Whither goest high-speed rail?

[SADShooter]

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.

[/b]

That's only because the "pie in the sky" approaches to high speed rail are more feasible than abolishing a .fedgov employment program.

[KD5NRH]

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

Here's an interesting thought; what if a specific automaker (I'm thinking Elio for obvious reasons) designed a railcar specifically to carry their cars (and loading/unloading equipment as needed) and sponsored something like this?  A small commuter vehicle that's just enough to maintain your independence in comfort at both ends of the route, and maximizes use of the railcar to keep costs down.  Hop a train in Dallas Friday evening, go to sleep in a capsule-type sleeper car, (again, maximizing space and making the best use of the traveler's time) and wake up Saturday morning in Phoenix ready to drive away in your own car, with your bags still in the back seat.  Week long business trip?  Head out Sunday night in the company's car and be back home Saturday morning without airport or rental car hassles or overnight drives, and two fewer nights in motels.

Being initially a proprietary system, it would give that automaker a hell of a monopoly on a great vacation or business trip moneymaker.  A fair number of people travel by bus, plane or train with bicycles for similar reasons, but having a car along opens up a lot more area at the destination.

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.

Hence the huge benefit in being able to take a reasonable motor vehicle along.  Zip Cars or similar are a good idea, but still dependent on availability and you never know what condition they'll be in, plus you still have to wait for your bags and move them to the rental.  Your own car, with your weekend bag still in it, even if it is a tiny two seater designed to pack into a carrier, makes it a simple arrive-and-drive situation.

Another point; look at all the parking at any major airport; many take up more space with parking than everything else put together.  Then try to lug your bags out to your car in the cheap lot...assuming you can even find the car.  Now imagine if all those people had just taken their cars with them.

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

It's not just time; airlines have so many weight and bulk restrictions it's never going to be as easy to take your golf clubs or scuba gear as on a train, where only bulk matters, and a single extra boxcar would carry literally tons of extra baggage if needed.

[KD5NRH]

Just tossing some numbers here; it looks like you could double-deck 12 Elios on a 40ft flatbed car, or 16 on a 60 footer with some room to spare.  (Maybe use that space for a load/unload rig so you don't have to have one at every station.)  You might even be able to triple deck them within hi-cube height, getting 18 or 24 per carrier.  Two seats per car, so assume 1.5 people per car; 18-36 sleeper berths per carrier.  Say, two carriers to a 72-bed sleeper, and arrange your train so that pairs or triplets of cars can just be dropped at major stations and spur lines, rather than holding the whole train to unload them.  Huge initial investment, but then, so is even a commuter airline.  I think it could eventually be made very profitable and affordable for the weekend traveller, especially with some of the improvements in automating switching and coupling for trains that the more rail-heavy countries keep coming up with.

[Firethorn]

I don't know, that's a rather limited vehicle.  I think that expanded rental opportunities would generally be better.  A car is still a relatively massive amount of cargo to ship for 1-2 people.

[KD5NRH]

I don't know, that's a rather limited vehicle.  I think that expanded rental opportunities would generally be better.  A car is still a relatively massive amount of cargo to ship for 1-2 people.

That's part of the advantage; for one person, it's also their cargo container.  With a specifically designed loading system for a particular model, it also becomes a standardized container, making pricing and logistics dead simple.  No guessing as to how many bags will fit in a hold or whether the fat guy needs two seats; the person goes in a sleeper capsule, and the rest of the "baggage" is a box of known size and shape.  Two standard packages and done.

Plus it leaves one-way trip options available; there are a few places I'd like to go and see various things along the way, but there's not a practical and interesting loop route, so I'd be seeing all the intervening places twice.  Much better if I could drive there and ride back or vice versa, but one way car rental can be a pain, not to mention out-of-state travel fees on some cars.

[Scout26]

As someone who has a great deal of experience rail-loading vehicles.  Granted some were tracked but we had quite a few wheeled vehicles.    It would a little over a day to load the 900+ vehicles for the brigade onto the train.

I also took the ferry from Goteburg, Sweden to Kiel, Germany with my car.   We had to be at the dock and load our cars 2 or 3 hours early so they could get them loaded on the ship and then it took another 2-3hrs to unload the ship at the other end. 

The key factor in all these discussions is time.   Are you really going to want to wait 2 hours on each end to get your car loaded?   That turns a 4 hour trip into 8 hours.   And with that any point within an 8 hour drive time becomes more time effective.   The Amtrak Autotrain from DC to Sanford, FL is 17 hours for $310 (if all you want is a seat.  It's about $500 if you want a bed also).   You can drive that in 12 hours and if your car gets about 30mpg on the highway it will cost you about $100 in gas.  (815 miles point to point).  Save 5 hours and $200 in gas driving yourself.  And no TSA Viper teams, you can whatever you want to eat (and not overpriced vending machine food that they have on the train). 

If high speed rail is/was so great then how come private companies aren't tripping over each other to build it?


 

[MillCreek]

^^^ Until this very moment, I had never heard of the Autotrain, but after some Googling, now know about it.  Is this primarily for the snowbirds of the East Coast?  They go south for the winter, and this is more convenient than driving?  I don't think there is a West Coast equivalent.

[KD5NRH]

If high speed rail is/was so great then how come private companies aren't tripping over each other to build it?

Partly because government has demonstrated how hideously it can fail, and various regulations will keep it that way until they're changed.

Yes, the same government that couldn't make money off a whorehouse.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

I would prefer to subsidize GOOD rail travel than see more of my tax money spent building more roads that just attract more traffic and result in bigger, longer, worser bottlenecks -- and become functionally obsolete (over design capacity) within a few months after opening.

[MechAg94]

I would prefer to subsidize GOOD rail travel than see more of my tax money spent building more roads that just attract more traffic and result in bigger, longer, worser bottlenecks -- and become functionally obsolete (over design capacity) within a few months after opening.

The problem with that idea is that the roads are much much cheaper when you factor in the actual number of people using them.  Trains will always be much more expensive and much less flexible. 

As I mentioned above, the only current alternative that is close to economical is a well managed bus system.  Since most Metro outfits are obsessed with trains, they generally let the bus systems go to hell.

[MechAg94]

The other thing I would mention is there are many companies intimately familiar with the challenges and problems getting right of ways to run private pipelines.  This is small compared to the land acquisition required to set up a private rail line. 

Face it, Americans like to spread out.  Cars and trucks are what we will have for the foreseeable future.  Unless technology, laws, or demographics change significantly. 

[Firethorn]

Unless technology, laws, or demographics change significantly.

I looked into how you could change the laws to encourage 'carless' living fairly recently.
First, consider the car.  Between the capital cost, insurance, fuel, taxes, and everything you're looking at around $4k/year for the privilege of driving, and that's not considering the time cost if you don't like driving.  $4k/year, put into alternative transport methods, adds up quick in a dense city.  My personal thought is to adjust things so that, as best as you can arrange it, everything is in walking distance.  As people get used to walking, the radius will expand, plus bicycles and such can speed things up even more.

So how do we shorten distances?  My first thought is to increase density.  One way for our carless area would be to simply get rid of all the parking lots.  Massive space savings there, and even getting rid of a lot of the roads because you don't need the capacity allows you to go denser still.  However, there's not enough housing in cities, making it too expensive.  One thought there is that nearly every building we have today is single-purpose.  Commercial buildings are commercial buildings.  Malls are all retail.  Apartments and condos are just that - Apartments and condos.  As I understand it, a lot of the reasons for this amount to tax code issues.  It's cheaper/easier to make buildings single type even before you consider zoning.

So let's go 'old school'.  Back in the day shopkeepers would often live above their stores.  Change zoning laws and tax codes in the cities to encourage mixed-use buildings - IE a mix of retail, commercial, and residential in every skyscraper, with a rough goal of as many people living in the building as work there.  Something like the first 3 floors are retail, the next 7 are commercial, and the final 10 residential.  Statistically at least some would live in the same building as they work in, reducing commuting times to an elevator ride.

As a city, encourage cheap delivery services so people don't feel the need to haul lots of stuff around. 

Other ideas include making it part of the downtown building code to have skyways on the 3rd/4th floor to give you more walking area, perhaps even airport style 'slideways' that increase your effective walking radius, drastically increasing the distance you're willing to go on foot, often even faster than car, which also increases the odds that whatever service you're looking for is offered within that area - doctor, dentist, movie theater, shopping area, grocery, etc...

[KD5NRH]

So let's go 'old school'.  Back in the day shopkeepers would often live above their stores.  Change zoning laws and tax codes in the cities to encourage mixed-use buildings - IE a mix of retail, commercial, and residential in every skyscraper, with a rough goal of as many people living in the building as work there.  Something like the first 3 floors are retail, the next 7 are commercial, and the final 10 residential.  Statistically at least some would live in the same building as they work in, reducing commuting times to an elevator ride.

Welcome to the Renraku Arcology.  Live, work, eat and play for entire months without ever going outside.

I'd predict mental and behavioral disorders at rates 4-5 times the norm, at a minimum.

[Scout26]

It's called Rochester,MN and the Habitrails in the downtown area.  I was there for two weeks and never went outside.

[KD5NRH]

It's called Rochester,MN and the Habitrails in the downtown area.  I was there for two weeks and never went outside.

I rest my case.

[RoadKingLarry]

Welcome to the Renraku Arcology.  Live, work, eat and play for entire months without ever going outside.

I'd predict mental and behavioral disorders at rates 4-5 times the norm, at a minimum.

I always thought living in a city is a mental and behavioral disorder.

[AJ Dual]

So how do we shorten distances?  My first thought is to increase density.  One way for our carless area would be to simply get rid of all the parking lots.  Massive space savings there, and even getting rid of a lot of the roads because you don't need the capacity allows you to go denser still.  However, there's not enough housing in cities, making it too expensive.  One thought there is that nearly every building we have today is single-purpose.  Commercial buildings are commercial buildings.  Malls are all retail.  Apartments and condos are just that - Apartments and condos.  As I understand it, a lot of the reasons for this amount to tax code issues.  It's cheaper/easier to make buildings single type even before you consider zoning.

Except that this is what a lot of the big-city Left is trying to do to us intentionally. Look up "new urbanism" and Agenda 21.

They've despised the fact for decades now that people will vote with their feet and move out/away from their failed leftist policies, and the dependency and crime left in their wake, and their solution is to try and prevent the creation of roads and suburbs, and trains and rail are a cornerstone in that plan.

I'm all for loosening tax codes and zoning to create multi-use development, but I'm skeptical of almost all rail proposals. And the poor are better served by buses that can come right down their street and then go anywhere. And the total real-world per-mile costs of rail and light rail will buy a LOT of buses.  

[Boomhauer]

If passenger rail was viable in the US the rail companies would have it. Instead we have Amtrak, and the mediocrity of Amtrak is not exactly a secret.

There is a reason the passenger train was pushed out post WWII...despite the fact that it can be an enjoyable way to travel it is slow and not cheap.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I think unions played a role in killing trains

[lupinus]

I don't think we can blame unions on this one. Something better came along and killed passenger trains in a lot of areas because it simply didn't work as well.

[zxcvbob]

General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone killed the passenger trains in the US.  I saw it on that Roger Rabbit documentary.

The Texas triangle high speed rail will never work because Dallas and Houston hate each other. (Not sure about San Antonio, but if I were then I wouldn't like Dallas or Houston either)

[MechAg94]

From what I have heard in Europe, most of the dense living is due to laws and restrictions.   In places where restrictions are relaxed, people spread out. 

I don't dislike the idea.  I think dense urban living would work well for some.  I just think if that idea were pushed, someone would take it too ar and try to force it.  Removing roads and parking lots sounds like that.  Businesses want to be next to busy roads and parking.  It brings in more money. 

[Tallpine]

And build a dome over the whole thing to control the weather    It would be Utopia, except you would have to limit life spans to thirty years to share the limited resources 

I looked into how you could change the laws to encourage 'carless' living fairly recently.
First, consider the car.  Between the capital cost, insurance, fuel, taxes, and everything you're looking at around $4k/year for the privilege of driving, and that's not considering the time cost if you don't like driving.  $4k/year, put into alternative transport methods, adds up quick in a dense city.  My personal thought is to adjust things so that, as best as you can arrange it, everything is in walking distance.  As people get used to walking, the radius will expand, plus bicycles and such can speed things up even more.

So how do we shorten distances?  My first thought is to increase density.  One way for our carless area would be to simply get rid of all the parking lots.  Massive space savings there, and even getting rid of a lot of the roads because you don't need the capacity allows you to go denser still.  However, there's not enough housing in cities, making it too expensive.  One thought there is that nearly every building we have today is single-purpose.  Commercial buildings are commercial buildings.  Malls are all retail.  Apartments and condos are just that - Apartments and condos.  As I understand it, a lot of the reasons for this amount to tax code issues.  It's cheaper/easier to make buildings single type even before you consider zoning.

So let's go 'old school'.  Back in the day shopkeepers would often live above their stores.  Change zoning laws and tax codes in the cities to encourage mixed-use buildings - IE a mix of retail, commercial, and residential in every skyscraper, with a rough goal of as many people living in the building as work there.  Something like the first 3 floors are retail, the next 7 are commercial, and the final 10 residential.  Statistically at least some would live in the same building as they work in, reducing commuting times to an elevator ride.

As a city, encourage cheap delivery services so people don't feel the need to haul lots of stuff around. 

Other ideas include making it part of the downtown building code to have skyways on the 3rd/4th floor to give you more walking area, perhaps even airport style 'slideways' that increase your effective walking radius, drastically increasing the distance you're willing to go on foot, often even faster than car, which also increases the odds that whatever service you're looking for is offered within that area - doctor, dentist, movie theater, shopping area, grocery, etc...

[Doggy Daddy]

From what I have heard in Europe, most of the dense living is due to laws and restrictions.   In places where restrictions are relaxed, people spread out. 

I don't dislike the idea.  I think dense urban living would work well for some.  I just think if that idea were pushed, someone would take it too ar and try to force it.  Removing roads and parking lots sounds like that.  Businesses want to be next to busy roads and parking.  It brings in more money. 

Genesis had it figgered out over 40 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSl7gENe5xo  And lyrics from http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/genesis/getemoutbyfriday.html

If you want the Cliff's Notes part, see the bolded below.

"Get 'Em Out By Friday"

[John Pebble of Styx Enterprises]

"Get 'em out by Friday!
You don't get paid till the last one's well on his way.
Get 'em out by Friday!
It's important that we keep to schedule, there must be no delay."

[Mark Hall of Styx Enterprises (otherwise known as "The Winkler")]

"I represent a firm of gentlemen who recently purchased this
house and all the others in the road,
In the interest of humanity we've found a better place for you
to go, go-woh, go-woh"

[Mrs. Barrow (a tenant)]

"Oh no, this I can't believe,
Oh Mary, they're asking us to leave."

[Mr. Pebble]

"Get 'em out by Friday!
I've told you before, 's good many gone if we let them stay.
And if it isn't easy,
You can squeeze a little grease and our troubles will soon run away."

[Mrs. Barrow]

"After all this time, they ask us to leave,
And I told them we could pay double the rent.
I don't know why it seemed so funny,
Seeing as how they'd take more money.
The winkler called again, he came here this morning,
With four hundred pounds and a photograph of the place he has found.
A block of flats with central heating.
I think we're going to find it hard."

[Mr. Pebble]

"Now we've got them!
I've always said that cash cash cash can do anything well.
Work can be rewarding
When a flash of intuition is a gift that helps you
excel-sell-sell-sell."

[Mr. Hall]

"Here we are in Harlow New Town, did you recognise your block
across the square, over there,
Sadly since last time we spoke, we've found we've had to raise
the rent again,
just a bit."

[Mrs. Barrow]

"Oh no, this I can't believe
Oh Mary, and we agreed to leave."

(a passage of time)

18/9/2012 T.V. Flash on all Dial-A-Program Services

This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
"It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height."

[Extract from coversation of Joe Ordinary in Local Puborama]

"I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold.
It's said now that people will be shorter in height,
they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
(they say it's alright),
Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow,
in the interest of humanity, they've been told they must go,
told they must go-go-go-go."

[Sir John De Pebble of United Blacksprings International]

"I think I've fixed a new deal
A dozen properties - we'll buy at five and sell at thirty four,
Some are still inhabited,
It's time to send the winkler to see them,
he'll have to work some more."

[Memo from Satin Peter of Rock Development Ltd.]

With land in your hand, you'll be happy on earth
Then invest in the Church for your heaven.

[KD5NRH]

The Texas triangle high speed rail will never work because Dallas and Houston hate each other. (Not sure about San Antonio, but if I were then I wouldn't like Dallas or Houston either)

You know, there was a time when the way to kill a town was to get the railroad to bypass it...think Houston would chip in for a Texarkana to El Paso line with stops everywhere along I-20 except Dallas?