Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure. Trains are more comfortable for the passengers than airplanes.

The problem is that the government would have to prop up the train's finances for years until it had enough of a customer base to sustain itself. And even then the ridership would probably tank as ticket prices soared due to walking back any subsidies. And this is after the government would have put trillions into actually building the railroad. CA has already spent $5.4 billion on high speed rail, with literally no progress at all.

You are operating under the assumption that high speed rail must be done as a for-profit business, not as government-funded infrastructure. Concerns about profitability disappear if you remove the assumption that the shareholders must be making a profit every quarter.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure. Trains are more comfortable for the passengers than airplanes.

The problem is that the government would have to prop up the train's finances for years until it had enough of a customer base to sustain itself. And even then the ridership would probably tank as ticket prices soared due to walking back any subsidies. And this is after the government would have put trillions into actually building the railroad. CA has already spent $5.4 billion on high speed rail, with literally no progress at all.

You are operating under the assumption that high speed rail must be done as a for-profit business, not as government-funded infrastructure. Concerns about profitability disappear if you remove the assumption that the shareholders must be making a profit every quarter.

One of the better ways to spend tax Dollars imo, supplies infrastructure and transportation for a cheaper price.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure. Trains are more comfortable for the passengers than airplanes.

The problem is that the government would have to prop up the train's finances for years until it had enough of a customer base to sustain itself. And even then the ridership would probably tank as ticket prices soared due to walking back any subsidies. And this is after the government would have put trillions into actually building the railroad. CA has already spent $5.4 billion on high speed rail, with literally no progress at all.

You are operating under the assumption that high speed rail must be done as a for-profit business, not as government-funded infrastructure. Concerns about profitability disappear if you remove the assumption that the shareholders must be making a profit every quarter.

I see no point in throwing my tax dollars at a project that the government would only mess up catastrophically, wasting more money than was actually necessary. The government has no incentive to be frugal with tax payer money. Thus they should be trusted with as little of it as possible.

The only High Speed Rail project in the US that is actually seeing some progress is a privately funded one in Texas. Largely because they have reason to be careful with the spending.

Mario wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Would there ever be room for a middle-ground type of train? Something that isn't necessarily the 200MPH high-speed train, but something that is faster than the 50mph passenger trains we currently have. Perhaps something that tops out around 110mph?

Something like the ICE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity-Express)?

I would say not even that advanced or fast, but yes, the same basic concept. In my opinion Americans' priorities are: cost, speed, independence, easy of use, and comfort. It's basically in that order. So, if you could have a commuter train connecting areas with inner city mass transit that is marginally faster than driving, for about the same price, and is slightly more comfortable it could theoretically be a winner.


And this is exactly why long-haul trains don't really work in the US in most areas. While most major cities have buses and taxis, most don't have inner city trains or subways. If you take a train instead of driving you either have to pay a lot, or get dropped off a long way from where you actually want to be. Heaven forbid you get dropped off in a smaller city that only has 12 hours of bus service per day.


My biggest fear is a US train system will be like the Russian Concord. REALLY expensive, operating at a loss, and barely used.

Major cities are much further apart in the US which requires a lot more extensive construction and costs. We also have large wildlife in many areas that could contribute to a derailment at those speeds. Cattle, buffalo, horses, elk, beer, moose, any of those could cause massive damage on a high speed line. Might not be a common thing but all it takes is one derailment that kills little Timmy and the law suits would ruin any future for the line. We already encounter enough issues with slower speed commuter lines due to bad crossings or vehicles getting stuck on tracks and doing elevated tracks let alone high speed ones is beyond any feasible budget.

I do think they could improve rail lines around major cities and especially make use of subways to avoid conflicting with car and foot traffic. I love using the metro while I was in France and always wished we had more options like that in the US.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think it's at all obvious that America needs this.

Flight time between New York to Los Angeles is what, eight or nine hours? What would it be via HSR, twice that? I'm not clear on the argument for spending an enormous outlay to build a train system that's going to be twice as slow, at best, as what we have now.



What are the exact arguments in favor of this?

"MAH CARBON EMISSIONS!!!!", basically.

 stanman wrote:
Major cities are much further apart in the US which requires a lot more extensive construction and costs. We also have large wildlife in many areas that could contribute to a derailment at those speeds. Cattle, buffalo, horses, elk, beer, moose, any of those could cause massive damage on a high speed line. Might not be a common thing but all it takes is one derailment that kills little Timmy and the law suits would ruin any future for the line.

Part of why dedicated high speed rail lines are so expensive to build is because they're completely fenced and have no level crossings.

A high speed train just can't stop when they something on the tracks (which is also why they don't use traditional signs but receive track signaling on the cabin.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Would there ever be room for a middle-ground type of train? Something that isn't necessarily the 200MPH high-speed train, but something that is faster than the 50mph passenger trains we currently have. Perhaps something that tops out around 110mph?

If we are talking about regional hubs on the east coast, I think something like that would make more sense. It would be significantly cheaper than a full-on high speed railway and more of the existing lines could be converted.

UK trains run at up to 125mph on long distance. Shorter journeys are done at between 30 and 85 depending on the type of journey, the number of stops, the distance between them and so on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The problem is that the government would have to prop up the train's finances for years until it had enough of a customer base to sustain itself. And even then the ridership would probably tank as ticket prices soared due to walking back any subsidies. And this is after the government would have put trillions into actually building the railroad. CA has already spent $5.4 billion on high speed rail, with literally no progress at all.

True enough.

But how much do you think the Fed spends keeping the airlines in operation?

Trust me, Federal spending keeps the airlines going and their prices down no less than they would for a theoretical HSR network.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see no point in throwing my tax dollars at a project that the government would only mess up catastrophically, wasting more money than was actually necessary. The government has no incentive to be frugal with tax payer money. Thus they should be trusted with as little of it as possible.

The only High Speed Rail project in the US that is actually seeing some progress is a privately funded one in Texas. Largely because they have reason to be careful with the spending.

Because private industry is doing SUCH a good job with our power and telecommunications grids...

The reason the American government screws up so much is down to one thing and one thing only. WE LET THEM. They screw up, and we don't hold anyone accountable for it. If we'd vote out politicians who screw up instead of re-electing them because of tribal issues, America would be a whole lot better off.

So, small anecdote but relevant.
Me and my friends want to go to Socal open, we where talking about ways to get there. One said driving and that's ok, butt no one wants to drive, some said fly, but we didn't want to take our armies. I said train, it is 2 hours more than driving bit we can sit down and our armies are safe. All refused, when I asked why, the only answer is "I don't wanna take the train"
Trains have a stigma here for some reason.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, small anecdote but relevant.
Me and my friends want to go to Socal open, we where talking about ways to get there. One said driving and that's ok, butt no one wants to drive, some said fly, but we didn't want to take our armies. I said train, it is 2 hours more than driving bit we can sit down and our armies are safe. All refused, when I asked why, the only answer is "I don't wanna take the train"
Trains have a stigma here for some reason.

I think the stigma is that, in America, trains are seen as barely a step up from taking a bus. And busses (and trains) are seen as being for poor people who can't afford to fly or drive a car of their own.

Personally, I think high speed rail has great potential in serving as a commuter service connecting pairs, or a small series, of cities. Taking a weekend trip to Austin, San Antonio, or Houston is great, but when it's a four or more hour drive each way, that doesn't give you much time to enjoy the city you're going to. Admittedly, you get to enjoy the stuff along the way (kolaches in West, Woody's Smokehouse in Centerville) when you're driving.

The problem is, to do that you're talking $100BN or more in costs. Look at the California fiasco.

As Grey Templar said, I don't see the market for this in the US as it actually exists.

In an imaginary walkable US that isn't built around driving, doesn't have faster mass airline travel for longer distance trips, and doesn't already have slower but existing commuter train service (that has to be subsidized and constantly struggles for ridership) in its most densely-populated corridor...sure, I guess?

I would be pretty happy to have more public transportation. As somebody who has no car, having the ability to travel would be great.

 Frazzled wrote:
The problem is, to do that you're talking $100BN or more in costs. Look at the California fiasco.

How much did the highway system cost in 2018 dollars? How much does the Fed spend each year subsidizing the airlines? How much has government at all levels spent on building and maintaining airports the past century?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The problem is, to do that you're talking $100BN or more in costs. Look at the California fiasco.

How much did the highway system cost in 2018 dollars? How much does the Fed spend each year subsidizing the airlines? How much has government at all levels spent on building and maintaining airports the past century?

Are you going to stop those subsidies so you can pay for the new railway?

Are tax payers going to accept the fallout from those cuts in exchange for mere promises of high speed rail?

The answer is of course no to both of these.

And, for the most part, people in the most densely populated areas where rail MIGHT have a bit of potential, don't want it in their backyards. It sounds lovely as a theoretical, but it's all rainbows, unicorns, and fever dreams once you get to the practical.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The problem is, to do that you're talking $100BN or more in costs. Look at the California fiasco.

How much did the highway system cost in 2018 dollars? How much does the Fed spend each year subsidizing the airlines? How much has government at all levels spent on building and maintaining airports the past century?

Are you going to stop those subsidies so you can pay for the new railway?

Are tax payers going to accept the fallout from those cuts in exchange for mere promises of high speed rail?

The answer is of course no to both of these.

What was cut to start paying for those in the first place, hmm?

I'd bet we could make airlines pay for their own infrastructure, that would free up a ton of funds. Air travel would get a lot more expensive, of course, but that would help HSR be more competitive. Heck, it might even make Amtrak profitable all by itself.

But the main point I was making is that we have spent TONS of money on various transportation projects before. There's literally nothing except lack of political will keeping us from re-prioritizing spending to build HSR. It's not like it would require developing revolutionary new technology or anything. Heck, we could buy stuff off-the-shelf from other nations who have already done it instead of reinventing the wheel...

 totalfailure wrote:
And, for the most part, people in the most densely populated areas where rail MIGHT have a bit of potential, don't want it in their backyards. It sounds lovely as a theoretical, but it's all rainbows, unicorns, and fever dreams once you get to the practical.

The obvious solution to this is tunnels. This is an issue in California (earthquakes), but would work great on the East Coast.

They built part of HS-1 in the UK right underneath London- there are over 13 miles of tunnel there. London is one of the most densely-populated and expensive areas of real-estate on the planet, so no one was going to give up their backyard there!

The way to do this would be to link two cities to start with, using a future-proofed design with room to expand to higher speeds after rolling-stock and signal upgrades. Ideally, the initial cities would have developed metro/subway systems to connect to (and help overcome the train stigma). New York would be a great candidate. Don't forget that these lines can also run freight trains to increase efficiency, generally overnight during reduced demand. HS-1 does this.

From there, expanding would be relatively straightforward. The real key is to not do something bizarrely inefficient like HS-2.

The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

Twice I had to go to California for training, both times to a base called Camp Parks on the other side of Oakland from SF. Both times I had to ride the BART to get to the base from the airport. Both times I felt like it was going to snap the rails. If THAT is the level of quality I can expect from public transit, I'll keep my car. I legitimately thought I was in more danger of dying there than in the plane getting there.

 Just Tony wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

Twice I had to go to California for training, both times to a base called Camp Parks on the other side of Oakland from SF. Both times I had to ride the BART to get to the base from the airport. Both times I felt like it was going to snap the rails. If THAT is the level of quality I can expect from public transit, I'll keep my car. I legitimately thought I was in more danger of dying there than in the plane getting there.

I would be more concerned about the other passengers honestly.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

Twice I had to go to California for training, both times to a base called Camp Parks on the other side of Oakland from SF. Both times I had to ride the BART to get to the base from the airport. Both times I felt like it was going to snap the rails. If THAT is the level of quality I can expect from public transit, I'll keep my car. I legitimately thought I was in more danger of dying there than in the plane getting there.

I would be more concerned about the other passengers honestly.

One night mass amounts of gunfire made it hard for me to sleep. When I got to the training that morning, I told the Master Sergeant that they need to index the night fire that late. He informed me that there were no ranges on Camp Parks. Puzzled, I asked where the automatic gunfire was coming from and he said with a smile "Oakland."


If I NEVER go back there, it'll be too soon.

Ah yes, the old "I had one bad experience therefore this proven and demonstrably valuable thing is garbage forever and ever". Did I tell you about the time I was spat on by someone driving a car? Or the time I was in a car and the brakes failed(luckily at a low enough speed that the "crash" was more of a gentle bump)? Obviously this means cars are a non-viable form of transportation and should be barred at once.

 Just Tony wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

Twice I had to go to California for training, both times to a base called Camp Parks on the other side of Oakland from SF. Both times I had to ride the BART to get to the base from the airport. Both times I felt like it was going to snap the rails. If THAT is the level of quality I can expect from public transit, I'll keep my car. I legitimately thought I was in more danger of dying there than in the plane getting there.

You were more likely to die on the train than the plane there (slightly), but both are much safer than getting in a car (around ten times safer per mile travelled). Trains are actually remarkably safe overall, your perception of safety based on the smoothness of the ride is just stigma and not backed up by the actual safety records. Most train-related deaths are also suicides.

Roads are by far the most dangerous form of transport, but do you fear for your life just because you are on a stretch with a lot of potholes? That is the equivalent to fearing a section of line that is not totally smooth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Ah yes, the old "I had one bad experience therefore this proven and demonstrably valuable thing is garbage forever and ever". Did I tell you about the time I was spat on by someone driving a car? Or the time I was in a car and the brakes failed(luckily at a low enough speed that the "crash" was more of a gentle bump)? Obviously this means cars are a non-viable form of transportation and should be barred at once.

Ditto.

Yodhrin wrote:Ah yes, the old "I had one bad experience therefore this proven and demonstrably valuable thing is garbage forever and ever". Did I tell you about the time I was spat on by someone driving a car? Or the time I was in a car and the brakes failed(luckily at a low enough speed that the "crash" was more of a gentle bump)? Obviously this means cars are a non-viable form of transportation and should be barred at once.

Ah yes, the old "I'll assume you formed an opinion based on two (not one, learn to count) experiences and not base them off other people's experiences, correlated data, and the general knowledge of American work ethic of the underpaid along with those experience, all the while making myself look like a pretentious jerk." Did I tell you about how I rode the trains often in Germany and had no ill thoughts? Did I tell you about the rail I rode here in Indiana that was well kept and didn't have an issue? Did I tell you that you could clearly see the state of disrepair of the BART I rode on in the Bay Area along with the extremely shoddy ride I got ON the BART? No? I didn't think I needed to go into that level of detail with a footnote that wasn't a courtroom defense of my viewpoints. Now that I know how I need to deal with you, I'll itemize every response.

Just kidding, your in depth understanding of me is completely unnecessary and not something I want to waste effort with.

Haighus wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

Twice I had to go to California for training, both times to a base called Camp Parks on the other side of Oakland from SF. Both times I had to ride the BART to get to the base from the airport. Both times I felt like it was going to snap the rails. If THAT is the level of quality I can expect from public transit, I'll keep my car. I legitimately thought I was in more danger of dying there than in the plane getting there.

You were more likely to die on the train than the plane there (slightly), but both are much safer than getting in a car (around ten times safer per mile travelled). Trains are actually remarkably safe overall, your perception of safety based on the smoothness of the ride is just stigma and not backed up by the actual safety records. Most train-related deaths are also suicides.

Roads are by far the most dangerous form of transport, but do you fear for your life just because you are on a stretch with a lot of potholes? That is the equivalent to fearing a section of line that is not totally smooth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Ah yes, the old "I had one bad experience therefore this proven and demonstrably valuable thing is garbage forever and ever". Did I tell you about the time I was spat on by someone driving a car? Or the time I was in a car and the brakes failed(luckily at a low enough speed that the "crash" was more of a gentle bump)? Obviously this means cars are a non-viable form of transportation and should be barred at once.

Ditto.

A little bit of hyperbole, but the system isn't all that well maintained.

The issue in the US is that you have very few people who throw their all into low paying jobs. Now, why not make the maintenance and operation of that one section of rail a high paying job, you ask? Because the level of pay to achieve that level of personal investment would make the ride either unaffordable at the toll point OR necessitate everyone in that area to pay 3-4% of their income to cover those expenditures whether they ride it or not.

Take that, and extrapolate it across the entire country. ESPECIALLY in rural areas where a train system like that makes no sense. THAT is why I don't have high hopes for HSR.



And to answer the car question: I've dodged several accidents in my time mainly because I was in control at the time. I don't have it in me to trust everyone to have that same capability, especially given that a random person caused the accident in the first place.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The problem is, to do that you're talking $100BN or more in costs. Look at the California fiasco.

How much did the highway system cost in 2018 dollars? How much does the Fed spend each year subsidizing the airlines? How much has government at all levels spent on building and maintaining airports the past century?

Are you going to stop those subsidies so you can pay for the new railway?

Are tax payers going to accept the fallout from those cuts in exchange for mere promises of high speed rail?

The answer is of course no to both of these.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

"Here is your ticket sir. That will be $21,252,756.26 plus tax."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Bay Area is well served for public transportation. LA has some, but also Uner. Getting between the two is the issue. I have taken the train up and down the coast plenty of times, and it eats up a whole day each way, so I usually drive. If there were a train that took half the time, I would never have to make that horrible, horrible drive again.

Twice I had to go to California for training, both times to a base called Camp Parks on the other side of Oakland from SF. Both times I had to ride the BART to get to the base from the airport. Both times I felt like it was going to snap the rails. If THAT is the level of quality I can expect from public transit, I'll keep my car. I legitimately thought I was in more danger of dying there than in the plane getting there.

I would be more concerned about the other passengers honestly.

One night mass amounts of gunfire made it hard for me to sleep. When I got to the training that morning, I told the Master Sergeant that they need to index the night fire that late. He informed me that there were no ranges on Camp Parks. Puzzled, I asked where the automatic gunfire was coming from and he said with a smile "Oakland."


If I NEVER go back there, it'll be too soon.

Much of SoCo is the same. They just don't show it in Hollywood. My first weekend there, there were 16 murders on Saturday night. Later that month I found a 1911 trigger outside my door.

While I can't speak to the BART too much myself, I can speak to other light rail systems in other cities, and never found it particularly scary or dangerous, and the number of people hurt or killed on light rail per capita is practically nonexistent next to people who are hurt or die in auto accidents. I think we've had just over two dozen light rail related deaths here over the last thirty+ years, and almost all of those were pedestrians not riders. We had one incident where two people were killed on the light rail system here two years ago in a stabbing and that was big news that everyone freaked out about how unsafe it made them feel on the MAX, but along just that same stretch of road where the train runs parallel to the freeway where that stabbing occurred, we've had multiple fatal accidents, a high speed chase involving police from two states and two different cities trading gunfire with suspects on the highway and ending with a PIT after AR15 fire failed to stop the vehicle on the freeway, along with dozens of collisions and accidents since that stabbing.

So, in my experience at least, I can't say that I've been too shaken by experiences on light rail, I can however tell you that in the last couple weeks I've found 9mm and .38 special shell casings along the Columbia river literally a couple hundred feet directly under the landing lane for planes into PDX

At a slight tangent. I am always amused to read the UK HIghway Code advice to drivers approaching a level railway crossing.

This is a place where the railway crosses a road, and there are barriers and warning signals when a train is approaching.

If you are approaching the crossing and the warning signal begins to sound, stop, do not enter the crossing.

If you are in the crossing when the warning signal begins to sound, DO NOT STOP.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At a slight tangent. I am always amused to read the UK HIghway Code advice to drivers approaching a level railway crossing.

This is a place where the railway crosses a road, and there are barriers and warning signals when a train is approaching.

If you are approaching the crossing and the warning signal begins to sound, stop, do not enter the crossing.

If you are in the crossing when the warning signal begins to sound, DO NOT STOP.

In Texas, herding your cattle onto the rails to stop and then rob the train, is frowned upon.