Your Opinion on High Speed Rail

[stlsuburb 2]

So simtropolites, what is your opinion on High-Speed Rail in the United States? Be it in California, the Texas Triangle, Chicago, the Northeast Corridor, or any other proposed region. I just want to get y'all's opinions because I'm currently writing an in-depth research paper into the topic and I want to see if there are any potential arguments that I'm missing.

[TekindusT 3,809]

I remember some interesting points were raised on this thread Maybe it can be a good starting point.

[flatron 83]

As you practically excluded anybody from outside the US*, I don't feel like my opinion is of concern. But, as I can't hold my opinion back, I'll just offer it here: build it! But build regional rail as well, so people can take trains not only between big cities, but also if they want to travel from 'Remote Hamlet' to Smalltown, USA.

 

 

*Just being an offended European

[Compdude787 916]

I don't think it's necessary. I mean, if a private company wants to build it, great, more power to them. But so far, that hasn't happened, which goes to show that most people don't really see a need for high-speed rail here. There's nothing wrong with the Interstate Highway system!

[matias93 7,535]

It is a matter of State (not "estadual", but "Estatal"): the presence of the State is shown and keep with public infraestructure. It doesn't matter a lot if it is efficient or cost-competitive with other means of transportation.

By comparison, maybe the Hoover dam could be avoided if a convenient contract were done with a coal or oil provider, building thermoelectric plants in the West Coast; that solution wouldn't show anybody the migthy effort and engeenering abilities of the united staters.

[Charlie_Zane 963]

I think it's great! It's a lot cheaper, environmentally friendlier and sometimes even quicker (going from the centre of one city to the destination) when travelling domestically, which is why it would be perfect for Australia. Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane with stops in smaller regional cities along the way. The only thing that is really delaying many HSR networks from gaining ground is that they are incredibly expensive, and compete against the airlines which are already well established almost everywhere. 

[coolwiththecool2 827]

It may be more environmentally friendly but I'll stick to taking six hour road trips to Los Angeles or multi-day road trips up the Pacific Coast, you know try to actually enjoy the scenery around you and make unique memories.

[cmdp123789 710]

As an accountant point of view, let me take out the green Eco whatever, and introduce something that is much more important... Money.

First off, you have to understand that the cost of building such thing is going to be very high, not only because of the fact that they run in different rail lines, but because the stations and the infrastructure required is not there yet.

Second, the investment that is required to do something like this means that taxes are gonna go up in order to do so, which in fact brings me to my final point, money again.

See, il I've in boston, and every time I wanna go to New York, I take the bus. The ticket costs 45$ for a round trip vs 120$ for the train ticket! no round trip... So 45 vs 240. Also, the time to get there is almost the same, 4 hours in the bus vs 3:25 hours in train... For a difference of 200$.

If you think about it, the HSR could reduce that time drastically, let's say to 1 hour, but are you willing to pay 150$ ticket to get there and then 150$ to get back?

I'm skeptical about it honestly, the highway system works perfectly in the US, and people are used to that.. It's part of the american culture.. Taking cars away and replace them with high speed trains is not something that's gonna work, at least not in the east coast.

[MrGovernor 20]

I don't think it's necessary. I mean, if a private company wants to build it, great, more power to them. But so far, that hasn't happened, which goes to show that most people don't really see a need for high-speed rail here. There's nothing wrong with the Interstate Highway system!

However most highways in the US are crumbling and are in need of a desperate repair - just look at Los Angeles!

Anyway I think high speed rail would be a good idea, especially for the East Coast (Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington DC line would be a good place to start) with a secondary line in California connecting San Francisco to LA and finally to San Diego. 

However it may not be necessary now but in the near future it could be a real possibility. 

(This is coming from a New Zealander BTW!) 

[mrsmartman 200]

US has extensive highway and air network. Project cost is a big issue. Upgrade on existing railroads would be a more economic viable option.

[TekindusT 3,809]

An interesting read... - Why California's HSR is Drought-Friendly: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/03/another-reason-to-love-california-high-speed-rail-its-drought-friendly/388670/

[drpfaff 54]

 

I don't think it's necessary. I mean, if a private company wants to build it, great, more power to them. But so far, that hasn't happened, which goes to show that most people don't really see a need for high-speed rail here. There's nothing wrong with the Interstate Highway system!

However most highways in the US are crumbling and are in need of a desperate repair - just look at Los Angeles!

Anyway I think high speed rail would be a good idea, especially for the East Coast (Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington DC line would be a good place to start) with a secondary line in California connecting San Francisco to LA and finally to San Diego. 

However it may not be necessary now but in the near future it could be a real possibility. 

(This is coming from a New Zealander BTW!) 

 

I disagree that "most highways" are crumbling. Most money funneled into the interstate system does come from the federal level, but the states need to push for that funding. I am from Wisconsin and the interstates are pristine despite some of the high rate of cars (especially in the Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to Minneapolis corridor) and the adverse winter weather that destroys roads. I have also lived in Chicago and St. Louis and nowhere I have traveled in the Midwest has much problems with interstate repair. California SHOULD be able to handle road repair, but apparently they are too busy blowing it on welfare for all the people who don't work.

 

HSR in America is about as useful as it is in SC4. Eye candy only. With the extensive road systems we have combined with bus and air, there is really no window to see HSR develop. If I want to go from DC to NYC, you either take the train which is pretty cheap and takes a few hours, or you fly which is quick (1 hour and half max). HSR would cut that to maybe an hour for the same price. Not a big enough gain. The $$$ would be much better spent on infrastructure more useful to America, like tradition trains, bridges, and promoting city transit systems like Metra/Metro links and bus systems.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Frankly, if high-speed trains are supposed to cover distances from NY to LA, then I would rather ride a plane other than that, shorter distances might sound fairer enough. On a side note, I don't think that automobile travel will ever equate to traveling through HSR. I would prefer to travel via trains that drive all day long to my destination but then practicality is not the only key, there are cultural aspects to consider too. 

[SounderBruce 173]

High-speed rail really needs to be introduced here. It should replace medium-distance travel (where people opt to drive long distances instead of flying on a ridiculously short flight) between major cities on major and already well-traveled corridors.

Locally, I'd love to see a high-speed line from Vancouver BC to Seattle and to Portland with a handful of stops in between.

[philforhockey51 4,211]

Should check this thread out too.    Japanese Maglev Breaks Own Speed Record.    Opinions are given on viability in North America

 

[TekindusT 3,809]

Let's play a little game on how useful would HSR be in the US, OK? 

We will all agree here that a HSR line between Los Angeles and San Francisco would be one of the first ways to go. Both are very large and important regional centers for a variety of industries. A car driver, according to Google Maps, takes 6h18 to cover the distance between Downtown SF and Downtown LA (Union Station). In any case, an HSR line should cover this stretch in less time. 

Both destinations are 560 km (348 miles) as the bird flies apart. That's, approximately, the distance in a straight line between Munich and Bremen (actually 582 km), in Germany; a country with an extensive HSR network which has been working for decades. Let's take a look how long it takes to go from Bremen to Munich on a regular afternoon train, just in time to arrive at dinner in Munich's city center in the evening after a long morning meeting in Bremen's city center (figure 2).

This is 5h39 counting that nothing strange happens in the way (and that's assuming a lot knowing how Deutsche Bahn operates these days...). The route has 5 intermediate stops, which in a SF-LA line could be, for example, Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield, Lancaster and Burbank. That's just an example.  Still faster than driving.

What about the airplane. You'd say you can't beat the 1h15 flight between the two metropolises. Yes, but...

You'd take a cab from downtown SF to the airport, which, if the traffic is OK, will leave you at SFO around half an hour later.

You've already spent 30 minutes on your way. Plus 1 hour you will spend, at least, going through the security checkpoint and heading to your gate. That's 1h30. If everything is OK, you may land safely in LAX. You'll spend, at least, 15 minutes heading out, going to the restroom and looking for another cab. 

It will take you around 1 more hour to get to downtown LA, being conservative. We all know how crazy the traffic in Los Angeles is. If we make the summation: 0:30 + 1:00 +  1:15 + 0:15 + 1:00 = 4:00.

1 hour 40 minutes less, in direct comparison against HSR. It may sound cool, but you've dragged your stuff along 1 extremely annoying security checkpoint, 1 crowded and smelly narrow-body aircraft, 2 taxicabs and at least 1 horrible traffic jam. Instead, with a hypothetic HSR, sit back, read calmly or work for a while with the help of on-board Wi-Fi or your own network. 

My conclusion is: if California had an HSR network AND the prices were more competitive than air travel (which happens in any nation with an HSR network), would you spend two hours more in your trip in exchange of travelling with a much higher level of confort and a more affordable price tag? Think about that.

  Edited July 2, 2015 by TekindusT  

[crishy 57]

The USA already has the Acela Express (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express), which covers Boston-Washington in 7 hours. Granted, the Acela is not exactly HSR, or if so, is just borderline HSR, due to being rather slow (with a maximum regular cruising speed of 240 km/h or just under 100 mi/h, frequently significantly less), sharing tracks with other rail services, and even has a number of grade crossings. Major improvements here would be indeed in order. However, the area has plenty of large population centers, conveniently positioned in a roughly straight line, and rather close together; and seems to be a financial success (or at least, less of a burden than the remaining services provided by Amtrak, lol), and together with its slightly slower sister the Northeast Regional, have captured a majority of the air/rail commercial travel between NYC-DC and NYC-Boston. Building upon this would make sense from a financial and logistical point of view, and indeed the long-term plan is to decrease Boston-DC to 3 hours and increase the max speed to 350 km/h (220 mi/h), by 2040.

 

Unfortunately, few other places in the US commercially and logistically justify a high speed rail line. The US has a large population, but it is also a very big place with many centers spread all over the place, and with many more point to point air lines, while European systems benefit from increased density and cities segregated into different countries - people are more likely to travel domestically than internationally. As a comparison, the Acela manages only 3.3 million passengers a year, while the Italian HSR manages 25 million. Granted, the Acela suffers from heavy competition from its slower sister Northeast Regional, which covers roughly the same route and carries 8 million people a year, still significantly less than the Italian system.

 

California could be one, as it has a number of large and rapidly growing urban centers, though why not extend the SF line to Sacramento instead of branching the line from LA close to Merced? Moreover and more importantly, California cities (and most American cities, for that matter) have negligible rail transit. I rather use these tax dollars to improve rapid/scheduled rail transit because the current systems in California leave a lot to be desired... Furthermore, rapid transit could lead to some density development that is sorely needed in these big low rise urban sprawls, something that a HSR will probably not do by itself. The latter would also appreciate a decent rapid transit network, I mean, what good is a HSR if you still need to drive to the departing station, and drive again at the arriving station?

 

My opinion is that HSR is always nice and why not have it everywhere, but it has a very hefty price tag, and given the need for public funds one needs to think very well if the need is really there, as one might end up with an oversized Detroit People Mover system that looks cool, sounds good, but goes nowhere, no one ever uses, and is a waste of money that could have been better spent somewhere else. My thinking is that, other than the northeast US, other American places would benefit more from improved urban rapid transit instead.

 

As an accountant point of view, let me take out the green Eco whatever, and introduce something that is much more important... Money.

 

First off, you have to understand that the cost of building such thing is going to be very high, not only because of the fact that they run in different rail lines, but because the stations and the infrastructure required is not there yet.

 

Second, the investment that is required to do something like this means that taxes are gonna go up in order to do so, which in fact brings me to my final point, money again.

 

See, il I've in boston, and every time I wanna go to New York, I take the bus. The ticket costs 45$ for a round trip vs 120$ for the train ticket! no round trip... So 45 vs 240. Also, the time to get there is almost the same, 4 hours in the bus vs 3:25 hours in train... For a difference of 200$.

 

If you think about it, the HSR could reduce that time drastically, let's say to 1 hour, but are you willing to pay 150$ ticket to get there and then 150$ to get back?

 

I'm skeptical about it honestly, the highway system works perfectly in the US, and people are used to that.. It's part of the american culture.. Taking cars away and replace them with high speed trains is not something that's gonna work, at least not in the east coast.

Time is money, sure, the bus is significantly cheaper than HSR everywhere, even in Japan, but the average user in the Acela are business travellers who do not mind paying extra for added convenience. Ever tried to do work in a highway bus?

 

Also, if there is a place where a HSR is to be built (not necessarily to the standards in Japan and Europe in order to cut down in costs but with similar travel times) in the US, it is the East Coast, at least the northern part of it, as it has the population and much of the infrastructure needed. The only issue is indeed the travel time, they need to cut that down significantly in order to make it a little more attractive, one hour and 20 minutes Boston-NYC (as Amtrak is aiming towards 2040) is significantly better than 4 and a half in the bus, and people will pay for that, even if it means paying a 3x-4x premium.

  Edited August 24, 2015 by crishy  

[TekindusT 3,809]

Well, this pretty much sums it up: "Why Trains Suck in America"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ

[markussaage 762]

Just now, TekindusT said:

Well, this pretty much sums it up: "Why Trains Suck in America"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ

Awesome video and explanation for this problem.

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

On 7/2/2015 at 5:02 PM, TekindusT said:

as the bird flies apart

That poor little birdie. (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

 

Anyhow, this topic reminded me of this one: Serious competition for the airline industry with the main link being: 750 mph.

[airman15 4,111]

As much as I like to fly (in fact, last month I took Southwest from Sacramento to San Diego), there are a few points that have to be addressed if you want to use air travel as a counterargument.

First thing I noticed during those flights was that there were at least 10 other aircraft following the same route as mine were. Albeit they were in the opposite direction. There is traffic up and down the state to justify a high speed rail network. 1 hr/ 1.5 hrs sounds amazing.. if you haven't missed your flight due to security concerns or had to deal with delays. Either of those scenarios can mean you never get to where you need to be. I was lucky to avoid either and this was not too long after a nationwide report of Southwest's ticketing systems going out entirely. And that's not all, what about if I have to fly from Sacramento to Fresno? Or Bakersfield? Southwest does not go to either. American and United do, and both charge at least $300. High Speed Rail plans on going through all of the major developments within the central valley so it wouldn't mean having to rent a plane or get charged an arm and a leg to fly there.

On top of security, the aforementioned wrenches to flight plans, driving isn't the best option either. A trip like Sacramento to Los Angeles can be 5.5 hrs, assuming you don't stop for anything. How do you know there won't be an accident to cause a backup? How do you know there won't be highway maintenance going on? How do you know you won't become hungry or need a restroom? You could plan accordingly for all that when you have the time to do it.

Next, our infrastructure is among the worst in the nation. the ASCE which reviews the condition of roads, ports, airports, levees, and so forth for each state puts California's as mediocre at best. The top two most congested cities in the whole country are Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively. The city of San Francisco fought specifically against having freeways cut through the skyline (under Urban Revolt). I-80 is one of the only interstates that goes in but then it is joined to the city streets. Highway 1 becomes a part of the grid complete with stoplights at almost every intersection. Los Angeles tried adding lanes and the problem ended up being worse than before.

The biggest opposition to HSR in California comes from the NIMBYs. Farmers are against it because the line will cut through farmlands. Is that to say I-5 and Ca-99 don't already do that? Certain cities are against it because of possible noise. Not even freight trains are exempt from it; Rocklin established "quiet zones" that prohibit trains from using the horn unless absolutely necessary. With the high speed trains California could be using (in fact there's a mockup of the Siemens Velaro at the State Rail museum), its not like the diesel powered heavy haulers that come through Roseville junction. Even just being 500m away you can hear the droning of the engines and metal clanking for at least a minute.

I say bring it on. It would be amazing if I can leave home around the morning, be in Southern California for the afternoon and then go home in time for dinner! I get it's a huge project but imagine if they killed the Transcontinental Railroad. Or stopped the construction on the Golden Gate Bridge.

[krbe 193]

So the California High Speed Rail -- initially San Fransico - Los Angeles - Anaheim, and in the end running San Diego - Los Angeles - San Fransisco/Sacramento -- comes in at $64.5 bn, or 2.63 % of California's GDP. Not too shabby ... and apparently supposed to be self financed (bold projections for the economic model of the future there).

Concerning HSR, perhaps the most successful line is the three hour, 621 km long Barcelona - Madrid line, which used to be the busiest air line in the world with 971 flights per week in 2007. In 2014, after the opening of the HSR, the train had a market share in excess of 60 %. I guess that some of those who are flying do so because they have been connecting in Madrid, too.

The big problem with planning HSR is that it binds capital, corporations, workers and vehicles to precisely the line that's being built, as well as being physically manifest throughout the land. We're humans; we don't like the thought of being bound, and trains and aircraft (and to a lesser extent cars) are on the opposite ends of the psychological spectrum on how bound you are. When the 'big one' hits, the train line can only be repaired, at great cost and over a longer time period. Aircraft that survives merely have to be redeployed.

[TekindusT 3,809]

44 minutes ago, krbe said:

Concerning HSR, perhaps the most successful line is the three hour, 621 km long Barcelona - Madrid line, which used to be the busiest air line in the world with 971 flights per week in 2007. In 2014, after the opening of the HSR, the train had a market share in excess of 60 %. I guess that some of those who are flying do so because they have been connecting in Madrid, too.

Never took the AVE train Barcelona-Madrid but I know a couple of people who did, always for work reasons. Actually, it is quite The Example when talking about the advantages of HSR in front of the airplane. Two big regional and economic centers with a lot of trade between them. Many of those who take the AVE are business travellers, those who want to go from city center to city center, not from city center to airport to airport and to city center. Business travelers enjoy the "silent car" where one can rest a bit or work on their laptops (I always reserve on the "silent car" when travelling around Germany, really confortable). Plus, it is also very convenient for the elderly or the handicapped, who don't have to walk kilometers of airport floors to get to their gate and avoid the hassle.

Still, flying is the cheapest alternative due to the competence between airlines as well, that made the prices drop. The rise of the low-cost carriers happened at the same time as the AVE line opening; and nowadays three airlines compete for this route: Iberia regional, Air Europa and Vueling. 

[airman15 4,111]

1 hour ago, krbe said:

The big problem with planning HSR is that it binds capital, corporations, workers and vehicles to precisely the line that's being built, as well as being physically manifest throughout the land. We're humans; we don't like the thought of being bound, and trains and aircraft (and to a lesser extent cars) are on the opposite ends of the psychological spectrum on how bound you are.

Another thing about getting CA's High Speed Network up is the challenge of convincing more of us to drive less and take more public transit. As it stands, it's not as efficient to get around on light rails and buses as it is with just driving directly to where you need to be. The end termini of the network already have commuter services. But they have to make a stop at every station; there is no such thing as an express line for light rail. Additionally, a lot of us prefer to drive as the car doubles as an extension to your personal space. It will be a tough sell at first; on the other hand we have to share our space on airliners right now.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

Sometime last year I read an article about a rail tunnel being bored through a mountain by TBM (tunnel-boring machine). When I saw the cost per mile of rail, it was less than the cpm for the planned SF-LA HSR, and Cal's HSR has lots of extra miles to avoid obstacles.

So I have this counter proposal for Cal: Bore a nearly straight tunnel the whole way from SF to LA. You'd achieve grade separation, straighten / shorten the route, avoid costly urban property and its imminent-domain fights, avoid NIMBY farmers, avoid environmentalists, ignore mountains, and avoid noise complaint speed-limits.

In addition to avoiding all of those dollar costs, you'd also save tons of time. Drilling through granite is much simpler than drilling through politics. You'd have exactly one issue to solve for 350 miles: geology. Keep to one side of the San Andreas Fault, analyze the rock for boring, and immediately start digging. I bet you'd be finished and eyeing a branch to Las Vegas before Cal's real-life project sorts all of its stumbling blocks.

I'd propose a similar strategy for the NE corridor, but it must cross rivers and their silty soils. I'm not sure how TBMs handle those. Cal's geology (despite its "faults") is firmer. There's not one major river or sedimentary plain between SF and LA, so it's promising tunnel territory.

[chunkymon24490 6]

Living in Europe, high speed rail is quite widespread here. Even our slower non-high-speed lines in the UK are still 125mph. I've also travelled widely in China and East Asia, and I think that once one high speed line is built and used, there's no looking back.

All round it's a better experience. Leg room, seats, able to walk around all the time, wifi, centre-centre, minimised check-in and security times... There's really very few disadvantages once you've actually got it up and running.