It's fun to look at, but the trip from LA to New York would be about 13 hours -- and that's ignoring the time stopped at stations and assuming you can go 220mph the entire trip. New York to some other city would be even worse. For example, New York to Seattle and you're approaching something like 20 hours. I really love trains for short trips (NY to DC), but I just don't see the actual demand these long distance line…
Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
The table is missing railroad unions-- the anti-efficiency factor that's ruined American passenger rail.
Amtrak makes good money where there are customers, even with the same unions. It's almost 100% the fault of politicians that won't let Amtrak shut down low passenger volume lines. If we shut down the losers and actually invested the profits from the Northeast Corridor back into that line, you would see great growth. You know, the way a company would do it.
Yglesias wrote up this exact argument this week [1]. The Northeast Corridor profit he dug up [2] amounts to all of $136 million/year for the Northeast Corridor; a proposed upgrade is estimated at $151 billion [3]. (And the profit figure only includes operating costs -- the actually relevant figures aren't available).
[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/01/amtrak_profit...
[2] http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013...
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#63I think that now, perhaps more than ever, America and Americans would benefit from domestic high-speed rail. As someone who travels occasionally--albeit somewhat infrequently--for both business and pleasure, I share the opinion that flying is not altogether pleasant. From arriving at the airport several hours early, to dealing with TSA, to sitting in the cramped aircraft seating, it's not a stretch to say that it's a…
> the journey itself is pleasant while watching the world pass by outside Unless high-speed rail becomes successful enough to become a real option, in which case they'll be economically forced to pack customers in like the economy class on modern airliners, if not tighter, to maximize revenue. > as a project that would likely be subsidized with tax dollars ... it's going to have to wait for enough of the Tea Party to…
I traveled extensively via Europe's high-speed rail network during the summer of 2012. If you didn't know already, rail service has been the primary mode of transport for long-distance trips in Europe for several decades. The coaches are still luxurious compared with airplane seating, and I could recline fully and get up to go purchase some snacks or a meal.
The thing with trains is that they are not space- or weight-limited like airframes. It is much easier to tack on a couple of extra cars for heavily-trafficked lines than to pack people in like sardines, and it makes economic sense to keep train coaches comfortable if you are advertising yourself as the luxurious alternative to air travel. Given the European and Asian models, I don't see evidence that rail services will be forced to cut comfort like we have seen with the airlines.
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#64Or, at one time the US had one heck of a passenger train system: Could get a train from tiny town A and travel to tiny town B for nearly any two tiny towns A and B in the country. But as soon as the Model T came out, people rushed to buy them and use them in place of the trains, in spite of the fact that the roads were awful.
Since then the cars and roads have gotten much better. For short trips, train technology is not much better than 100 years ago when it started losing out to the Model T and has no chance now.
For long trips, we have airplanes.
Look, we could have 'high speed' ships to cross the Atlantic, too. And the last of the great Atlantic ships were fantastic. Alas, people didn't like them, needed all the luxury just to put up with the uncomfortable aspects of travel by ship, and, really, were eager just to get where they were going. So, when Boeing sold their 707 jets for crossing the Atlantic, the 707 jets quickly 'sunk' essentially all the passenger ships.
The Boeing 707 had some serious 'engineering-economic' advantages: (A) It was much lighter than a ship, no doubt much lighter per person carried so that are moving much less dead weight across the Atlantic. (B) It could make a round trip while a ship was at dock loading. (C) Net, per month, a Boeing 707 could carry enough passengers across the Atlantic to compete with a ship, for less money and much less time per passenger. That sank the ship.
For another detail, look at the map in the OP: The trains go long distances, commonly across a whole state, without stopping. E.g., in Tennessee, the trains stop in Nashville and Memphis, but between Memphis and Kentucky is about 100 miles that the trains bypass. So, for all those people bypassed, how will the train serve them? Yes, I saw the plan of a 'tram' that catches up with the high speed, non-stop train, 'couples up' side by side, does a transfer of people and baggage, 'decouples', and slows down. Still I expect that mostly the plan would be that people in the 100 miles from Memphis to Kentucky would have to drive a car, ride a bus, or take a slow train to reach Memphis. Now we are back to the old problems of handling luggage and making connections: That's why the train terminals were so big -- to have space for people waiting for connecting trains. Besides, passenger trains are vulnerable to Big Sis at the DHS and her TSA gang. A lot of people would rather walk than face the TSA; to drive a car 1000 miles to avoid the TSA is a great pleasure.
Net, for short to medium distances, say, 1000 miles or less, just drive a car and, then, have all the luggage in the car during the trip, all under own control for the whole trip, and have the car at the destination. For longer trips, take a plane as now.
Heck, there's a chance that modern blimps -- lighter than air craft -- could beat passenger trains.
Yes, I know: Maybe there are some lawyers who want to live in Manhattan, have their offices near Grand Central, take a fast moving train to DC, take a cab to Capitol Hill for the day, and reverse the process and be home for dinner early in the evening. Fine for people earning big bucks with an office near a train station and wanting to work at another office near another train station at most only a few hundred miles away. Sorry 'bout those people. For all the rest of us, we shouldn't pay subsidies for those few big bucks lawyers. Besides, have they heard of video conferencing?
My main objection to passenger trains is that they want to use publicity efforts such as the OP to build political support to tax people to pay subsidies for the trains. That is, the effort is to get into my checkbook. No thanks.
If they want to build the trains with capital raised privately, fine with me. If they wanted to proceed with private capital, then we wouldn't see publicity efforts such as the OP.
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#65First we need to fix regular passenger rail in this country. As long as interstate passenger rail is controlled by the Amtrak monopoly, and its attendant unions, rail travel in America will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. There's not even regular rail service between most major US cities 3-8 hours apart, even though tracks exist and demand would exist if trains ran as fast as driving.
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the argument for high-speed rail isn't that it will serve as a stopgap measure until we have self-driving cars, it is that a railroad train is vastly more efficient than any imaginable car technology. Railroad trains are very energy-efficient, compared to cars driving along a road, or even trucks driving along a road. And if we suddenly had self-driving cars, packed close together and safer than the existing syst…
The Wikipedia article shows that passenger trains use about 35% less energy per passenger/mile than the average car. If fuel efficiency for cars rose to 40 mpg (less than a Prius), they'd be equivalent.
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is always some amount of risk that a new technology will make all your investment worthless. The most extant example of this is the US telephone system: billions invested to have a copper wire in every home which is pretty much useless now (and appears to be a reason why US operators charge such high rates). Countries like India and many African states are bypassing this investment in infrastructure by going di…
High speed Internet access whether DSL, cable, or ethernet requires "a copper wire in every home" [ok, fiber requires a glass wire, but it's still the same concept]. Why do you say copper wire is useles?
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#68So there's this puzzle that people enjoy thinking about regarding space travel. Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500 years to get there. Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development will stop in the m…
The fuel efficiency of a vehicle rolling on rigid steel wheels on a rigid steel track is FAR higher than that of a vehicle rolling on pneumatic tires on asphalt. The number I have seen quoted is that a train can move 1 ton 400 miles using 1 gallon of diesel.
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that in 20 years we'll have self-driving cars on any substantial scale is totally ridiculous. If I had to bet money, we won't even have a substantial electric car deployment by then, much less self-driving cars. Also: the physics of high-speed cars makes the concept of cars traveling as fast as bullet trains totally ridiculous. The fact that a car is self-driving doesn't change the physics of tire/road frict…
I won't argue that 2030 will be the magic year, but self-driving is a far greater incentive for most people than being electric powered.
I could reclaim about $1000 a week in billable time with a self-driving car (if I billed hourly, which I don't, but I think you get my point).
Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.
#70Making Chicago a hub would be a nightmare. The city is already home to the worst highway gridlock in the US. The hub should be shifted further west to help create another metro area, not to just add to an existing one that happens to also be very corrupt.
Does anyone else see something wrong with Chicago being the central hub (specifically regarding our president's past history in Chicago)? Sure, it's not exactly like it would have been if Bush (W) proposed a large rail hub in Crawford, but Chicago isn't exactly the only choice for such a hub either. In fact, why not avoid a large hub?