41–50 of 140 posts
> Indeed, as far as I know there isn’t a single HSR route anywhere on Earth that operates profitably on ticketing revenue The key part.
If there's any, on a mile-per-mile basis, it's probably The actual problem is that we have imposed a profitability imperative on some services and not others.
Riding the high-speed rail in China made me so envious of that setup. If we had that in certain locations in the U.S., it would be absolutely amazing. You just show up a half hour before your train (gotta get there earlier in certain huge stations) and basically walk on. The train ride is buttery smooth with a lot of space, and you can order food from the next station to be delivered to you if you don't want any of t…
> What is going on in the U.S. that we can't do this stuff? Strong property rights, NIMBY local democracy with the good and bad that implies, free speech whereby this is all discussed by everyone with an opinion about it whether or not it's uninformed, that kind of thing. Personally, I'd rather have the US style even though it's inefficient when it comes to HSR.
The Green Line extension for Boston's MBTA has taken 16 years and still isn't done and has cost several billion dollars. It was discussed even longer than that. New York's subway systems experience the same delays and costs. It's embarrassing.
Free speech, land/property rights, etc. are important, but they are just excuses, as they don't seem to be the things actually slowing down these projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why do this over just flying. You can show up 30-45 mins before any domestic flight and leave as soon as you land on the other end.
> You can show up 30-45 mins before any domestic flight Where? I was flying in Europe and was asked to be on airport 150 minutes before departure.
> Despite decades of development, only a handful of routes in Europe operate at anything like airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes, require > 300 km/h or > 185 mph. Not really, given massive fixed cost at airplane terminal and airports being typically harder to get to than train station. When I was flying this summer, I was asked to come to airport 150 minutes before planned departure. 2…
What I find odd about this is that... Trains are the go-to means of intercity transport across much of Europe. The term "High speed rail" isn't strictly defined, but seems to kick in somewhere between 110 and 155 mph. Pretty much every intercity train in the UK is running at 125mph for at least some of their journey. Europe is full of functioning high speed rail networks - TGV, ICE, Eurostar, networks in Spain and It…
Edit: also, that added comfort is exponentially higher for families who can share a table or even a private compartment.
I don’t understand the point of high speed rail. You can just show up for a domestic flight 30 mins before and you get to your destination 4x faster. The only good thing about trains are the views.
I was flying this summer in Europe and was asked to come to airport 150 minutes before departure. > The only good thing about trains are the views. And allowed baggage, and far more space...
I think train-operators should build more trains with transparent walls cars and lounge-space. It's more fun to travel when you don't have to sit in the same place for many hours. But not sure how much it would add to the cost.
> airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes, require > 300 km/h or > 185 mph.
This number feels arbitrary, where did this come from, is it because very very few exist? Looking at the map, > 200 would do just as well and still lend itself to the author's point - some exist but not a huge amount. Even taking that point, high enough speed rail is good enough for inter-city travel, it isn't meant to be an aircraft replacement, it is an alternative form of travel. You wouldn't say that people shouldn't drive between cities, because airplanes are faster. It is an alternative form of travel which allows for mass transit, and in using it, you adjust expectations.
> Comfort and convenience are other important factors, but there aircraft are also quite competitive.
I doubt that, it's possible the author flies exclusively in business/first class, which is giving them a skewed perception. Aircraft are uncomfortable compared to trains.
> Contrast this with aircraft. There are 15,000 airports in the US. Any but the largest aircraft can fly to any of these airports. If I build another airport, I have added 15,000 potential connections to the network. If I build another rail terminal and branch line, at significantly greater cost than an airstrip, I have added only one additional connection to the network.
This is completely wrong. Building an airport doesn't automatically come with the ability to accept any aircraft. There are a lot of restrictions and regulations around what you can and cannot do with an airport and its associated routes. An "untowered paved strip" has a specific kind of usage which does not include commercial routes, which is what the premise of the post is, so this is a disingenuous, unfair, and misleading comparison.
Riding the high-speed rail in China made me so envious of that setup. If we had that in certain locations in the U.S., it would be absolutely amazing. You just show up a half hour before your train (gotta get there earlier in certain huge stations) and basically walk on. The train ride is buttery smooth with a lot of space, and you can order food from the next station to be delivered to you if you don't want any of t…
Security theatre in the US means you don’t just walk on the train. You sit in a waiting room with no ambition for capacity and get escorted to the platform by friendly security guards. Quite an experience if you’re not from the US and used to the way trains normally run in the rest of the world.
What I find odd about this is that... Trains are the go-to means of intercity transport across much of Europe. The term "High speed rail" isn't strictly defined, but seems to kick in somewhere between 110 and 155 mph. Pretty much every intercity train in the UK is running at 125mph for at least some of their journey. Europe is full of functioning high speed rail networks - TGV, ICE, Eurostar, networks in Spain and It…
"functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes. I think the author has a very valid point when it comes to the cost of rail tracks. It's something the proponents always conveniently ignore. On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, espec…
The Deutsche Bahn has significantly degraded over time, due to insufficient investment, but it's still an incredibly useful system.
If you want to see what's possible with current technology, look at Chinese HSR. Beijing to Shanghai is a 20% longer distance than Berlin to Paris, yet it takes only half as long by train (just over 4 hours vs. 8-9 hours). If such a connection existed between Berlin and Paris, it would be very difficult to justify flying.