Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

At European rail speeds, a train from Chicago to Minneapolis --- which, as a Chicagoan who likes Minneapolis, I wish existed! --- would take 6-7 hours. A flight from Chicago to Minneapolis takes just an hour and a half, and there are so many of them that catching one is no harder than catching a train.

On the list I provided, where do you see major opportunities for us to build out rail? I know that there are some! I just don't think there are many, or that it will ever make sense for us to have a densely connected HSR network like Europe.

View on HN

Google maps says Minneapolis to Chicago is 409 miles, so three hours seems like a pretty achievable goal. Also, the flight is 1.5 hours, but the actual travel time is probably more like 3-4 when you factor in getting to the airport, waiting for the TSA, etc. Plus, you're moving around and being annoyed for a lot of that time, whereas you can plunk down on the train and nap/work/etc.

I think aiming for a comprehensive network right out of the gate is bad idea. Instead, build it now where it makes sense now...and build more later where/when/if it makes sense later. You could even add some fairly short routes. If someone can get Boston to Providence/Wooster/Manchester down to ~20-30 minutes, it'd be a huge win for that entire metro area. People already do those commutes but they're on the longish side.

If we're talking modern high speed rail speeds, aka 360kph or ~220mph and ~400 miles between Minneapolis and Chicago. How the hell did you arrive at 6-7 hours between them?

And what is the door to door time? 1.5 hours to fly + how much waiting in line, going through the tsa bs, having to go from the airport to downtown...

The distance between Chicago and Minneapolis is slightly higher than the distance between Paris and Montpellier.

For those cities in France, the time travel from city center to city center is about 3 hours and half by train, with 2 stops on the way. It beats both car and air travel, since you can just to show up at the station 5 minutes before the train departs, and don't need to go through security.

Also, the cheap tickets cost less than 50 euro, and you can get between 25% and 50% discount if you are less than 25 years old.

Realistically you'll never get tickets that cheap unless you plan weeks in advance, though.

The French train system is expensive and too centralized. You'll find many examples of how great French trains are but everyone only ever talks about traveling to or from Paris. And sure, it's great and convenient for Parisians.

But when you want to connect two mid-size, non-Paris cities that are more than ~500 km apart, travel by train becomes a time-consuming and expensive affair. For instance, taking the train from Nancy to Grenoble costs about 120€ if you're lucky; it forces you to take a massive detour through Paris and change train stations there. Changing stations in Paris is stressful and takes at least half an hour - since there are no shuttles, you must take the subway (and change subway lines too!)

All in all, what should have been a 3 hour journey becomes a costly 7-8 hour ordeal, thanks to the extreme centralization of the French rail network. Many people are getting fed up with this -- carpooling across long distances is becoming popular because it can often be faster and much cheaper than rail!

Just an annecdote, it is possible to regularly get tickets that cheap if using igtv or ouigo. I was in Montpelier last month and found a ticket for 25€ to Paris.

6-7 hours can't possibly be correct, that's how long it takes driving.

A lot of people responding to this with the idea that the train would follow the shortest route possible.

None of the proposed routes have been that. Many of them have included detouring through cities like Rochester, MN (home of the Mayo Clinic), and taking other weird routes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com