My perception is that it's a huge money pit for something that's quite frankly inferior to our current infrastructure. We would be much better off improving our current insterstate system.
My perception is that it's a huge money pit for something that's quite frankly inferior to our current infrastructure. We would be much better off improving our current insterstate system.
- faster (200 Km/h and up)
- much lower accident per passenger mile
- in theory it should be cheaper (it isn't for a variety of reasons, many of those are political)
- it allows you to work while you're in motion (much harder in a car or a plane)
- more land efficient
- connects the centers of cities rather than the outskirts which in many cases removes that last mile problem because the majority of traffic is city-to-city
For the United States the situation is better served anyway by comparing rail and air travel, air travel scales better as the distance increases, is (roughly) comparable in cost per ticket and tends to be faster on longer distances.
* the weight of freight significantly impacts the track's lifecycle, and HSR tend to be on the "light cargo" side with a train being about 10% cargo by weight
* the bulk and varying shape makes it impossible to build high-speed trains with any interesting flexibility and capability as they need to be highly profiled
* and you don't want your high-speed passenger traffic to be held up by freight.
* the cost/benefit calculation makes no sense, it's much more price-efficient to carry freight using gigantic regular-speed trainsets than using small high-speed ones, and what little freight is so time-sensitive that you need to put it on an HSR can be put there as a special case
None of the big HSR countries use it for anything resembling serious freight, the only one which came even remotely close was France which had 3.5 mail trainsets, which were wound down and ultimately retired in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste
But yes, weight is a big deal: the LGV in France, for example, have a maximum axle loading of 17 tons. Much of the US freight network is over 35 tons, from memory.
And many shippers will absolutely not use rail freight for a variety of reasons in the USA, including slow delivery time (can't ship produce and other perishables easily), lackluster quality of service from the rail lines (they want coal, oil, large commodity business, not smaller firms), higher chance of damage; as well as not meeting minimum qty/volume for it to be worth it.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/Vol2-Chapter3.pdf
As for speed, it's interesting to compare trucks with slow steaming.
> Slow steaming refers to the practice of operating transoceanic cargo ships, especially container ships, at significantly less than their maximum speed. An analyst at National Ports and Waterways Institute stated in 2010 that nearly all global shipping lines were using slow steaming to save money on fuel.
Unless you're talking about the highly possible near future where even the middle class doesn't has cars, but would pay more for a train ticket that's faster.
Even if you have to stand now and then, you can use an ereader.
I'd pay almost as much for a guaranteed seat on BART as I would for a car.
We tolerate different pricing for various classes of seats in concerts, trains, buses, airplanes, pretty much everything imaginable. I don't see why commuter rail would be any different.
I think most people who can't afford first class on airlines do resent it, but since airlines aren't state-owned and, more importantly, it's always been there (not a new proposal), there's not much they can do.
Look at the popular outrage about scalping. People absolutely feel that you shouldn't be able to buy your way into a good seat, and instead ought to be lucky/first.
It's hard to take what you're saying seriously when you're so clearly biased towards one end of the political spectrum.
The actual truth is much less political. Cities like New York City are way too dense for everyone to drive a personal vehicle, full stop, your non sequitur about Audis notwithstanding. Mass transit is the only transportation method that scales to handle a population the size of a large, dense city. Individual vehicle transportation does not. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, whether you're driving an Audi or a beater; if you're trying to drive to your job in the heart of Manhattan from the suburbs it's going to take you hours. Mass transit is the better choice for almost everyone.
In a car, I have to be on moderately high alert the entire time I'm driving, especially in traffic.
Edit: And it's the exact same for the Long Island Railroad, which is the other major commuter rail system run by the MTA. They have a third system, the Staten Island Railway, but I've never taken it and thus can't comment.
It may actually be a good strategy to live even further from the city if it lets you switch from a crowded urban transit system to a more spacious suburban one.
It's a good question though (let's put aside costs for now): How much more time would you be willing to spend on commuter rail over heavy rail if it means getting a seat? I'm not sure. I think I'd rather be seated for 40 minutes than standing for thirty, but at an hour, I might just prefer the shorter trip. You can still easily listen to podcasts on crowded heavy rail, or get good at holding a Kindle in one hand.
Also, you don't see that here in NYC. People are gonna sit down if there's space available. Unless it's next to a crazy homeless person, but I've only ever experienced that on heavy rail, not commuter rail.
In smaller cities, it takes less time to get downtown from the suburbs than it does to get across downtown on foot or even a bike. (Buses there move at walking speed in the average case, or bicycle speed in the best case, but only come every half hour or so).
I have some friends that have moved to upstate New York from Brooklyn and rent is the same, just with a lot more space. However, you then have to add on $400/month for the commuter rail along with an extra hour per day of commuting, plus owning a car and needing to drive everywhere instead of walking. It actually ends up being more expensive, but the trade off is getting more space (if you care about that for some reason).
Or to "the rent is the same, but I don't have to have roommates" by not having them.
I can easily afford a car, but I don't own one because I don't have need for one very frequently, so it's simply cheaper to rent when I need one rather than have to worry about owning one 24/7.
Almost everywhere else that isn't the Acela corridor, people will have cars by default, so rail doesn't meaningfully increase access to inter-city travel over existing freeways.
I don't understand your argument anyway. People own cars because they need them frequently for daily activities like commuting or errands. Infrequent longer distance trips are not the primary drivers of car ownership at all. If you don't own a car for your daily life then you certainly aren't going to own one just for the occasional road trip; no, you'll take a train/bus/plane in that case, or even just rent one.
Also, I live in NYC, and most of the places I go to are too far to drive to anyway. So having a car wouldn't be helpful. I'm renting a car in Las Vegas next month for DEF CON, but if I owned a car here I certainly wouldn't drive all the way there. I go to DC regularly, but even if I had a car I wouldn't want to use it for that trip as I find long drives unpleasant and would much rather read a book on a bus for four hours.
You can get to every significant Midwestern city on Amtrak from downtown Chicago. In fact, one of Amtrak's main weaknesses is that you often have to transfer through Chicago when it doesn't make geographic sense. That doesn't apply to Chicagoans. The Amtrak map is enlightening [0].
You can even do some train trips from downtown Chicago that make absolutely no sense in the era of flight (the rail tickets cost more than airfare and take 10x as long). I'd argue that anywhere you can't easily get on a train from Chicago is either too small to support rail service, or too far to be convenient by any mode except air.
There are a couple other places where people tend to live without cars, like the Bay Area. We already have good passenger rail service to Sacramento/Davis, and the SF/LA corridor is being developed.
>People own cars because they need them frequently for daily activities like commuting or errands
Correct, and when they already own cars, they already have easy access to inter-city travel (within distances that would be convenient by rail) via the interstates. Building HSR on these routes could provide a more convenient alternative, but the improvement is minor and incremental.
We need a massive investment in rail in this country, but we need it on urban and commuter systems. Inter-city travel already works almost as well as we could reasonably expect it to.
[0] https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/948/674/System0211_101web,0.pdf
You can bring your devices without worrying about having them inspected
Why not?True, hostage-taking is generally not a risk on rail (Pelham 1-2-3 aside), but HSR is just as tempting a target for terrorism.
Imagine a detonation that derails an HSR from elevated rail, at speed, in an urban setting.
And, better than HSR, the same vehicle can go door-to-door.
Actually, there is: energy costs for road traffic go up as the square of the velocity, for rail this is much better because there is only one (very aerodynamic) front section for as many carriages as you want to put behind the loc and steel-on-steel has much better rolling resistance than rubber-on-asphalt or concrete.
With regard to aerodynamics, I am assuming that following distances for advanced autonomous vehicles will be minimal. They could maybe drive bumper-to-bumper as long as all cars in the ... er ... train were similarly capable.
There is a reason the US isn't well-connected by rail, and it has nothing to do with loony conspiracy theories about General Motors buying all the tracks up.
For no reason except the political. Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find that even the shopping malls have railway sidings and not just truck loading bays.
I will never understand the obsession with fixed-rail transit on this site. It's interesting to observe, but it's never been satisfactorily explained. Is it just a matter of people never having been out of the Bay Area in their lives?
In an age where personal mobility is becoming more important rather than less, when costs associated with large-scale civic construction projects have skyrocketed and completion times have come to be measured in decades, and when networked fleets of self-driving cars are almost literally just around the corner, rail transit in the general case is about the dumbest thing ever. But I recognize that this is essentially a religious argument, and that you're equally certain you're right. Not much we can do but vote accordingly, I guess.
Then I know that track costs less to install and maintain than roads. If it isn't practical to run track, it isn't practical to run roads.
I don't see how that can be true in the general case. Around here, in the Seattle area, a recent 34-mile light rail installation cost about $368 million. Four-lane roads cost about $500K per mile these days, from what I can tell. (And yes, that seems unrealistically low by an order of magnitude -- I think the sources I Googled up are referring only to initial costs, or costs associated with building rural Interstates.)
Our next big rail project, ST3, will install 62 miles of rail over 20+ years at a cost of over $50 billion.
Rail serves a tiny contingent of the population at enormous expense, effectively rooting them to the spot in the process. It has never really been shown to be effective at removing cars from the roads, certainly not in proportion to its price.
There has to be a better way. There may not be, right now, but there darned sure will be by the time the megaprojects we're considering today are complete and ready for service.
Good basis for comparison. Because you see, for a typical freeway, a billion per mile is the cost.
And that's just installation.
Add in the cost to maintain the roads, and they lose to tracks hands down. Tracks don't need to be resurfaced. And track beds don't need a resurfacing just to get inspected.
(You're also missing the added cost for the overhead wiring if you're going to compare against electrified rail.
Where do you get that? Obviously we got more than 500 miles of freeway for the $500B (inflation-adjusted) that the Eisenhower Interstate System cost us. We got about 50,000 miles, which works out to $10M/mile.
So something seems to have made both highway and rail construction cost ludicrous amounts of money, if you're right about the $1B/mile figure. I don't think you are, though -- that amount is what I've heard cited for the most expensive mile of highway in the country, which supposedly is the stretch of I-90 that crosses Mercer Island. I'd have to throw a [Citation Needed] flag on the billion-dollar-per-mile figure, in the general case. If we're really spending that much on roads these days, somebody needs to figure out where all that money is going.
But that assumes we do the right thing by constructing a standardized network and enforcing conformance with it, so they can behave more like high-speed train segments and less like individual vehicles. Here in the US, we generally do the right thing, but only after trying everything else first.
There sorta is. Air resistance and tyre/pavement rolling resistance get mighty expensive at that sort of speed, and the need to carry along energy storage makes this even more problematic.
High-speed rail vehicles amortise, over the whole train, the part of the drag that comes from the frontal area. Automobiles cannot do this.
Once you've created a curve-free, very flat, grade-separated controlled access freeway for your 250kph cars, you've...got most of what you need for high-speed rail anyway. At that point you might as well just build some rails and overhead line and buy some TGV rolling stock.
Even if autonomous cars are smaller than the ones we have now, they still take up too much space. Autonomous cars will expand the amount of drivers as one no longer needs a license, and the amount of cars will increase. This new demand will cause increased road congestion unless an expensive expansion of the road network takes place, an we know from induced demand that road expansion doesn't fix congestion in the long term anyway.
Automobile oriented infrastructure doesn't scale whether the cars are autonomous or not, and it's a bad idea to base the entire transportation system around them.
Then a blown tire will be a deadly accident.
Rail is heavily subsidised in many European countries. But a well-run and affordable rail service is such an essential motor of economic well-being that subsidies are generally accepted as essential by governments and most of the public.
For an example of what what happens when more and more of the cost of a ticket is shouldered by the commuter, look at the UK. We have some of the highest rail fares in the whole of Europe.
Below is research from the TUC (Trades Union Congress) in the UK who campaign against rail privatisation. Whether or not you agree with their stance on privatisation, the cost of a monthly season ticket in the UK is enormous.
Monthly season ticket comparison: UK vs Europe:
UK: Luton to London St. Pancras (35 miles) £387
UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) £292
Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) £85
France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) £61
Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) £61
Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) £75
Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk...
One reason those routes are so expensive is that UK rail is in many regions frequently at or over capacity. Supply/demand does its thing until prices hit the caps. This is especially true around London. Price controls always cause shortages and in this case it's a shortage of seats and investment in capacity upgrades. Seems people prefer that to more expensive tickets or higher taxpayer subsidies.
Also the infrastructure is ancient - the steam locomotive was literally invented in the UK - and investment was largely abandoned during the decades of government ownership. The current railways often have infrastructure in them built a century ago.
Finally, some lines actually pay the government money rather than receive subsidies.
I don't think the UK position is wrong. It just means people who choose to use the railways instead of driving or moving pay more of the costs. Seems fair.
From memory, something like 4% of fare revenue ends up as profit going to the TOCs at the end of the year; for many, this isn't enough to buy a single extra train, yet alone anything bigger. The profits these private companies are taking aren't huge in terms of the costs of operating a railway!
That said...
> I don't think the UK position is wrong. It just means people who choose to use the railways instead of driving or moving pay more of the costs. Seems fair.
Surely that same argument should apply to driving? i.e., those using for the roads should pay more of the costs instead of it all coming out of general taxation?
http://www.roadusers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/8.4-2...
Given that is the case I think it's hard to justify extra subsidy for people who are clearly getting enough utility from the system.
When I go from NYC to DC and back, I don't fly, I take the train or bus. It ends up being significantly cheaper and doesn't take any longer, plus there's less annoying switching between modes of transit. Cities less than 400 km apart are already better traveled between using bus or low-speed rail -- now more than double that minimum radius for true high-speed rail and you can see how it would have a big impact on US long-distance travel.
Someone mentioned longer distances in the US. But far as I get most places building rail through the flat nowhere lands is really cheap. And the trains can run at max speed with few stops.
If you built a line from Chicago to Denver, okay 900 miles. But at 220 MPH, four hours. Be better than flying.
Less security, bigger seats, room to move around. The time loss going from New York to Chicago or Seattle to Los Angeles would be minimal if you count the total time spent in transit, and the trip would be much less stressful.
you still have to figure out how to travel tens of miles to where you really want to go.
Same with air travel, except it's easier for trains to end up in city centers instead of airports outside of the city.
as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway
Which is much more environmentally damaging, and requires drivers. When autonomous, electric vehicles are the rule instead of the exception this might not be the case, but for now I'd much rather take a train than drive.
With developed network of local and regional lines it's usually more convenient to travel by train, because you just switch to metro or local train on the same station. E.g. in Germany there are long distance speed trains (ICE), regionals (RE), local trains (S-Bahn), metro (U-Bahn) and very good public transit. I haven't find a place yet, where you will really need a car to get there.
One comment on the website mentions airport-like security checks, saying that they'll slow down the boarding by the same amount of time. Actually, it's not true - just look at "Sapsan" trains between Moscow and St.Petersburg in Russia. There's, in fact, airport-like security check right before the train and it does not make boarding significantly slower.
Flying is the most energy- and carbon-intensive mode per passenger-mile. Which as alluded above, is not a meaningful economic factor, yet. (Unfortunately by the time it becomes meaningful enough to be profitable, it might be too late to transition to anything else because the capital won't be there.)
RE highway vs. train - If you can imagine a continuous stream of cars on a highway, why wouldn't you be able to also imagine a continuous stream of trains on a track? A mile of track filled with train cars can hold more people than a mile of highway, easily. And it has one centralized power plant with a much higher efficiency factor (because it's a larger engine and because it uses better fuel for the purpose). It also has far less total wind resistance, since the train has only one front face and one rear face. And if it's high-speed rail, well, it moves faster than cars. But again, efficiency is not currently a meaningful factor.
Traveling the last few miles from the train stop is very much a solved problem. Even if you drive, that beats making the whole journey by car in my book. But those wishing to minimize it can always move closer in near the stop... thereby concentrating land-use in cities again and maybe letting the scourge of suburbia die off like it needs to... in a paroxysm of mold-infested particle-board.
High-speed rail in many non-US countries is vastly cheaper to construct and much faster and reliable than USian high-speed rail.
> You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway.
With off-the-shelf railcars and a well-tested train control system rail can get far higher throughput than freeways. If you do the USian thing and have to get extremely customised/bespoke rolling stock and try to make your own bespoke train control system, well, you indeed do get the disaster you're describing.
> My perception is that it's a huge money pit for something that's quite frankly inferior to our current infrastructure. We would be much better off improving our current insterstate system.
US rail indeed sucks and it needs to be unfucked before more money is dumped into it. None of the suckiness (slowness, high construction cost per mile, high ticket prices) is inherent to high-speed rail, though.
The ticket prices are high because Amtrak is subsidizing the non-profitable routes with the North East Corridor. If it was run as a business they would cut all the trains in the middle of the country and re-invest the profit in the NEC, or lower fares. If it was run as a public good, then there would be more of a subsidy. Right now Amtrak in this place where it's restricted by being beholden to politics but not enjoying the benefit of full throated government support.
If it were an option in my country I'd definitely take it for any trip up to ~1,200km.
When the flight says it's 40 minutes - it's not really 40 minutes, add time for tsa, baggage, landing etc and you get at least 2-3 hours wasted of your day
The vehicle speed is lower but the total travel time (much less inconvenience) of rail vs air is much lower, except for transcontinental trips. And the rail stations are usually more conveniently located compared to airports.
Given that we don't have a high speed rail system in place, I'm not sure where this number is coming from.
> You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway.
My wife, my kid and I flew down to Texas, and are going to be spending about 20 hours doing long-distance drives.
I would absolutely love to be in a few high-speed train cars than stuck in a car, in a continuous stream of people, where one of us has to remain at relatively high alert for hours at a time, while the other one is strapped into a seat, trying to entertain the other other one who is strapped into a smaller seat, but has boundless energy and no concept of patience.
If we had some sort of road-train system where we weren't welded to a gas pedal and a steering wheel, then maybe.
How do people figure out how to get from airports to their final destinations?
How many people can put put in trains? China is going to get 32,000 people per hour in their low-speed maglev:
http://gbtimes.com/china/beijing-launch-first-maglev-line-20...
The throughput is higher in rail than cars. Also, you are trying to make HSR fit as a solution where cars would be better. No one said that trains are best in every situation. And absolutely no one said that we should remove all of our high-ways and replace them with rail.
However, between cities over several hundred thousand people, and within 500-7600 miles, they work out well.
That is a good indication there is demand. Prices can only go down if trains are more frequent and available to all places.