate highways within the Charleston are to work.  The 10 miles from the house to the Interstate took about 15 minutes, regardless of the time of day.  The 40 miles from there to the Charleston area took about 35 minutes, again regardless of the time.  The last 10 miles took about 40 minutes during rush hour. 

I think his point still stands--once you get out of the vicinity of the major cities, driving the interstates and the better non-interstate highways is a piece of cake, barring major road work.  It's within and right around the cities where the problem develop.

[Maladict]

I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice.  Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland).  Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. 

I took the 18-hour overnight trip from DC to Chicago, which turned into a 28-hour trip.
All things considered, though, I'd rather be stuck on a train for a few extra hours than on a plane.

[dps]

I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice.  Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland).  Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. 

I took the 18-hour overnight trip from DC to Chicago, which turned into a 28-hour trip.
All things considered, though, I'd rather be stuck on a train for a few extra hours than on a plane.

Wasn't a lot of that extra time spent getting to and from the airports, though?  Wouldn't that be a similar problem with getting to and from the train station?  The airports mostly have to be outside the city centers for saftey reasons, true, while the train stations don't have to be, but a lot of Amtrack stations are in, well, odd places (though I don't think that's as true of DC and Chicago as it is in a lot of places serviced by Amtrack).

[Zanza]

I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice.  Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland).  Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. 

It's about 800 miles, which is a lot. A flight between the two cities probably takes a bit more than 2 hours. Add another hour at origin and destination to get to the airport, check in and get your luggage back. If the train takes more than 5 hours, it can't compete, so it will have to average 160 mph, which is a lot. If you build tracks for a train going that fast, you'll never be able to compete price-wise with the aircraft...

[alfred russel]

Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?

There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.

It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.

That may be true in Texas, but on the east coast, even the interstates between cities, like I-95 between Fredericksburg & DC, between DC and Baltimore, and I-66 between DC and Fairfax and further out, are packed during rush hour, and it's only getting worse. Plus there's no room for much more expansion or alternate routes.

There are clearly exceptions to what I'm saying--and I think the area around where you are talking about is one of those. But, DC in particular is badly sprawled, to the point that is almost just a single metropolitan area. At least I think Fairfax would be.

Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.

[alfred russel]

I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice.  Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland).  Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. 

It's about 800 miles, which is a lot. A flight between the two cities probably takes a bit more than 2 hours. Add another hour at origin and destination to get to the airport, check in and get your luggage back. If the train takes more than 5 hours, it can't compete, so it will have to average 160 mph, which is a lot. If you build tracks for a train going that fast, you'll never be able to compete price-wise with the aircraft...

I just did a search for a round trip flight from Chcago to NYC in 2 weeks: there was a ticket for $123. Flight time was 2 hours. I don't think a train can beat that.