Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available • Hacker News Board

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#11

Post by imgabe » Sun, May 08, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #3

> To be more exact here, 63% of those surveyed stated an interests in utilizing high-speed rail service if it was available. That's asking the wrong question, though. The issue is not so much whether people would, in the abstract, have an interest in using high-speed rail as a hypothetical means of transportation. The first challenge is figuring out where to place the rail - trains can only travel on tracks, so the t…

DC-BAL-PHL-NYC-BOS is already a heavily trafficked rail and air route. If high speed rail showed up competitively priced with airfare and without the hassle of getting to/from the airport and going through security it would be used a lot.

Some plans have quoted a time from BAL-DC of about 15-20 minutes. That would make it an extremely popular commuting option for people working in DC, but wanting the cheap housing in Baltimore, which would also help Baltimore (although at the cost of probably making it not-so-cheap anymore).

Replacing short-hop flights would also be great for the environment, since most of the fuel is burned getting up to altitude and then back down again.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#12

Post by ctdonath » Sun, May 08, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #3

> To be more exact here, 63% of those surveyed stated an interests in utilizing high-speed rail service if it was available. That's asking the wrong question, though. The issue is not so much whether people would, in the abstract, have an interest in using high-speed rail as a hypothetical means of transportation. The first challenge is figuring out where to place the rail - trains can only travel on tracks, so the t…

This. Rail is great for roughly linear population distributions (like Japan or California coast), but understand the USA had a huge 2D spread - laying out a vast rail grid is a lot harder than roughly a line. Each terminal had the same problem, as travelers are moving to/from in all directions. My own case: 2 miles to the nearest bus, then 20 miles to the subway, then 15 miles to what would be the high speed long range rail terminal - then a similar reverse sequence to reach the destination, at which point I'd have minimal luggage and no personal transport. Way easier to just throw everyone & everything into the family SUV and drive, taking a similar travel time with what I want and have a vehicle when we arrive.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#13

Post by ghaff » Sun, May 08, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #12

chimeracoder wrote: post #3

> To be more exact here, 63% of those surveyed stated an interests in utilizing high-speed rail service if it was available. That's asking the wrong question, though. The issue is not so much whether people would, in the abstract, have an interest in using high-speed rail as a hypothetical means of transportation. The first challenge is figuring out where to place the rail - trains can only travel on tracks, so the t…

This. Rail is great for roughly linear population distributions (like Japan or California coast), but understand the USA had a huge 2D spread - laying out a vast rail grid is a lot harder than roughly a line. Each terminal had the same problem, as travelers are moving to/from in all directions. My own case: 2 miles to the nearest bus, then 20 miles to the subway, then 15 miles to what would be the high speed long ran…

Which is one reason why the Northeast Corridor works even though it's only sorta high-speed rail. There are a few cities off the coast like Pittsburgh that miss out but you handle a lot of population with a single line.

The only caveat is that, because it's not really high-speed, it works better as north and south segments than as one single line. But because it's NYC in the middle, even that works pretty well.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#14

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, May 08, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

rmason wrote: post #5

My father told me a story about discontinuing a street car line (called an interurban) in a town North of Detroit. There was a hearing at city hall and hundreds of villagers turned out. Dozens of people made the case to keep the line. Finally the street car company's lawyer got up and made the business case for discontinuing the line. He concluded by asking the crowd how many of you used our company's street car to g…

>It's easy to tell a pollster you're for high speed rail but how many will actually buy a ticket? Perhaps they should ask for them to prepay for a ticket?

I use the MBTA on a fairly frequent basis. I would use it every day if biking didn't half my commute time.

I've also used Megabus to visit New York City, for day trips even, Acela for an interview in New York once, and a short domestic air flight to visit a friend in Washington DC for a weekend. These costed ~$30, ~$200, and $500 for round trips, respectively.

Note that the bus takes almost five hours, the train takes four hours, and the airline flight took about two to three hours. The bus and train were crossing the same distance between the same two cities, and a comparable air trip would have cost $450 for a 1 hour, 15 minute flight.

Why is the transit system structured so that by taking "high-speed" public transit over slower private transit, I reduce my trip by 20% but pay 9x more? Why is it that if I actually want to travel quickly, I have to take a private transit agency (ie: JetBlue), and can quarter the time spent in transit by spending twice as much as the next-fastest option and 15x as much as the slowest option?

In particular, how can we talk about a so-called "high-speed" rail system in which the gap between driving and taking a train is only one hour but the cost gap is multiplication by nine?

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#15

Post by slg » Sun, May 08, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

Years ago I thought the idea of regional high speed rail lines in the US was a great idea, but I think the time for that has come and gone. The future seems to be clearly moving towards autonomous cars (and buses one presumes). Why sink billions into high speed rail when on our current pace it will be only a couple decades before we have all electric cars powered by solar and other clean energy sources that are 90 something percent autonomous? I think most people would easily choose a 5 hr autonomous car ride from LA to SF with complete freedom of movement in both cities compared to a 2 hr train ride with possibly a couple hours in both cities dealing with connections getting you to your specific destinations.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#16

Post by RodericDay » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #15

Years ago I thought the idea of regional high speed rail lines in the US was a great idea, but I think the time for that has come and gone. The future seems to be clearly moving towards autonomous cars (and buses one presumes). Why sink billions into high speed rail when on our current pace it will be only a couple decades before we have all electric cars powered by solar and other clean energy sources that are 90 so…

This completely excludes "walkable cities" out of the equation. If everyone is moving around on their autonomous vehicles that means that the entire city is criss-crossed with wide roads that take up tons of space, instead of dense walkable city centers with big transit corridors.

Compare LA and SF to NYC and MTL.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#17

Post by protomyth » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #15

Years ago I thought the idea of regional high speed rail lines in the US was a great idea, but I think the time for that has come and gone. The future seems to be clearly moving towards autonomous cars (and buses one presumes). Why sink billions into high speed rail when on our current pace it will be only a couple decades before we have all electric cars powered by solar and other clean energy sources that are 90 so…

I do wonder what would happen if they built a new double lane highway between two cities that is only usable by autonomous vehicles? How fast do we trust autonomous vehicles to go?

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#18

Post by ghaff » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #14

rmason wrote: post #5

My father told me a story about discontinuing a street car line (called an interurban) in a town North of Detroit. There was a hearing at city hall and hundreds of villagers turned out. Dozens of people made the case to keep the line. Finally the street car company's lawyer got up and made the business case for discontinuing the line. He concluded by asking the crowd how many of you used our company's street car to g…

>It's easy to tell a pollster you're for high speed rail but how many will actually buy a ticket? Perhaps they should ask for them to prepay for a ticket? I use the MBTA on a fairly frequent basis. I would use it every day if biking didn't half my commute time. I've also used Megabus to visit New York City, for day trips even, Acela for an interview in New York once, and a short domestic air flight to visit a friend…

Well, Acela isn't really high speed rail; it only shaves off about an hour compared to the regular train (and costs around twice as much).

But, that aside, Acela is really competing with air. Their bread and butter traveler is traveling on business and they're taking Acela over a plane because they prefer to travel on Acela for a variety of reasons. They don't really care about cost within reason.

Those same travelers won't typically take a bus. If they do, they'll take something like the LimoLiner which is priced in the same ballpark as Amtrak. (I tried it once and didn't like it as much.) However, regular buses are always going to be the cheapest option both because they're typically competing for price-sensitive customers and they can take advantage of a a road network that already exists and that they don't need to maintain (other than whatever taxes they pay).

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#19

Post by ScottBurson » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

This would seem pretty clear when California voters (notorious for not voting in taxes or bonds) approved the high speed rail project. What was even more interesting were the forces that came out against it and how they have acted.

I voted for that bond measure, and now I regret it. I'm a little fuzzy on the details at this point, but my recollection is that it was originally planned to include major Caltrain improvements, which they have now given up on.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#20

Post by bsbechtel » Sun, May 08, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #10

rmason wrote: post #5

My father told me a story about discontinuing a street car line (called an interurban) in a town North of Detroit. There was a hearing at city hall and hundreds of villagers turned out. Dozens of people made the case to keep the line. Finally the street car company's lawyer got up and made the business case for discontinuing the line. He concluded by asking the crowd how many of you used our company's street car to g…

Did the streetcar line serve city hall, and did it run reasonably often at the time the meeting was set to end? Depending on the answers, there are two totally different lessons to be drawn there!

That's the issue with public transportation in the US. Cars, gas, and land are cheap, therefore personal transportation is cheaper than public transportation. When it's more affordable to drive into a city and park for free than take a train/bus and be limited to their schedules and locations, personal transportation wins every time, like in the OP's anecdote. Personally, I think this is a wonderful thing, but I also know public transportation services in other countries are much better at overcoming these problems than in the US.