Whither goest high-speed rail?

[MillCreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html

I doubt that I will see widespread high-speed rail in the US in my lifetime.  I have ridden high-speed rail in Europe, and it was a wonder to behold. 

The last time my wife and I took the train here, it was for an anniversary trip to Vancouver, Canada last year.  The trip up on the train took almost three hours and the trip back, due to delays on the track, took almost four hours.  This was for a 115 mile trip that could be driven in around two hours in typical traffic.  We both agreed we would not be riding the train again any time soon.

[RoadKingLarry]

The US will be a car culture for the foreseeable future. The countries where high speed rail is big time have the government footing a big part of the bill, I'd prefer not seeing any more of my tax dollars subsidizing what will be a tax rip-off boondogle here.

[birdman]

Our cities and country are really not set up to make it worthwhile....one reason why we invented the airplane.

Europe, Japan, both are relatively small, composed of dense cities that basically were created pre-car and are thus small, and usually have subways.

Its not the intercity speed that inhibits HSR, its the "well, how do I get from the train station to where I'm going" that is the problem.

Sure, you can have rental cars, uber, zip car, etc, but then why not just take a plane? 

[Ben]

Of course CA is building the high speed rail that goes from the middle of nowhere to the other middle of nowhere in the Central Valley.

[roo_ster]

Nowhere fast?

Was looking at the japanese high speed rail system it is all just one straight shot along the south coast with one spur o ver the mountaind to the nkrgh coast.  The usa woulg need to cover 10x the distance in a spider web network to geg the same level of service.  Likely requires 100x or more infrastructure than japan.

[MillCreek]

If we ever get it, it will be along the NE business and political corridor: New York, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, etc.  A rebuild of the Acela on a dedicated corridor.

[birdman]

If we ever get it, it will be along the NE business and political corridor: New York, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, etc.  A rebuild of the Acela on a dedicated corridor.

Which is still non-viable.
Acela is more expensive than a plane ticket....and slower.
Both train and plane are slower than driving DC to NYC.
Boston to DC, plane.  Train is almost as slow as car.

[mtnbkr]

Both train and plane are slower than driving DC to NYC.

How's that?  Last time I drove to NYC, it took about 4hrs (more than 4, well under 5).  I haven't flown into NYC, but I've flown into Boston and Toronto.  Both were less than 4 IIRC (both were 14 years ago).

Chris

[birdman]

How's that?  Last time I drove to NYC, it took about 4hrs (more than 4, well under 5).  I haven't flown into NYC, but I've flown into Boston and Toronto.  Both were less than 4 IIRC (both were 14 years ago).

Chris

Drive to DCA from my house: 45-60min
Get there 45-60min early to a low for TSA Anal probulation
Gate to gate DCA-LGA time 1:15
LGA to downtown in a taxi: 30-45min

Total 3:15-4:00, all the times I've done it, so let's call it a 3:30-3:45 average.

Every time ive driven it, its been under 4.  So its basically the same, but if you have to check baggage, car wins.
Train is slower.

[brimic]

Sure, you can have rental cars, uber, zip car, etc, but then why not just take a plane? 

Bike rental kiosks! Its the answer to everything.

[MillCreek]

^^^ So pretty much the same distance from my house to downtown Portland, which I can drive in 3.5 hours if I go outside of rush hour.  This is faster than flying.

[Northwoods]

Under 500 miles is often in favor of cars for door-to-door time.  Over that airlines are usually faster.

[SADShooter]

And driving intrastate (Texas) I don't have to futz around with my carry gun or the size of my shampoo bottle.

The Dallas-Houston-San Antonio/Austin triangle could make use of high speed rail, but it's a political non-starter. Between right of way acquisition, commuter airlines, and the other interests, not gonna happen.

[Ben]

I used to have to go between Santa Barbara and Monterey a lot for work. Back in the early 2000s, air was faster because there was a direct flight, both airports were small, SBA was ten minutes from the house, and prior to TSA, I could literally show up fifteen minutes before the flight, park a couple hundred yards from the gate, and walk straight to the plane.

Later, they stopped the direct flights, which meant I had to swap planes at either LAX or SFO (which were either farther South or North of both destination airports) with a 1-2hr layover, then with TSA and having to arrive early into the mix, it more than doubled the three hours it took to drive.

[MechAg94]

There was a big push for high speed rail in the 90's in Texas.  I think when Ann Richards was governor.  They talked about Austin to Dallas to Houston.  The problem was it needs to be pretty much straight so land right of ways and other stuff would be a very big deal.  There were limited crossings across the rail so some land owner could potentially to drive 20 miles just to get to the other half of his property.  There was also limited allowance for wildlife.  Most of Texas outside the city is pretty much free travel for wildlife.  The way the train wouldn't constantly hit deer, hogs, and armadillos is if they practically put it underground.  

The other argument was that the State of Texas is much larger than say France, but the City of Paris has about the same number of people as our whole state.  We are much more spread out.  

Last to me, the trains would really only serve the people traveling to and from the major cities.  If you are going anywhere else, it is almost useless.  However, the construction and land acquisition would affect pretty much only the people that have no use for it.  I think all the proponents imagine it going to the places they want to visit, but that is not likely.  

Overall, the negatives far outweight the few positives if any.  Also, the TSA would probably want to take over security for the trains same as airports.

[Ben]

Last to me, the trains would really only serve the people traveling to and from the major cities.  If you are going anywhere else, it is almost useless.  However, the construction and land acquisition would affect pretty much only the people that have no use for it.  I think all the proponents imagine it going to the places they want to visit, but that is not likely.  

That's pretty much what's happening in CA. The Boondoggle Express is supposed to eventually connect LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco, but of course 90% of the rail runs through areas where people really have no use for a train, and even if they did, if you stop the train 20 times between endpoints, it's not really high speed.

For the US, it just seems better to concentrate trains to small, dense areas, like the Metro in DC. That works really well. I rarely rented a car when I would go to DC for work because the Metro went everywhere I needed to go, and did so quickly.

[KD5NRH]

The Dallas-Houston-San Antonio/Austin triangle could make use of high speed rail, but it's a political non-starter. Between right of way acquisition, commuter airlines, and the other interests, not gonna happen.

Yup.  Throw in El Paso and you might see something of a boom for Abilene and Midland/Odessa.  The only way it would happen, though, is using interstate medians, and I'm sure that would be a bureaucratic mess.

For a long weekend trip, I could drive to FW in an hour with my bike on the back, throw it on a high speed train to SA or Austin, and have a good couple of days sightseeing.  It's a 3.5 hour PITA drive to SA, even if I take the straight shot down 281 to avoid Austin.  El Paso is 7.5 hours at best, but true HS rail could take an hour or two off of that, even allowing for stops in Abilene, Odessa and Pecos, (Throw Van Horn and maybe a spur line into Big Bend via Fort Davis in there, and you'd be opening up a real nice set of vacation spots that border on miserable to drive to.) and being able to spend the time napping would beat the heck out of cruising down I20 watching the gas gauge crawl downward.  Add some small freight cars, you could get UPS/FedEx/etc. really interested.  (Big rigs covering huge distances between distro centers are one thing, but a delivery truck going into Big Bend, or for that matter, most places in the small-nation-sized counties out there to deliver 2-3 packages has to be a money pit.)

ETA; high speed rail with drive-on-drive-off flatbed car carriers might be a good trick too.  I know I'd consider a reasonable fee if I could cut El Paso to Dallas out of a cross-state drive and still have my car with me at the other end.

[MechAg94]

Using Interstate highway medians would not allow High Speed rail.  They are too curvy.  Also, there is very little in the big cities of Texas that I want to see.  The stuff I want to see is well outside them which would negate any advantage.

A drive on/off system might be nice, but I doubt it would end up being economical.

[KD5NRH]

The other argument was that the State of Texas is much larger than say France, but the City of Paris has about the same number of people as our whole state.  We are much more spread out.

It leaves out something important about Texas; everybody in the smaller cities and rural areas is used to going to some (relatively) nearby population center once in a while when they need a specialty item, or just to go to a zoo or museum.  Adding the ability to go from there to the other population centers relatively easily and quickly would help distribute certain tourism more; for example, giving me a reasonable choice between NRH2O and the various Schlitterbahn parks when I want a weekend of water slides, or making Houston only slightly less convenient than Dallas for specialty shopping.

Ideally, though, it would need to run a lot of redeye routes.  After all, it defeats a lot of the benefit of having a means of getting from El Paso to Houston in your sleep if you can't do it when you would normally be sleeping.  That also would save a ton of motel costs for weekend day trippers; sleep on the train both ways instead of driving down after work Friday, getting to town too late to do anything, spending the night, doing your thing Saturday and having to stay another night because you're too tired to drive back right then.

[KD5NRH]

Using Interstate highway medians would not allow High Speed rail.  They are too curvy.

Depends on the area, and somewhat on routing; there are plenty of sections of interstate out west (where the train would be the biggest benefit) where you could almost set the cruise control, tie off the steering wheel and take a nap.

[MechAg94]

That's pretty much what's happening in CA. The Boondoggle Express is supposed to eventually connect LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco, but of course 90% of the rail runs through areas where people really have no use for a train, and even if they did, if you stop the train 20 times between endpoints, it's not really high speed.

For the US, it just seems better to concentrate trains to small, dense areas, like the Metro in DC. That works really well. I rarely rented a car when I would go to DC for work because the Metro went everywhere I needed to go, and did so quickly.

Even in dense urban areas, the subways and commuter rails are not cost effective and require subsidy.  Yes, D.C.'s rail is nice, but I bet it is highly subsidized also.  What most fail to admit is that a nice well run/managed bus system is the most economical way to enact public transportation.  However, that takes competent management and doesn't provide enough profit to friendly contractors.  Even a cross state bus system would be much more cost effective than a high speed rail.  It would be cheaper to put a high speed bus lane in between the major Texas cities than build a rail line.  

In California, I would think it would be better, cheaper, easier to figure out how to run an underwater rail system between the major cities just off the coast.  Then there wouldn't be any reason to stop along the way.

[MechAg94]

Okay, so I will start a new Luxury Bus company to run routes between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso for those people who might otherwise use a high speed rail.  How long do you think it would be before I went out of business?  The Bus would provide all the advantages of a high speed rail and be huge orders of magnitude cheaper.  Rail would be nice, but the few people who would use them in no way justifies the hugh amounts of land siezed and disruption caused in the rural areas and small towns between the major cities. 
 

Of all the people I know who head out of Houston and drive toward San Antonio or Austin, none of them go to those cities.  They are going to New Braunsfels, one of the lakes or rivers, one of the amusement parks or going past those cities out to the Hill Country.  What would the chance be of the San Antonio rail hub being anywhere near Fiesta Texas?  You would still have to drive across town.  High Speed rail would be useless IMO.

[MechAg94]

Depends on the area, and somewhat on routing; there are plenty of sections of interstate out west (where the train would be the biggest benefit) where you could almost set the cruise control, tie off the steering wheel and take a nap.

Yeah, but that is only in certain areas and probably the least used route to El Paso.  My understanding is a true high speed rail needs a pretty straight route.  Slow turns you don't notice in a car would be huge.

[MechAg94]

Overall, I think there is a lot of Pie in the Sky wishful thinking on this subject.  Yeah, it would be nice to be able to jump on a high speed train and end up in another city, but when the city you are going to is 30 miles across, I don't see what advantage is gained. 

The only way I can see removing many of the disadvantages is finding a way to go underground, but that would be much more costly. 

The other alternative no one mentions is aboloshing the TSA and working to streamline and improve flying so that process takes less time.

[MechAg94]

I guess you can tell, I really don't care about this subject all.     Sorry if I got carried away.