Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on(caseyhandmer.wordpress.com)
caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/10/11/why-high-speed-rail-hasnt-caught-on/
139 comments
> The author tries to make the argument that there's physical limits to high speed rail that mean it'll never catch on. But the limits are far more political than physical.
The author is showing considerable ignorance on the topic.
For decades it's well understood that railway top speed is lower than airwaily travel. That's irrelevant. For travelling, the key factors are door-to-door speed and rider comfort.
It makes no sense to look at plane speed as the defining factor because anyone onboarding to a flight has to endure mandatory 60m-90m waits within an airport to pass through security and embark, not to mention the fact that airports are very often located tens of km outside of city centers. Meanwhile, railway travel is hop on/hop off with central stations typically right in city centers.
Consequently, it's very well understood for decades now that high-speed railway is by far the fastest solution for trips up to a 600km-800km range. Above that threshold there's a tradeoff threshold with air travel, with longer travel distance favouring flights over train trips. Increasing high-speed rail's comercial speed only works to hike the crisp threshold where high-speed rail dominates air travel.
The author is showing considerable ignorance on the topic.
For decades it's well understood that railway top speed is lower than airwaily travel. That's irrelevant. For travelling, the key factors are door-to-door speed and rider comfort.
It makes no sense to look at plane speed as the defining factor because anyone onboarding to a flight has to endure mandatory 60m-90m waits within an airport to pass through security and embark, not to mention the fact that airports are very often located tens of km outside of city centers. Meanwhile, railway travel is hop on/hop off with central stations typically right in city centers.
Consequently, it's very well understood for decades now that high-speed railway is by far the fastest solution for trips up to a 600km-800km range. Above that threshold there's a tradeoff threshold with air travel, with longer travel distance favouring flights over train trips. Increasing high-speed rail's comercial speed only works to hike the crisp threshold where high-speed rail dominates air travel.
The higher the speed the higher the cost of track maintenance.
In many HN publications the label "In USA" is applicable, the equivalent of "In mice" for many medical studies :)
Read the article—the author prefaces with their experience riding trains all over the world and has worked in rail. There is a ton of detail, much more interesting than the conclusion.
A clarification. They’ve not worked in rail. They’ve worked in hyperloop. A fantasy technology that does not, and probably never will, exist.
Imagine being able to destroy the idea of constructing rail in a few paragraphs of a tiny blog and then choosing to work on hyperloop, which has all the problems mentioned about rail but also throws in creating and maintaining a vacuum pipe in addition.
Imagine being able to destroy the idea of constructing rail in a few paragraphs of a tiny blog and then choosing to work on hyperloop, which has all the problems mentioned about rail but also throws in creating and maintaining a vacuum pipe in addition.
> A clarification. They’ve not worked in rail. They’ve worked in hyperloop. A fantasy technology that does not, and probably never will, exist.
Hyperloop is a marketing project which is based on the assumption that a few PR drones can be lowder than anyone with any cursory knowledge on transportation engineering.
The same goes for the boring company, where the company tries very hard to pretend they invented digging holes in the ground while using COTS tunnelers.
Hyperloop is a marketing project which is based on the assumption that a few PR drones can be lowder than anyone with any cursory knowledge on transportation engineering.
The same goes for the boring company, where the company tries very hard to pretend they invented digging holes in the ground while using COTS tunnelers.
Hyperloop was a fantasy project pitched by Elon so that he could continue selling more cars. The same way the big Auto companies of the early 1900's bought up railroads and trams and then tore them up, to sell more cars.
I understand where you’re coming from. It’s really a shame that this article has the conclusion in it. I finished it feeling optimistic about our ability to implement reasonable-speed rail in the US.
> Read the article—the author prefaces with their experience riding trains all over the world and has worked in rail.
That's like claiming they rode taxis a lot and has owned a car, and somehow that makes them an authority on public transportation.
That's like claiming they rode taxis a lot and has owned a car, and somehow that makes them an authority on public transportation.
That doesn’t track, since I was responding to a comment implying the author was ignorant of rail infrastructure outside of the US.
As to the expertise, he seems unseasoned but in command of a lot of facts. Which is why I think the conclusion is wrong despite the post being interesting and informative. Unfortunately, my fellow rail enthusiasts think I’m against them because I read the article and ignored the headline and first and last few sentences. :)
As to the expertise, he seems unseasoned but in command of a lot of facts. Which is why I think the conclusion is wrong despite the post being interesting and informative. Unfortunately, my fellow rail enthusiasts think I’m against them because I read the article and ignored the headline and first and last few sentences. :)
The article takes the premise that HSR should go 320 kph (200mph) and then explains why that is infeasible in many places.
The article says much less about rail at 200kph (125mph). Which might serve to replace airplanes. Especially once CO2 externalities are priced in.
The article says much less about rail at 200kph (125mph). Which might serve to replace airplanes. Especially once CO2 externalities are priced in.
> The article takes the premise that HSR should go 320 kph (200mph) and then explains why that is infeasible in many places.
Top speed means close to nothing, and it's one of the reason why the definition of high speed rail is not tied to top speed.
Great Britain has a notorious high speed railway corridor whose top speed is only around 160mph, and the reason is that the railway line was designed with the express purpose of preserving a cruise speed close to the top speed of the trains available at the time.
It's absurd to talk about high speed railway if it was a drag race. The main challenge in high speed railway is making it possible for high speed trains to actually travel at speeds that high-speed trains can already reach. Lines need to overcome constraints imposed by speed, geography and infrastructure costs, and tradeoffs often lead solutions to not match optimal layouts to reach top speeds.
Also, whenever a train needs to serve an intermediate station, they need to spend a great deal of time decelerating, stop at the station to serve passengers, and accelerate again. Sometimes it's feasible for infrastructure operators to spend money on a sideline to skip that station, but on some cases that's simply not realistic. Take for example Paris-Amsterdam and Paris-Cologne, which have to pass through Brussels and where the bulk of the train trip is spent passing through the inner city of Brussels alone where the top speed is 20km/h.
Top speed means close to nothing, and it's one of the reason why the definition of high speed rail is not tied to top speed.
Great Britain has a notorious high speed railway corridor whose top speed is only around 160mph, and the reason is that the railway line was designed with the express purpose of preserving a cruise speed close to the top speed of the trains available at the time.
It's absurd to talk about high speed railway if it was a drag race. The main challenge in high speed railway is making it possible for high speed trains to actually travel at speeds that high-speed trains can already reach. Lines need to overcome constraints imposed by speed, geography and infrastructure costs, and tradeoffs often lead solutions to not match optimal layouts to reach top speeds.
Also, whenever a train needs to serve an intermediate station, they need to spend a great deal of time decelerating, stop at the station to serve passengers, and accelerate again. Sometimes it's feasible for infrastructure operators to spend money on a sideline to skip that station, but on some cases that's simply not realistic. Take for example Paris-Amsterdam and Paris-Cologne, which have to pass through Brussels and where the bulk of the train trip is spent passing through the inner city of Brussels alone where the top speed is 20km/h.
And it’s not only the city-city times being better. I’d happily spend 1-2 hours more on a train ride because I’ll have a more comfortable seat and I’ll be able to read/work/sleep/… more or less uninterrupted the whole time.
Edit: also, that added comfort is exponentially higher for families who can share a table or even a private compartment.
Edit: also, that added comfort is exponentially higher for families who can share a table or even a private compartment.
[deleted]
London-Edinburgh is only just faster by train. There is not much in it TBH. It is about the break even point I guess.
There are other benefits like you can use your phone and get up and walk around more easily. If you go first class you can actually get some work done at tables and stuff. But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IMO (or you get some huge off-peak super saver special one-time discount or whatever)
There are other benefits like you can use your phone and get up and walk around more easily. If you go first class you can actually get some work done at tables and stuff. But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IMO (or you get some huge off-peak super saver special one-time discount or whatever)
In cases where trains and planes are equally fast, trains basically always win on comfort. Much easier boarding, better legroom, longer time of being able to sit down and focus on your work, and so on.
As someone who has made this trip countless times, London-Edinburgh is sluggish. The UK's only true high-speed network is the Eurostar from London ('HS1'), under the channel.
Paris-Marseilles in 3.5 hours is a better comparator.
Paris-Marseilles in 3.5 hours is a better comparator.
But the flip side is train travel is often 10 or 20 times more expensive than flying, so only worth doing if you can expense it IMO (or you get some huge off-peak super saver special one-time discount or whatever)
The standard off-peak walk-up fare (i.e. the maximum you will ever pay) between London-Edinburgh is £82, and the peak-time fare is £176. Cheaper if you book a couple of weeks in advance.
It can cost less than this to fly sometimes, but in practice not by that much unless you’re doing awkwardly-timed no-baggage Ryanair flights from Stanstead or whatever.
I have done that trip hundreds of times over the years and I think I’ve only ever flown when engineering works made it in feasible to take the train. Usually it’s no competition.
The standard off-peak walk-up fare (i.e. the maximum you will ever pay) between London-Edinburgh is £82, and the peak-time fare is £176. Cheaper if you book a couple of weeks in advance.
It can cost less than this to fly sometimes, but in practice not by that much unless you’re doing awkwardly-timed no-baggage Ryanair flights from Stanstead or whatever.
I have done that trip hundreds of times over the years and I think I’ve only ever flown when engineering works made it in feasible to take the train. Usually it’s no competition.
Where are you getting those fares?!
London Edinburgh flight with Ryanair is £14 (fourteen) for tomorrow. On train it is £197 for tomorrow.
London Edinburgh flight with Ryanair is £14 (fourteen) for tomorrow. On train it is £197 for tomorrow.
Yes – if you're willing to fly from Stansted at 7:20am with no luggage, like I said above, you may be able to take a £14 Ryanair flight – though I doubt you can book this for tomorrow. If you can make these work, they're the cases where it's more cost-effective to fly.
A £197 train ticket is a walk-up, peak-time fare from Euston, which will take you via Birmingham. Not the way you'd to want to travel to Edinburgh – go off-peak up the East coast, and the walk-up fare is £82.
One of the good things about the UK rail ticketing system is that—while complex—all ticketing information is publicly available. You can look up the available fares between any pair of stations using the BR Fares site – e.g. https://www.brfares.com/!fares?orig=KGX&dest=EDB
A £197 train ticket is a walk-up, peak-time fare from Euston, which will take you via Birmingham. Not the way you'd to want to travel to Edinburgh – go off-peak up the East coast, and the walk-up fare is £82.
One of the good things about the UK rail ticketing system is that—while complex—all ticketing information is publicly available. You can look up the available fares between any pair of stations using the BR Fares site – e.g. https://www.brfares.com/!fares?orig=KGX&dest=EDB
Have they started selling oxygen separately from the main ticket yet?
From the article:
"Over longer routes, the relative hassle of getting to and from an airport instead of an HSR rail terminal is eroded by the higher speed of aircraft, even in places where the rail terminal is in a densely populated city center and the airport is way outside."
I think in the case of the US, the distance makes the difference. The trouble of checking in at an airport is factored out by the length of the journey. California to Los Angeles has a target time of 2 hours and 40 minutes. The train which I take in the UK most regularly runs for 2 hours, and that feels like a relatively long journey.
I think the issue is that in the US, most intercity journeys are much longer than this, which normalises air travel, meaning that rail ends up not getting a chance on the shorter routes on which it might be suitable.
"Over longer routes, the relative hassle of getting to and from an airport instead of an HSR rail terminal is eroded by the higher speed of aircraft, even in places where the rail terminal is in a densely populated city center and the airport is way outside."
I think in the case of the US, the distance makes the difference. The trouble of checking in at an airport is factored out by the length of the journey. California to Los Angeles has a target time of 2 hours and 40 minutes. The train which I take in the UK most regularly runs for 2 hours, and that feels like a relatively long journey.
I think the issue is that in the US, most intercity journeys are much longer than this, which normalises air travel, meaning that rail ends up not getting a chance on the shorter routes on which it might be suitable.
The US is the size of Europe. You'd have to take a train from Lisbon to Kiev to have a similar to say NYC to SF. A intra state high speed rail network would make a lot of sense in the US. Especially in New England. Boston - NYC should be a nice one hour and a half trip from down town to down town.
They already have a "high speed rail network" between Boston and DC (through NYC); it's called the Amtrak Acela Express.
I put "high speed" in quotes above for a reason, however...
I put "high speed" in quotes above for a reason, however...
"functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
I think the author has a very valid point when it comes to the cost of rail tracks. It's something the proponents always conveniently ignore. On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city. The travel time between, e.g., Berlin and Paris is something like four to five times as long as by plane.
So unless someone develops a low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel are probably going to win any fair competition.
I think the author has a very valid point when it comes to the cost of rail tracks. It's something the proponents always conveniently ignore. On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city. The travel time between, e.g., Berlin and Paris is something like four to five times as long as by plane.
So unless someone develops a low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel are probably going to win any fair competition.
> low-maintenance, high-capacity fast train, planes with ecofuel
is either existing?
> On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city.
Traffic generated by rail station limited by capacity would require gargantuan airport to handle it, which would anyway require bus/train/car connections from within city taking even more space.
is either existing?
> On top of that, a rail station has quite a limited capacity, especially if it's inside the city.
Traffic generated by rail station limited by capacity would require gargantuan airport to handle it, which would anyway require bus/train/car connections from within city taking even more space.
He is not entirely wrong about the capacity limits of the railway stations, though. European cities struggle with inadequate railway capacity all the time.
The main problem is that the original railway stations were laid out in about 1840-1870, for much smaller passenger streams, and today find it hard to cope with modern requirements (a lot of commuters from the suburbia). But given that there is dense city infrastructure all around them, the only way to solve this is to build a new station underground, which is hideously expensive and slow.
Berlin was somewhat "lucky" to have a good place to build their new Hauptbahnhof, a result of the former division of the city. Stuttgart is rebuilding and upgrading its railway network at a great expense, the construction works started in 2010 and are far from finished.
In Prague, there is a lot of discussion what to do with the rail network in the center. You cannot just tear down whole tracts of buildings in a historical city, so yes, we will have to go the Stuttgart route and who knows what the budget (and) time overrun will be.
I commute with a train daily. The lack of capacity is visible in chronic delays, sometimes up to 30 minutes. Fortunately I do not have to be at my office at a precise hour, but going to a medical appointment without wasting too much time is already a bit of a challenge. I even witnessed a 15 minute delay at 4:30 in the morning.
The main problem is that the original railway stations were laid out in about 1840-1870, for much smaller passenger streams, and today find it hard to cope with modern requirements (a lot of commuters from the suburbia). But given that there is dense city infrastructure all around them, the only way to solve this is to build a new station underground, which is hideously expensive and slow.
Berlin was somewhat "lucky" to have a good place to build their new Hauptbahnhof, a result of the former division of the city. Stuttgart is rebuilding and upgrading its railway network at a great expense, the construction works started in 2010 and are far from finished.
In Prague, there is a lot of discussion what to do with the rail network in the center. You cannot just tear down whole tracts of buildings in a historical city, so yes, we will have to go the Stuttgart route and who knows what the budget (and) time overrun will be.
I commute with a train daily. The lack of capacity is visible in chronic delays, sometimes up to 30 minutes. Fortunately I do not have to be at my office at a precise hour, but going to a medical appointment without wasting too much time is already a bit of a challenge. I even witnessed a 15 minute delay at 4:30 in the morning.
If you have no space for larger train station, then you will have problem to fit airport there. Or even commuting infrastructure to reach airport.
That is why airports are built in the middle of nowhere (also because of the noise).
People can tolerate a longer commute to the airport and back, because few Europeans commute by air daily. Most of us fly at most several times a year.
People can tolerate a longer commute to the airport and back, because few Europeans commute by air daily. Most of us fly at most several times a year.
A fun stat is:
Daily passengers on the New York subway system is around the same as total daily passengers on every commercial flight in the US.
Daily passengers on the New York subway system is around the same as total daily passengers on every commercial flight in the US.
I can totally believe that. But it has 470 or so stations. That makes about 10k or so daily passengers per station. That's very roughly the same as Berlin. Additionally, the trains are quite slow, which ain't a problem for a metropolitan network, but you certainly cannot compare that system to a country- or continent-wide train network.
In London, the Kings Cross + St Pancras complex handles about 340,000 passengers per day, and is about 0.3km x 0.5km. Heathrow handles about 240,000 passengers per day, and is about 3km x 5km.
If you want a truly working high speed rail network look to Japan. Shinkansen trains are punctual and fast. That is possible with political will.
And yes, the German system is a fascinating mixture of really good parts and really bad parts. But while troubled, to large degrees it works to acceptable measure.
And yes, the German system is a fascinating mixture of really good parts and really bad parts. But while troubled, to large degrees it works to acceptable measure.
The article does state that the Japanese system runs at a massive loss.
Public roads also operate under massive loss. As long as society is willing to pay for it, I don't see a problem.
There you go, some societies are willing to pay for it, and some are not depending on whether it makes sense.
If you are trying to say that some societies are wrong about it, that's a bit more of a tough sell.
If you are trying to say that some societies are wrong about it, that's a bit more of a tough sell.
That's not accurate. Multiple shinkansen lines were pofitable before covid, making up huge losses in rural lines.
The infrastructur was largely financed by the state, but that's true for any transport infrastructure.
The infrastructur was largely financed by the state, but that's true for any transport infrastructure.
Is it as accurate as their claim about ease of buying new planes?
You would never fly Frankfurt-Paris, because the train is a much faster, more comfortable option.
The Deutsche Bahn has significantly degraded over time, due to insufficient investment, but it's still an incredibly useful system.
If you want to see what's possible with current technology, look at Chinese HSR. Beijing to Shanghai is a 20% longer distance than Berlin to Paris, yet it takes only half as long by train (just over 4 hours vs. 8-9 hours). If such a connection existed between Berlin and Paris, it would be very difficult to justify flying.
The Deutsche Bahn has significantly degraded over time, due to insufficient investment, but it's still an incredibly useful system.
If you want to see what's possible with current technology, look at Chinese HSR. Beijing to Shanghai is a 20% longer distance than Berlin to Paris, yet it takes only half as long by train (just over 4 hours vs. 8-9 hours). If such a connection existed between Berlin and Paris, it would be very difficult to justify flying.
CHSR is technologically impressive, but planning and operations of boarding and stations are superior with DB that treats HSR like normal trains and not ground-level planes (an issue with many HSR systems).
In Germany, the fact that you can just walk onto the platform at any time and that your ticket is checked after boarding is very convenient.
However, on-time performance in Germany is horrendous compared to China, so I'm not willing to call Germany's operations as a whole superior. If I had to choose between my train arriving within half an hour of the scheduled time and having to board airplane style, I would board airplane style.
However, on-time performance in Germany is horrendous compared to China, so I'm not willing to call Germany's operations as a whole superior. If I had to choose between my train arriving within half an hour of the scheduled time and having to board airplane style, I would board airplane style.
> The travel time between, e.g., Berlin and Paris is something like four to five times as long as by plane.
I think your estimate is quite off here: Train connections from Berlin to Paris take about 8.5 hours. Flights take 1 hour and 50 minutes plus the overhead time for traveling to and from the airport, security and taxiing. Just let's suppose that this will be 2.5 hours in total, which would be very fast. So we are comparing 8.5 hours with 4.5 hours. So, the factor is less than two rather than the four to five you suggested.
I think your estimate is quite off here: Train connections from Berlin to Paris take about 8.5 hours. Flights take 1 hour and 50 minutes plus the overhead time for traveling to and from the airport, security and taxiing. Just let's suppose that this will be 2.5 hours in total, which would be very fast. So we are comparing 8.5 hours with 4.5 hours. So, the factor is less than two rather than the four to five you suggested.
I don't think the problems with German rail apply universally. The prevalence of low-speed tracks and frequency of delays comes from a period of missing reinvestment following the (semi-)privatization of Deutsche Bahn. Not every network will have this issue.
> a rail station has quite a limited capacity
most new&large airports are far outside of cities (example: Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, ...) because of the enormous space needed and environmental problems is creates. Nearer airports will close operating at 10pm, whereas train stations will operate 24h no problem.
Large projects for new train stations/systems in major cities (Hamburg-Altona, Stuttgart, ...) take a long time, but they exist. Large new airport projects near (!) major cities here in Germany don't exist.
> Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time.
That's because Germany has dense population regions and there always will be stops in cities and a lot of passengers. It's an optimization question. Being able to run a train system with max 300kmph is much more expensive than at 250kmph and the advantages are not that huge.
> They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
Planes are always crowded with a tiny personal space, difficult to board/leave, difficult to work in, difficult to reach, subject to a complex passage on an airport with all its rules®ulations, longer upfront booking, ...
For example when I want to travel from Hamburg to Düsseldorf (400km) on wednesday morning, the price is around 35 Euros incl. local public transport tickets with my Bahncard 50 which I got from the company. There is no flight like that.
Hamburg/Munich: >600km. Already too long for a business trip by train. Cost 60€ with Bahncard 50 incl. local public transport tickets. Time: 6:30 center to center. Flight: much more expensive, unreliable (I remember been waiting on friday evening two hours on the runway for the start), Munich airport is 40km outside, the Munich airport has long transit times. Time from city center to city center by flight is around four hours. The travel costs about three times as much.
> Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
For certain longer trips, but if I want from Hamburg to Berlin, Frankfurt, ... I take the train.
> especially if it's inside the city
That's great: with an ICE I want to reach the city center and not some airport 40km outside (like in Munich). I want to be in a big hub where all the local transports are reachable.
High-Speed trains here are connecting centers of a large local public transport system: local trains, underground trains, busses, ferries, ... When I travel by train between Hamburg and another major city, the tickets for much of the local transport systems for the start end destination cities are already included.
most new&large airports are far outside of cities (example: Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, ...) because of the enormous space needed and environmental problems is creates. Nearer airports will close operating at 10pm, whereas train stations will operate 24h no problem.
Large projects for new train stations/systems in major cities (Hamburg-Altona, Stuttgart, ...) take a long time, but they exist. Large new airport projects near (!) major cities here in Germany don't exist.
> Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time.
That's because Germany has dense population regions and there always will be stops in cities and a lot of passengers. It's an optimization question. Being able to run a train system with max 300kmph is much more expensive than at 250kmph and the advantages are not that huge.
> They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
Planes are always crowded with a tiny personal space, difficult to board/leave, difficult to work in, difficult to reach, subject to a complex passage on an airport with all its rules®ulations, longer upfront booking, ...
For example when I want to travel from Hamburg to Düsseldorf (400km) on wednesday morning, the price is around 35 Euros incl. local public transport tickets with my Bahncard 50 which I got from the company. There is no flight like that.
Hamburg/Munich: >600km. Already too long for a business trip by train. Cost 60€ with Bahncard 50 incl. local public transport tickets. Time: 6:30 center to center. Flight: much more expensive, unreliable (I remember been waiting on friday evening two hours on the runway for the start), Munich airport is 40km outside, the Munich airport has long transit times. Time from city center to city center by flight is around four hours. The travel costs about three times as much.
> Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time. They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled. They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
For certain longer trips, but if I want from Hamburg to Berlin, Frankfurt, ... I take the train.
> especially if it's inside the city
That's great: with an ICE I want to reach the city center and not some airport 40km outside (like in Munich). I want to be in a big hub where all the local transports are reachable.
High-Speed trains here are connecting centers of a large local public transport system: local trains, underground trains, busses, ferries, ... When I travel by train between Hamburg and another major city, the tickets for much of the local transport systems for the start end destination cities are already included.
> "functioning" is an exaggeration. Most of the German trains are slower than 300kph most of the time.
This is a silly red herring. Top speed means nothing. The only key factor is door-to-door travel time, and it means nothing if a train goes 180km/m in some sections and 320km/h in others if in the end you reach your destination 1h earlier than b flying.
> They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled.
Things that are completely unheard of in any sort of public transportation service, specially air travel!
Please look at the Netherland's Schipol airport, one of the largest in the world and often used as the paragon of well functioning hub, and how they've been systematically cancelling and delaying flights throughout the year.
> They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
No, not really. Only the lowest-cost low-cost operators tend to beat high speed railway on price, but they often have flights to airports well outside of city centers or even in suboptimal terminals with all sorts of hidden costs, and ultimately lead to a slower suboptimal experience.
This is a silly red herring. Top speed means nothing. The only key factor is door-to-door travel time, and it means nothing if a train goes 180km/m in some sections and 320km/h in others if in the end you reach your destination 1h earlier than b flying.
> They are also often crowded, delayed or outright cancelled.
Things that are completely unheard of in any sort of public transportation service, specially air travel!
Please look at the Netherland's Schipol airport, one of the largest in the world and often used as the paragon of well functioning hub, and how they've been systematically cancelling and delaying flights throughout the year.
> They are also quite expensive, compared to planes.
No, not really. Only the lowest-cost low-cost operators tend to beat high speed railway on price, but they often have flights to airports well outside of city centers or even in suboptimal terminals with all sorts of hidden costs, and ultimately lead to a slower suboptimal experience.
They're so crowded these days, nobody uses them any more! I say I say
Indeed. I had to fly between LA and SF while on holiday earlier this year, because the equivalent rail service takes over 11 hours. I’ve done those London-Scotland routes hundreds of times over the years and they are 4.5 hours end-to-end, and as you say this isn’t even on modern high-speed infrastructure.
I get that it may be impractical to introduce a continent-spanning national rail service in the US, but there are a whole bunch of costal corridors where rail is—from a functional standpoint—objectively feasible.
I get that it may be impractical to introduce a continent-spanning national rail service in the US, but there are a whole bunch of costal corridors where rail is—from a functional standpoint—objectively feasible.
It's true, there are many corridors and routes, and not just on the coasts, where HSR would be quite feasible in America. The problem is that Americans refuse to see this and refuse to accept train travel as acceptable. You can talk until you're blue in the face about how many people transit regularly between LA and SF, or between DC and NYC and Boston, or between Houston and Dallas, and Americans will simply counter that a train between NYC and LA takes too long, and therefore trains are a completely unworkable solution anywhere in the whole country.
There's just no political will to implement true HSR in America and I don't think there ever will be.
There's just no political will to implement true HSR in America and I don't think there ever will be.
I lìve in Europe and I have traveled maybe 10 times in my life travelling between euro countries. It's nice for city trips, but it's way more expensive than by car. And once you need to be outside of a city a train is not very convenient.
I took a look a few times at Berlin->Geneva, and it would have cost more by car adding in mileage costs and gas, vs. train especially if the train booking was not last minute.
That advantage vanishes when you have more than 1 occupant in the car of course.
However if you can work from the train, the advantage flips back to the train. It is priceless for being able to relax and/or be productive. However, I do like the monotony and semi-meditative qualities of driving long distances. But I don't like being stuck in traffic and construction zones.
That advantage vanishes when you have more than 1 occupant in the car of course.
However if you can work from the train, the advantage flips back to the train. It is priceless for being able to relax and/or be productive. However, I do like the monotony and semi-meditative qualities of driving long distances. But I don't like being stuck in traffic and construction zones.
[deleted]
This topic comes up periodically on HN and it typically ends in the same points:
1. Your entire country (UK) is smaller than 11 of our 50 states. The several hundred miles between London and Edinburgh pass through many smaller cities and towns, between which people travel. Between SF and LA is a pea soup restaurant and a handful of midsized, mainly agricultural settlements that can't be gotten around without a car (or pickup if we're being specific). SF/LAers aren't going to Stockton, or vice-versa.
2. Your entire continent, minus Russia, is smaller than the lower 48 states (2.5 vs 3.1 million sq miles), with a much higher population density and, again, actual places every 10 miles or so. I've bicycled across the US, there are stretches bigger than Western Europe that are full of nothin in particular.
3. Look at some population density maps. The US is light on corridors of sufficient size & density to make much sense for HSR considering the space between population centers: the Northeast (already served by HSR) and my native Chicago-Milwaukee-NW Indiana corridor (already served by commuter rail). Maybe Florida where they're actually building rail, surprisingly. Detroit area, maybe throw Ohio & Pittsburgh in (Amtrak partly covers it). The eastern 43% of China's land area (~1.6 million sq miles) contains 94% of the people (~1.3 billion people) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line In Japan you can basically draw a single, ~1400 mile line from Hokkaido in the north to Kyushu in the south that hits most of the population centers. Actually, they did that for you, it's called the Shinkansen and it is awesome.
4. This is actually the main point but I thought I'd sh!t on passenger rail first. The US has the largest and most extensively used rail network on the planet earth. We just use it to move freight, which doesn't breath, eat, use the lavatory, attempt to explode the vehicle it's on, or (to stay my sarcasm for a moment) complain when it's delayed. I haven't done the numbers here, but that probably offsets a lot more GHG/oil than replacing airports with passenger rail would.
5. To dovetail on earlier points, the US is largely defined by invisible cultural borders. To a disturbingly large extent, city people travel between cities and country people travel around the countryside. Each are often actually afraid of the other places. City people talk about 'flyover country' or make jokes about rednecks, incest, the banjo from Deliverance. Country people talk about 'inner city violence'. This is a newer, still emergent phenomenon and only partially true (hence it's placement last on my list).
All this said, I love Amtrak and ride when I get a chance to take a little time off and enjoy the scenic route. You see the country from a grounds-eye view that you can't from the air, and it's pleasant to walk around the cars and talk to people you otherwise wouldn't (I once chatted with Seth Green's mom - or a woman convincingly claiming to be Seth Green's mom - on the City of New Orleans). On the longer routes eg Empire Builder you can buy one ticket and stopover at interesting places along the way and get back on tomorrow's train with the same ticket. I'm looking forward to taking the train from Anchorage to Denali next year. But I'll be flying home at Christmas, with only 5 days off.
1. Your entire country (UK) is smaller than 11 of our 50 states. The several hundred miles between London and Edinburgh pass through many smaller cities and towns, between which people travel. Between SF and LA is a pea soup restaurant and a handful of midsized, mainly agricultural settlements that can't be gotten around without a car (or pickup if we're being specific). SF/LAers aren't going to Stockton, or vice-versa.
2. Your entire continent, minus Russia, is smaller than the lower 48 states (2.5 vs 3.1 million sq miles), with a much higher population density and, again, actual places every 10 miles or so. I've bicycled across the US, there are stretches bigger than Western Europe that are full of nothin in particular.
3. Look at some population density maps. The US is light on corridors of sufficient size & density to make much sense for HSR considering the space between population centers: the Northeast (already served by HSR) and my native Chicago-Milwaukee-NW Indiana corridor (already served by commuter rail). Maybe Florida where they're actually building rail, surprisingly. Detroit area, maybe throw Ohio & Pittsburgh in (Amtrak partly covers it). The eastern 43% of China's land area (~1.6 million sq miles) contains 94% of the people (~1.3 billion people) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line In Japan you can basically draw a single, ~1400 mile line from Hokkaido in the north to Kyushu in the south that hits most of the population centers. Actually, they did that for you, it's called the Shinkansen and it is awesome.
4. This is actually the main point but I thought I'd sh!t on passenger rail first. The US has the largest and most extensively used rail network on the planet earth. We just use it to move freight, which doesn't breath, eat, use the lavatory, attempt to explode the vehicle it's on, or (to stay my sarcasm for a moment) complain when it's delayed. I haven't done the numbers here, but that probably offsets a lot more GHG/oil than replacing airports with passenger rail would.
5. To dovetail on earlier points, the US is largely defined by invisible cultural borders. To a disturbingly large extent, city people travel between cities and country people travel around the countryside. Each are often actually afraid of the other places. City people talk about 'flyover country' or make jokes about rednecks, incest, the banjo from Deliverance. Country people talk about 'inner city violence'. This is a newer, still emergent phenomenon and only partially true (hence it's placement last on my list).
All this said, I love Amtrak and ride when I get a chance to take a little time off and enjoy the scenic route. You see the country from a grounds-eye view that you can't from the air, and it's pleasant to walk around the cars and talk to people you otherwise wouldn't (I once chatted with Seth Green's mom - or a woman convincingly claiming to be Seth Green's mom - on the City of New Orleans). On the longer routes eg Empire Builder you can buy one ticket and stopover at interesting places along the way and get back on tomorrow's train with the same ticket. I'm looking forward to taking the train from Anchorage to Denali next year. But I'll be flying home at Christmas, with only 5 days off.
> Your entire country (UK) is smaller than 11 of our 50 states. The several hundred miles between London and Edinburgh pass through many smaller cities and towns, between which people travel. Between SF and LA is a pea soup restaurant and a handful of midsized, mainly agricultural settlements that can't be gotten around without a car (or pickup if we're being specific). SF/LAers aren't going to Stockton, or vice-versa.
This is true, but it's not a reason to discount train travel. San Francisco is the size of Edinburgh and Glasgow combined - and between them there's 40 odd services a day. I get that route regularly, and it can be standing room only the whole way.
This is true, but it's not a reason to discount train travel. San Francisco is the size of Edinburgh and Glasgow combined - and between them there's 40 odd services a day. I get that route regularly, and it can be standing room only the whole way.
The USA used to have a reputation for a can-do attitude to large engineering projects.
Used to. Those days are long gone, and they're not coming back.
If we're lucky, the decline of America will resemble the decline of the UK. If we're not, it'll resemble the decline of Russia.
If we're lucky, the decline of America will resemble the decline of the UK. If we're not, it'll resemble the decline of Russia.
You mean like airports? Or the existing rail infrastructure? Either way, additional HSR is doable, just not enough juice for the squeeze. Suburban commuter rail would have a higher bang:buck ratio
Tacking a separate question on for anyone who's read this far:
It looks like there's already a Union Pacific rail line from LA to SF, via Santa Barbara and hits Monterey/Santa Cruz along the way with some scenic ocean views. What would it have cost to simply upgrade this line to be able to handle some passenger train traffic at normal speeds, like Amtrak does already? Wouldn't that be online by now?
Just picking on the US freight:
While the amount transferred is impressive, much of it is low-value a-to-b bulk shipments. With coal drying up in the near future, that's going to be a major issue.
While the amount transferred is impressive, much of it is low-value a-to-b bulk shipments. With coal drying up in the near future, that's going to be a major issue.
Riding the high-speed rail in China made me so envious of that setup. If we had that in certain locations in the U.S., it would be absolutely amazing. You just show up a half hour before your train (gotta get there earlier in certain huge stations) and basically walk on. The train ride is buttery smooth with a lot of space, and you can order food from the next station to be delivered to you if you don't want any of the food available directly on the train. And with USD, first class and the even higher end business class is not just attainable but cheap. The equivalent train rides with Amtrak in the U.S. are twice as long and several times as expensive and uncomfortable.
Edit: Did some searching and found the North Atlantic Rail initiative. According to the article I read, it would take 20 years to build. What a joke. What is going on in the U.S. that we can't do this stuff?
https://secretnyc.co/empire-state-building-lights/
https://northatlanticrail.org/
Edit: Did some searching and found the North Atlantic Rail initiative. According to the article I read, it would take 20 years to build. What a joke. What is going on in the U.S. that we can't do this stuff?
https://secretnyc.co/empire-state-building-lights/
https://northatlanticrail.org/
Lived in China and I'm not envious of their HSR at all. Boarding procedures are more complicated and take longer than any European Schengen airport and prices are higher than European budget airlines, let alone for Chinese purchasing power they are insanely expensive.
Together with introduction of HSR they closed many slower lines meaning travel is now less available for majority of Chinese.
Same goes for their amazing subways, they have lot of lines but usually their population per line is double of Western subways, so the result is uncomfortable overcrowded system.
Only reason to use Chinese HSR is because you don't have alternative, there are really no budget airlines and car ownership is still very low compared to west plus cheaper slower trains were cancelled, so you don't really have any other option unless you wanna take dangerous very slow bus.
Together with introduction of HSR they closed many slower lines meaning travel is now less available for majority of Chinese.
Same goes for their amazing subways, they have lot of lines but usually their population per line is double of Western subways, so the result is uncomfortable overcrowded system.
Only reason to use Chinese HSR is because you don't have alternative, there are really no budget airlines and car ownership is still very low compared to west plus cheaper slower trains were cancelled, so you don't really have any other option unless you wanna take dangerous very slow bus.
> Boarding procedures are more complicated and take longer than any European Schengen airport
This is not even close to being true. Security in Chinese HSR stations is minimal. You walk through a metal detector, put your bag through a scanner, and that's it. Boarding itself takes a few minutes.
> prices are higher than European budget airlines
A 7.5-hour trip across the entire length of the country, from Guangzhou to Beijing (over 2100 km, roughly the distance from NYC to Miami, or Rome to Copenhagen), costs the equivalent of $130. It's difficult to complain about that price.
This is not even close to being true. Security in Chinese HSR stations is minimal. You walk through a metal detector, put your bag through a scanner, and that's it. Boarding itself takes a few minutes.
> prices are higher than European budget airlines
A 7.5-hour trip across the entire length of the country, from Guangzhou to Beijing (over 2100 km, roughly the distance from NYC to Miami, or Rome to Copenhagen), costs the equivalent of $130. It's difficult to complain about that price.
Yeah sure, or more like, wait in huge queue in front of train station to get to security check, then wait in queue to waiting room, then wait in queue on exit from waiting room to platform, then get checked at train door and finally get checked ticket while seated. Meanwhile at Schengen airport - I get checked my ticket by automated machine, then just go to security check at my boarding gate and then get checked boarding pass and get into plane. All of this without hundreds of people trying to get to same plane since usual capacity is around <200-300 compared to much more in Chinese trains.
As I said 130USD is crazy expensive when I can fly in Europe similar routers for 20-50 USD and it will take me 2 hours instead 7.5 hours. There is no difference between getting to Chinese HSR station or European airport, but it's PITA getting to actual Chinese train vs European airplane.
And let's rather not compare slow European trains where can I board the train with zero checks anywhere, heck sometimes even without checked ticket.
As I said 130USD is crazy expensive when I can fly in Europe similar routers for 20-50 USD and it will take me 2 hours instead 7.5 hours. There is no difference between getting to Chinese HSR station or European airport, but it's PITA getting to actual Chinese train vs European airplane.
And let's rather not compare slow European trains where can I board the train with zero checks anywhere, heck sometimes even without checked ticket.
> Yeah sure, or more like, wait in huge queue in front of train station to get to security check, then wait in queue to waiting room, then wait in queue on exit from waiting room to platform, then get checked at train door
It has never taken me more than a few minutes to go through security in a train station in China. You're exaggerating here.
Yes, you have to get your ticket checked before going onto the platform, but that's also just a few minutes in line. There are usually several automatic ticket gates, plus one or two people manually checking.
In European airports, it can take a good hour to go through security and get to your gate, if you arrive at a busy time.
> As I said 130USD is crazy expensive when I can fly in Europe similar routers for 20-50 USD and it will take me 2 hours instead 7.5 hours.
I gave Beijing-Guangzhou as an extreme example, to show how cheap even extremely long routes are. I think most people would fly that distance. However, on a route like Beijing-Shanghai (just over 4 hours), most people would choose to take the train.
About the price, $130 to travel across a country the size of China is not crazy, regardless of how cheaply you can fly in Europe. Your trip is also not going to be merely 2 hours - that's the amount of time it takes from leaving home until takeoff, if you're cutting it close.
> There is no difference between getting to Chinese HSR station or European airport
Security in a European airport is on a completely different level from Chinese HSR stations. Yes, the German model of open platforms without ticket checks is nicer than the Chinese model of ticket checks in front of the platform, but let's not exaggerate here. On the other hand, the Chinese model of trains actually leaving and arriving on time is nice.
It has never taken me more than a few minutes to go through security in a train station in China. You're exaggerating here.
Yes, you have to get your ticket checked before going onto the platform, but that's also just a few minutes in line. There are usually several automatic ticket gates, plus one or two people manually checking.
In European airports, it can take a good hour to go through security and get to your gate, if you arrive at a busy time.
> As I said 130USD is crazy expensive when I can fly in Europe similar routers for 20-50 USD and it will take me 2 hours instead 7.5 hours.
I gave Beijing-Guangzhou as an extreme example, to show how cheap even extremely long routes are. I think most people would fly that distance. However, on a route like Beijing-Shanghai (just over 4 hours), most people would choose to take the train.
About the price, $130 to travel across a country the size of China is not crazy, regardless of how cheaply you can fly in Europe. Your trip is also not going to be merely 2 hours - that's the amount of time it takes from leaving home until takeoff, if you're cutting it close.
> There is no difference between getting to Chinese HSR station or European airport
Security in a European airport is on a completely different level from Chinese HSR stations. Yes, the German model of open platforms without ticket checks is nicer than the Chinese model of ticket checks in front of the platform, but let's not exaggerate here. On the other hand, the Chinese model of trains actually leaving and arriving on time is nice.
>It has never taken me more than a few minutes to go through security in a train station in China. You're exaggerating here.
I lived in China for years and I can guarantee you it took me NEVER just few minutes to pass through all checks. But if you visited tier 88 shithole I can see how it's not comparable with Beijing experience.
> In European airports, it can take a good hour to go through security and get to your gate, if you arrive at a busy time.
Hahahah, I just traveled in peak summer season clusterfuck this year and it took me for sure less than 10 minutes to pass through automated ticket gate and immigration check for non schengen flight to get to my security gate at boarding, all while at extremely crowded airport. I can't only imagine what experience it would be off season on Schengen flight.
> However, on a route like Beijing-Shanghai (just over 4 hours), most people would choose to take the train.
Yeah no, I also travelled this route for work few times, each time rather took flight for comparable price than slow train plus the HSR train station is further from city than old airport (which has maglev). So much faster and more comfortable experience for pretty much same price.
> Yes, the German model of open platforms without ticket checks is nicer than the Chinese model of ticket checks in front of the platform, but let's not exaggerate here.
Just out of curiosity how many years have you lived in China? Because I am not exagerating here. No delays. ROFL It must been my imagination to be stuck in middle of nowhere in train for hours, but I guess whether you travel 20 or 25 hours does not make much of an difference in the end, right... Unless you are going towards the most famous tier 1 cities delay was standard with slow trains, for sure worse than European trains at same time. It was well known fact in China trains towards Beijing had always priority because can't arrive in Beijing with delay to lose face, meanwhile facing opposite direction like Xian or Chengdu NGAF.
I lived in China for years and I can guarantee you it took me NEVER just few minutes to pass through all checks. But if you visited tier 88 shithole I can see how it's not comparable with Beijing experience.
> In European airports, it can take a good hour to go through security and get to your gate, if you arrive at a busy time.
Hahahah, I just traveled in peak summer season clusterfuck this year and it took me for sure less than 10 minutes to pass through automated ticket gate and immigration check for non schengen flight to get to my security gate at boarding, all while at extremely crowded airport. I can't only imagine what experience it would be off season on Schengen flight.
> However, on a route like Beijing-Shanghai (just over 4 hours), most people would choose to take the train.
Yeah no, I also travelled this route for work few times, each time rather took flight for comparable price than slow train plus the HSR train station is further from city than old airport (which has maglev). So much faster and more comfortable experience for pretty much same price.
> Yes, the German model of open platforms without ticket checks is nicer than the Chinese model of ticket checks in front of the platform, but let's not exaggerate here.
Just out of curiosity how many years have you lived in China? Because I am not exagerating here. No delays. ROFL It must been my imagination to be stuck in middle of nowhere in train for hours, but I guess whether you travel 20 or 25 hours does not make much of an difference in the end, right... Unless you are going towards the most famous tier 1 cities delay was standard with slow trains, for sure worse than European trains at same time. It was well known fact in China trains towards Beijing had always priority because can't arrive in Beijing with delay to lose face, meanwhile facing opposite direction like Xian or Chengdu NGAF.
These are two different walkthroughs of Guangzhou South Station: [0][1]. Guangzhou is a 1st tier city, of course, not a "tier 88 sh&!/%)@." The line for security is about 10 people, and it's not nearly as strict as at an airport. You put your bag on the conveyor belt, you walk through the metal detector, someone waves a wand over you, and you pick up your bag on the other side. You could get unlucky and arrive at an extremely busy time, but it's nowhere near as bad as an airport.
> Hahahah, I just traveled in peak summer season clusterfuck this year and it took me for sure less than 10 minutes to pass through automated ticket gate and immigration check for non schengen flight to get to my security gate at boarding, all while at extremely crowded airport.
It often takes 10 minutes just to walk from security to the gate. Security can easily add on an additional hour on a bad day. 10 minutes from the curb to your gate is unheard of, unless you're running the whole way and cutting to the front of lines.
> the HSR train station is further from city than old airport (which has maglev)
It's 40 minutes from Hongqiao railway station to Nanjing Road (East), in downtown Shanghai. It takes the same amount of time from Pudong Airport to Nanjing Road (East), even if you take the maglev (because the maglev only takes you half of the way).
Suffice it to say that I've traveled enough in China and in Europe to have an idea of the typical train delays. The situation in Germany is markedly worse. Official on-time performance for long-distance trains in Germany is about 60%,[2] and I think that there's a bit of creative accounting going on to even reach that number.
0. https://youtu.be/RIhseWP2LQQ?t=594
1. https://youtu.be/mo5CSafdwNA?t=172
2. Click on "DB Fernferkehr" here: https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen...
> Hahahah, I just traveled in peak summer season clusterfuck this year and it took me for sure less than 10 minutes to pass through automated ticket gate and immigration check for non schengen flight to get to my security gate at boarding, all while at extremely crowded airport.
It often takes 10 minutes just to walk from security to the gate. Security can easily add on an additional hour on a bad day. 10 minutes from the curb to your gate is unheard of, unless you're running the whole way and cutting to the front of lines.
> the HSR train station is further from city than old airport (which has maglev)
It's 40 minutes from Hongqiao railway station to Nanjing Road (East), in downtown Shanghai. It takes the same amount of time from Pudong Airport to Nanjing Road (East), even if you take the maglev (because the maglev only takes you half of the way).
Suffice it to say that I've traveled enough in China and in Europe to have an idea of the typical train delays. The situation in Germany is markedly worse. Official on-time performance for long-distance trains in Germany is about 60%,[2] and I think that there's a bit of creative accounting going on to even reach that number.
0. https://youtu.be/RIhseWP2LQQ?t=594
1. https://youtu.be/mo5CSafdwNA?t=172
2. Click on "DB Fernferkehr" here: https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen...
> If we had that in certain locations in the U.S., it would be absolutely amazing. You just show up a half hour before your train (gotta get there earlier in certain huge stations) and basically walk on.
Security theatre in the US means you don’t just walk on the train. You sit in a waiting room with no ambition for capacity and get escorted to the platform by friendly security guards. Quite an experience if you’re not from the US and used to the way trains normally run in the rest of the world.
Security theatre in the US means you don’t just walk on the train. You sit in a waiting room with no ambition for capacity and get escorted to the platform by friendly security guards. Quite an experience if you’re not from the US and used to the way trains normally run in the rest of the world.
Where did you experience that? At least last month Amtrak from NYC didn't require anything like that, nor does the new station have any sort of waiting area to even facilitate that. I've seen something similar in Madrid, where you have to have your bags xrayed and enter into a sterile area but never in the US.
West Coast - Seattle to Portland.
Amtrak is you just walk on, unless they've changed it since last year. One time the conductor even let me bring a bicycle on against the rules.
> What is going on in the U.S. that we can't do this stuff?
Strong property rights, NIMBY local democracy with the good and bad that implies, free speech whereby this is all discussed by everyone with an opinion about it whether or not it's uninformed, that kind of thing.
Personally, I'd rather have the US style even though it's inefficient when it comes to HSR.
Strong property rights, NIMBY local democracy with the good and bad that implies, free speech whereby this is all discussed by everyone with an opinion about it whether or not it's uninformed, that kind of thing.
Personally, I'd rather have the US style even though it's inefficient when it comes to HSR.
20 years is a long time and basically means it will never happen by that fact alone.
The Green Line extension for Boston's MBTA has taken 16 years and still isn't done and has cost several billion dollars. It was discussed even longer than that. New York's subway systems experience the same delays and costs. It's embarrassing.
Free speech, land/property rights, etc. are important, but they are just excuses, as they don't seem to be the things actually slowing down these projects.
The Green Line extension for Boston's MBTA has taken 16 years and still isn't done and has cost several billion dollars. It was discussed even longer than that. New York's subway systems experience the same delays and costs. It's embarrassing.
Free speech, land/property rights, etc. are important, but they are just excuses, as they don't seem to be the things actually slowing down these projects.
> Free speech, land/property rights, etc. are important, but they are just excuses, as they don't seem to be the things actually slowing down these projects.
Why do you say that? What is slowing them down?
Why do you say that? What is slowing them down?
Utterly broken politics at all levels, plus a ton of corruption.
Could you dive in a bit? What is "broken"? How does the corruption manifest?
I don't have a link handy but there's been a bunch of articles discussing how corrupt, for instance, the construction industry in NYC is and why this results in construction costs (like for subways) that are many times higher than anyplace else in the world.
I don't think I really need to go into detail about how broken US politics are. January 6, 2021 is proof of this.
I don't think I really need to go into detail about how broken US politics are. January 6, 2021 is proof of this.
But why do this over just flying. You can show up 30-45 mins before any domestic flight and leave as soon as you land on the other end.
I would say very rarely would showing up 30-45 minutes before a domestic flight work. Maybe in some airports with pre-check and if you start the clock once you walk into the terminal, but that's just not a realistic time frame.
Further, the level comfort of the high-speed rail I rode on in China is not even remotely approached by any plane I have ever been on, and it was several times cheaper. There's also no difference between bringing a big suitcase or a small one versus checking or carrying on bags for a plane.
In many cities, the airport is in a terrible location. Boston, Denver, NYC, and many others have poor locations. Train stations, such as those in Boston and NYC, dump you right into the thick of the city. A high-speed rail train would be as fast as a plane's gate to gate time but basically platform to platform. A train is going to be much more efficient on emissions as well.
It's a little confusing why anyone would prefer a plane ride over high-speed rail for regional travel.
Further, the level comfort of the high-speed rail I rode on in China is not even remotely approached by any plane I have ever been on, and it was several times cheaper. There's also no difference between bringing a big suitcase or a small one versus checking or carrying on bags for a plane.
In many cities, the airport is in a terrible location. Boston, Denver, NYC, and many others have poor locations. Train stations, such as those in Boston and NYC, dump you right into the thick of the city. A high-speed rail train would be as fast as a plane's gate to gate time but basically platform to platform. A train is going to be much more efficient on emissions as well.
It's a little confusing why anyone would prefer a plane ride over high-speed rail for regional travel.
*Usually
In practice we've seen hours long security/departure queues, having to wait for the luggage after landing, joining the wait for the expensive taxi/bus transfer from the airport, and many other issues which don't exist for train travel.
Then there's "yes you can show up 30min before, if you booked the plane ticket a week ago".
Having done both a lot, I'll take the train any time.
In practice we've seen hours long security/departure queues, having to wait for the luggage after landing, joining the wait for the expensive taxi/bus transfer from the airport, and many other issues which don't exist for train travel.
Then there's "yes you can show up 30min before, if you booked the plane ticket a week ago".
Having done both a lot, I'll take the train any time.
30 minutes is a very long wait for a train and very short one for a flight.
Plus most train terminals are in the center of the city and quicker to get to.
Plus most train terminals are in the center of the city and quicker to get to.
Waiting 30 minutes after dropping off bags, checking in and going through security and walking miles to your gate is the absolute best case scenario in a metropolitan city-sized airport. It is really not comparable to getting to the train station 15-20 minutes before departure, making sure the platform is still the same, and getting a sandwich.
> You can show up 30-45 mins before any domestic flight
Where? I was flying in Europe and was asked to be on airport 150 minutes before departure.
Where? I was flying in Europe and was asked to be on airport 150 minutes before departure.
They ask you to be there early just to be sure, but you don't have to, it's at your own risks.
I've done 30 mins at smaller European airports no problems. Online check-in, only carry-on luggage, 10 minutes for security and you board among the lasts with minutes to spare. Of course you don't have a lot of margins if anything goes wrong, but at airports you know it's definitely doable.
The risk is high, and if it goes wrong you have huge problems.
> but you don't have to, it's at your own risks
That isn't a scalable or viable solution. The recommendations exist for capacity and planning reasons.
By the same logical extension you can simply show up at a train station 5 minutes before the train, the results of taking a chance are on you.
That isn't a scalable or viable solution. The recommendations exist for capacity and planning reasons.
By the same logical extension you can simply show up at a train station 5 minutes before the train, the results of taking a chance are on you.
Miss one flight and you won’t bet on this again; because unlike trains you’ll be waiting 6-12 hours (or longer) for a re-booked flight.
In Spain train stations are centrally located while it adds additional time (in a train usually) to get to the airport in the suburbs. One can arrive at the train a few minutes before departure rather as security is nothing more than a quick scan.
Might have heard the news, by chance, in the last 20 years even? There’s a climate crisis out there that warrants changes?
Trains can be more frequent and carry a lot more passengers
The article seems to be completely littered with factual errors.
1. The author says that HSR projects are about a third below passenger projections everywhere. Everyone who has taken the TGV between Bordeaux and Paris, the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt and many of the other lines in Europe knows that it is trivially not true. The Bordeaux Paris train is often sold out several times a day.
2. The author says the SFO to LA line comes at $350m/mile which he gives as indication for HSR construction. I don't know about the accuracy for the SFO to LA line, but it's completely off for general HSR. Even the highest estimate here for a double track HSR line is $2.6m/mile here: https://compassinternational.net/railroad-engineering-constr...
3. The author says that 100,000 passengers daily is the SFO to LAX traffic today. If I look at stats for SFO it has around 3M passengers per month, I assume not all are flying to/from LA so the number can't be right.
4. The whole discussion about interruptions is also weird. Yes if a rail line gets interrupted you probably can't easily route around it. But it's incorrect to say you can always do that in a car, as everyone stuck in a traffic jam can attest to. Also I would like to see some statistics on rail/track interruptions vs road interruptions.
5. The subsidies discussion also seems weird. He acknowledges that roads and airtravel receive subsidies as well, but then dismisses them because road operation cost are covered by the driver. Sure but maintanance is covered by the state again. Most rail companies would be very profitable if they would not have to pay for the network (admittedly they often don't want to let go of that control, because it allows them to keep competition put)
I don't think I can take any argument so littered with factual errors seriously.
1. The author says that HSR projects are about a third below passenger projections everywhere. Everyone who has taken the TGV between Bordeaux and Paris, the ICE between Cologne and Frankfurt and many of the other lines in Europe knows that it is trivially not true. The Bordeaux Paris train is often sold out several times a day.
2. The author says the SFO to LA line comes at $350m/mile which he gives as indication for HSR construction. I don't know about the accuracy for the SFO to LA line, but it's completely off for general HSR. Even the highest estimate here for a double track HSR line is $2.6m/mile here: https://compassinternational.net/railroad-engineering-constr...
3. The author says that 100,000 passengers daily is the SFO to LAX traffic today. If I look at stats for SFO it has around 3M passengers per month, I assume not all are flying to/from LA so the number can't be right.
4. The whole discussion about interruptions is also weird. Yes if a rail line gets interrupted you probably can't easily route around it. But it's incorrect to say you can always do that in a car, as everyone stuck in a traffic jam can attest to. Also I would like to see some statistics on rail/track interruptions vs road interruptions.
5. The subsidies discussion also seems weird. He acknowledges that roads and airtravel receive subsidies as well, but then dismisses them because road operation cost are covered by the driver. Sure but maintanance is covered by the state again. Most rail companies would be very profitable if they would not have to pay for the network (admittedly they often don't want to let go of that control, because it allows them to keep competition put)
I don't think I can take any argument so littered with factual errors seriously.
Add: This quote seems to false. Even in Tokaido Shinkansen (extremely utilized), it is said that rails are replaced about every 10yr. In Tohoku Shinkansen, officially said that it replaced about every 35 yr.
> A typical Japanese maintenance schedule has each segment of rail reground, to exacting tolerances, every 6 months while total replacement is required every 5 years.
> A typical Japanese maintenance schedule has each segment of rail reground, to exacting tolerances, every 6 months while total replacement is required every 5 years.
> Despite decades of development, only a handful of routes in Europe operate at anything like airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes, require > 300 km/h or > 185 mph.
Not really, given massive fixed cost at airplane terminal and airports being typically harder to get to than train station.
When I was flying this summer, I was asked to come to airport 150 minutes before planned departure.
200 km/h train would still be faster for distances of about 700 km.
And even for longer routes benefits of comfort, larger possible baggage, lower stress and so on would make it a clear winner.
Not really, given massive fixed cost at airplane terminal and airports being typically harder to get to than train station.
When I was flying this summer, I was asked to come to airport 150 minutes before planned departure.
200 km/h train would still be faster for distances of about 700 km.
And even for longer routes benefits of comfort, larger possible baggage, lower stress and so on would make it a clear winner.
At least where I live, the 150 minutes before time is a side effect of Covid. A lot of airport staff were let go and restaffing with security clearances takes a while.
This summer was exceptional, it will go back to normal like 60 minutes for domestic travel and maybe 90 minutes for international travel.
Break even, time wise, here is around 500 km and then train is the better choice. But there are a lot of destinations that can only be served realistically by airplanes and that is not likely to change much during my life time.
This summer was exceptional, it will go back to normal like 60 minutes for domestic travel and maybe 90 minutes for international travel.
Break even, time wise, here is around 500 km and then train is the better choice. But there are a lot of destinations that can only be served realistically by airplanes and that is not likely to change much during my life time.
Yeah definitely. I'd rather take a train even if it was quite significantly slower. The real downside of train travel is the phenomenal cost.
I’ve never been asked to show up early for any domestic flight in the USA, let alone 2.5 hours early. I wonder why that is the case in the airports you’re using.
The author speaks with an authoritative voice and presents the content as facts. Sadly, the article also contains factual errors. For example:
> This capacity could also be served by a fleet of just 40 737s [...], of which Boeing makes more than 500 per year. Bought new, this fleet would cost $3.6b, and with a lead time of, at most, a few months.
Boeing has a backlog of 4000 planes.[1] Current delivery lead times are 5-10 years, so getting 40 planes within months is ludicrous. Aircraft might be available on shorter timelines from aircraft lenders, but probably not in that timeframe either. It's also not what the article argues.
This puts a question mark over the content: which parts are actually correct and which are merely presented as fact without any checking?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...
> This capacity could also be served by a fleet of just 40 737s [...], of which Boeing makes more than 500 per year. Bought new, this fleet would cost $3.6b, and with a lead time of, at most, a few months.
Boeing has a backlog of 4000 planes.[1] Current delivery lead times are 5-10 years, so getting 40 planes within months is ludicrous. Aircraft might be available on shorter timelines from aircraft lenders, but probably not in that timeframe either. It's also not what the article argues.
This puts a question mark over the content: which parts are actually correct and which are merely presented as fact without any checking?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_...
A lot of small things seem 'off' to me in this piece. After having gone through it, it should really say "in the US" because many parts of it around reasoning and attitudes come off as nonsense for someone living in the 'rest of the world'. It even feels like a "this is why things should stay as they are".
> airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes, require > 300 km/h or > 185 mph.
This number feels arbitrary, where did this come from, is it because very very few exist? Looking at the map, > 200 would do just as well and still lend itself to the author's point - some exist but not a huge amount. Even taking that point, high enough speed rail is good enough for inter-city travel, it isn't meant to be an aircraft replacement, it is an alternative form of travel. You wouldn't say that people shouldn't drive between cities, because airplanes are faster. It is an alternative form of travel which allows for mass transit, and in using it, you adjust expectations.
> Comfort and convenience are other important factors, but there aircraft are also quite competitive.
I doubt that, it's possible the author flies exclusively in business/first class, which is giving them a skewed perception. Aircraft are uncomfortable compared to trains.
> Contrast this with aircraft. There are 15,000 airports in the US. Any but the largest aircraft can fly to any of these airports. If I build another airport, I have added 15,000 potential connections to the network. If I build another rail terminal and branch line, at significantly greater cost than an airstrip, I have added only one additional connection to the network.
This is completely wrong. Building an airport doesn't automatically come with the ability to accept any aircraft. There are a lot of restrictions and regulations around what you can and cannot do with an airport and its associated routes. An "untowered paved strip" has a specific kind of usage which does not include commercial routes, which is what the premise of the post is, so this is a disingenuous, unfair, and misleading comparison.
> airplane-competitive speeds, which for all but the shortest routes, require > 300 km/h or > 185 mph.
This number feels arbitrary, where did this come from, is it because very very few exist? Looking at the map, > 200 would do just as well and still lend itself to the author's point - some exist but not a huge amount. Even taking that point, high enough speed rail is good enough for inter-city travel, it isn't meant to be an aircraft replacement, it is an alternative form of travel. You wouldn't say that people shouldn't drive between cities, because airplanes are faster. It is an alternative form of travel which allows for mass transit, and in using it, you adjust expectations.
> Comfort and convenience are other important factors, but there aircraft are also quite competitive.
I doubt that, it's possible the author flies exclusively in business/first class, which is giving them a skewed perception. Aircraft are uncomfortable compared to trains.
> Contrast this with aircraft. There are 15,000 airports in the US. Any but the largest aircraft can fly to any of these airports. If I build another airport, I have added 15,000 potential connections to the network. If I build another rail terminal and branch line, at significantly greater cost than an airstrip, I have added only one additional connection to the network.
This is completely wrong. Building an airport doesn't automatically come with the ability to accept any aircraft. There are a lot of restrictions and regulations around what you can and cannot do with an airport and its associated routes. An "untowered paved strip" has a specific kind of usage which does not include commercial routes, which is what the premise of the post is, so this is a disingenuous, unfair, and misleading comparison.
>I also worked on track-based transport as a levitation engineer at Hyperloop between 2015 and 2018,
That's a big red flag as anyone with half a brain knew it was bullshit.
That's a big red flag as anyone with half a brain knew it was bullshit.
Maybe the emphasis on high speed in not necessary. People already seem to love sitting around in all kinds of environments.. bars, watching netflix, or programming for a lot of people here. What if instead of figuring out what kind of rails would be needed to move a train at the speed of flight, we figured out what kind of rails were needed to economically move the equivalent of a first class lounge from Los Angeles to San Francisco in like seven or eight hours... or maybe it's an eco cruise ship, or a new bus design. Either way, for a lot of people who board just before 10AM on a Sunday, and watch two NFL games, the net travel time from Los Angeles to San Francisco could be close to 0.. and you can't beat that.
It should also leave every 20 mins with no late penalty (lots of spare capacity) so that you don't have to get there early just in case. That "buffer" standing around is also a waste of time. We invent a way to get there super fast and then we have to optimise it to the point where we have to get there an hour early to make it work reliably.. because a traffic jam or security delay can destroy everything.
Good idea.
But also, why not invest in virtual presence so we don't need to travel so much? Except if we want to.
But also, why not invest in virtual presence so we don't need to travel so much? Except if we want to.
Good point. The same kinds of technologies that allow us to make use of the travel time allow us to not travel at all.. two prong strategy
Negativity aside, the article makes fair arguments against setting expectations for rail speed too high. The thing is, trains do not have to be faster than 300kph/185mph to compete with planes.
Modern trains are infinitely more comfortable than modern planes, so they do not need to match planes in travel times. A modern train features silent travel, ample leg room, unpressurized air and no seat belts. Reliability is key and that does require infrastructure investment.
Rail infrastructure will always require subsidies but the costs do not have to be astronomical. Meanwhile, the cost of air traffic emissions are carried by society, which can't go on much longer.
Modern trains are infinitely more comfortable than modern planes, so they do not need to match planes in travel times. A modern train features silent travel, ample leg room, unpressurized air and no seat belts. Reliability is key and that does require infrastructure investment.
Rail infrastructure will always require subsidies but the costs do not have to be astronomical. Meanwhile, the cost of air traffic emissions are carried by society, which can't go on much longer.
As someone mentions in one of the article's comments, the solution is to "drop down the speed a bit". I.e. HSR will never be able to compete with airplanes if you take both cost and time into the equation, but lower-speed rail can definitely compete against privately-own cars, which would be a bigger win imo.
To take the example of Europe, it's much more important to connect a location, by rail, with as many other locations in a radius of 200-300 km, and, even more importantly, to connect those other locations between themselves, than to connect that location by HSR with another one placed at ~1000 km. So, much more important to connect Paris with Caen, Nantes, Rennes, Brest, Reims, Rouen, Troyes, Tours, Orleans, and, more importantly, to connect Nantes with Caen, or Troyes with Tours, or Reims with Rouen, than is to spend the money in order to build a HSR between Paris and Berlin.
More to the point, I'd rather we spend the money to have the French rail network of 1914, which was slower, but which was covering a lot more places, than the French rail network of 2014, which is way faster, but which is covering fewer places. See this reddit thread for the relevant rail maps [1]
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/202ym3/evolution_o...
To take the example of Europe, it's much more important to connect a location, by rail, with as many other locations in a radius of 200-300 km, and, even more importantly, to connect those other locations between themselves, than to connect that location by HSR with another one placed at ~1000 km. So, much more important to connect Paris with Caen, Nantes, Rennes, Brest, Reims, Rouen, Troyes, Tours, Orleans, and, more importantly, to connect Nantes with Caen, or Troyes with Tours, or Reims with Rouen, than is to spend the money in order to build a HSR between Paris and Berlin.
More to the point, I'd rather we spend the money to have the French rail network of 1914, which was slower, but which was covering a lot more places, than the French rail network of 2014, which is way faster, but which is covering fewer places. See this reddit thread for the relevant rail maps [1]
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/202ym3/evolution_o...
The main high cost of high speed rails is that they need to be VERY planar, a thing hard to create and harder to maintain. It's easy create a short-length perfectly aligned planar metallic stuff BUT it's far harder for very big sizes and rails need to be veeery long, so change veeery little over length.
As a result there are many issues in both mere orographic terms and in maintenance terms.
Rails are good for applications like non perishable goods transport, they can sustain heavy loads, move them with less energy than others ground means, they are easy to automate, so ideal for mid and long range on-ground logistic.
For transporting people the air, yes, I'm definitively serious, is the best and cheapest solution:
- it's fast, at least it can be fast, while supporting a wide range of speeds and ranges
- it's flexible, behind VTOLs/STOLs we just need "terminal" infra, the path between them is free
- in whole infra terms it demand far less infra to build and maintain than roads and rails
You might argue that actually the cheapest STOL is far more expensive than a car, but in resource terms it's not. In fuel terms consume more than an equivalent (load capacity) car, for safety demand more entertainment to be sure nothing fails, but just in raw material terms is a damn cheap car, very little steel, less aluminum, a bit of copper, glass, eventually wood and plastic. On scale planes can be on par with cars in final product costs and while we need more energy we do not need complex road infrastructure hard to maintain and evolve. Not really flexible.
We do not develop such mean in most of the world just because we need roads anyway to move heavy loads, we already have much of them since centuries etc, but while most disagree it's the future. Some know and know most disagree https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... but as any real tech evolution it will happen, it's just a matter of time.
As a result there are many issues in both mere orographic terms and in maintenance terms.
Rails are good for applications like non perishable goods transport, they can sustain heavy loads, move them with less energy than others ground means, they are easy to automate, so ideal for mid and long range on-ground logistic.
For transporting people the air, yes, I'm definitively serious, is the best and cheapest solution:
- it's fast, at least it can be fast, while supporting a wide range of speeds and ranges
- it's flexible, behind VTOLs/STOLs we just need "terminal" infra, the path between them is free
- in whole infra terms it demand far less infra to build and maintain than roads and rails
You might argue that actually the cheapest STOL is far more expensive than a car, but in resource terms it's not. In fuel terms consume more than an equivalent (load capacity) car, for safety demand more entertainment to be sure nothing fails, but just in raw material terms is a damn cheap car, very little steel, less aluminum, a bit of copper, glass, eventually wood and plastic. On scale planes can be on par with cars in final product costs and while we need more energy we do not need complex road infrastructure hard to maintain and evolve. Not really flexible.
We do not develop such mean in most of the world just because we need roads anyway to move heavy loads, we already have much of them since centuries etc, but while most disagree it's the future. Some know and know most disagree https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... but as any real tech evolution it will happen, it's just a matter of time.
The author defines high speed as above some little satisfied threshold.
I'm Spain quite fast rail has replaced planes as the preferred means of travel. Spain, señite being quite "bumpy", does have the advantage that a hub structure is natural.
I'm Spain quite fast rail has replaced planes as the preferred means of travel. Spain, señite being quite "bumpy", does have the advantage that a hub structure is natural.
This summer I took my first sleeper train, and it opened my eyes. Instead of treating the journey as wasted time, something to optimize away, it makes a lot of sense to me to make the most of it. The need for rushing dissappears and the experience becomes much more enjoyable.
Not long after my sleeper train holiday I had to travel from Schiphol Airport for work, where I was expected to be 4 hours before take off. Those 4 hours could have been spent working in a train in a quiet zone, or looking at the scenery pass by.
Next time I will try to take a train instead of an airplane.
Not long after my sleeper train holiday I had to travel from Schiphol Airport for work, where I was expected to be 4 hours before take off. Those 4 hours could have been spent working in a train in a quiet zone, or looking at the scenery pass by.
Next time I will try to take a train instead of an airplane.
> Indeed, as far as I know there isn’t a single HSR route anywhere on Earth that operates profitably on ticketing revenue
The key part.
The key part.
What about automobile roads and highways?
If there's any, on a mile-per-mile basis, it's probably <0.001%.
The actual problem is that we have imposed a profitability imperative on some services and not others.
If there's any, on a mile-per-mile basis, it's probably <0.001%.
The actual problem is that we have imposed a profitability imperative on some services and not others.
Everywhere except the US cars pay far more in petrol tax than roads cost.
In Australia, where we have cheap petrol compared to Europe or Japan a little over half of petrol tax goes into roads or public transport.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-21/fuel-excise-not-being...
In Australia, where we have cheap petrol compared to Europe or Japan a little over half of petrol tax goes into roads or public transport.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-21/fuel-excise-not-being...
>Everywhere except the US cars pay far more in petrol tax than roads cost.
US highways subsidize other forms of transportation, too. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33222584>
US highways subsidize other forms of transportation, too. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33222584>
Does this tax pays for land value lost to parking requirements and for city roads? Because i know my petrol tax pays for roads in-between cities, I'm not sure it pays for city roads and for respiratory issues caused by cars.
>What about automobile roads and highways?
>If there's any, on a mile-per-mile basis, it's probably <0.001%.
US highways do pay for themselves <https://web.archive.org/web/20170712175437/www.rita.dot.gov/...>, and help pay for other modes of transportation. Transit receives the biggest subsidy per passenger-mile, with rail and airlines in between.
(For those wishing more detail: From the executive summary <https://web.archive.org/web/20170628114204/http://www.rita.d...>:
>*Highways*
>* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000. <https://web.archive.org/web/20170628114204/http://www.rita.d...> This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997.
>* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government.
>* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)
>If there's any, on a mile-per-mile basis, it's probably <0.001%.
US highways do pay for themselves <https://web.archive.org/web/20170712175437/www.rita.dot.gov/...>, and help pay for other modes of transportation. Transit receives the biggest subsidy per passenger-mile, with rail and airlines in between.
(For those wishing more detail: From the executive summary <https://web.archive.org/web/20170628114204/http://www.rita.d...>:
>*Highways*
>* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000. <https://web.archive.org/web/20170628114204/http://www.rita.d...> This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997.
>* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government.
>* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)
The key part that misses that pretty much no infrastructure like a motorway or muncipal airport generates a profit on ticketing alone. Ignoring the initial construction cost, many HSR lines were profitable (prepandemic), i.e this private italian train operator: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuovo_Trasporto_Viaggiatori
I agree this is a key part. I would argue no transport network exists without massive subsidies. Simply decouple the infrastructure operation from the operation of trains.
The answer is very simple actually. Railroad is a cheap and primitive tech and doesn't support anything high speed. Several advancements are pushing track quality toward faster speed and toward the point of convergence where it will cease to be cheap.
The author defines high speed to mema more than a certain never satisfied threshold ...
I've thought about this and there's I think another reason coming from combinatorics.
Consider a set of n cities.
Being able to go from one city to another by plane only requires n airports. However, to have a complete rail network, one needs n (n-1) / 2 tracks.
Hence the complexity analysis: one solution is linear, the other one is quadratic.
Consider a set of n cities.
Being able to go from one city to another by plane only requires n airports. However, to have a complete rail network, one needs n (n-1) / 2 tracks.
Hence the complexity analysis: one solution is linear, the other one is quadratic.
Take a look at actual rail networks. Noone is building N-1 separate tracks to N-1 cities, network is closer to minimum spanning tree.
In Europe? Because it's slower and more expensive than budget airlines.
> Serving peripheral population centers in California is a nice thing to do
So you want to build a train network that costs hundred(s) of billions but skip adding a couple stations for millions of people the track is passing by? Sounds like a poor idea.
So you want to build a train network that costs hundred(s) of billions but skip adding a couple stations for millions of people the track is passing by? Sounds like a poor idea.
This is a very good article. It's interesting to see why HSR costs so much.
For those TLDR. HSR fails cost/benefit analysis.
The paragraph is very good :
"By CA HSR’s own numbers, the completed system may carry 35 million passengers per year by 2040, or 100,000 per day. This capacity could also be served by a fleet of just 40 737s (less than current LAX-SFO traffic), of which Boeing makes more than 500 per year. Bought new, this fleet would cost $3.6b, and with a lead time of, at most, a few months. Upgrades to Modesto and Bakersfield airport terminals could service the 737 for mere $10s of millions. The fleet would cost about $2.9b to operate each year, which under current airline business models can be served by fares of about $60 each way. If we operate this airline for free (no tickets!) for 40 years, the total operating costs climb to $120b, which is equivalent to CA HSR’s currently wildly unrealistic estimated construction costs."
Rail is great, for freight.
For those TLDR. HSR fails cost/benefit analysis.
The paragraph is very good :
"By CA HSR’s own numbers, the completed system may carry 35 million passengers per year by 2040, or 100,000 per day. This capacity could also be served by a fleet of just 40 737s (less than current LAX-SFO traffic), of which Boeing makes more than 500 per year. Bought new, this fleet would cost $3.6b, and with a lead time of, at most, a few months. Upgrades to Modesto and Bakersfield airport terminals could service the 737 for mere $10s of millions. The fleet would cost about $2.9b to operate each year, which under current airline business models can be served by fares of about $60 each way. If we operate this airline for free (no tickets!) for 40 years, the total operating costs climb to $120b, which is equivalent to CA HSR’s currently wildly unrealistic estimated construction costs."
Rail is great, for freight.
>HSR fails cost/benefit analysis
It only fails the cost/profit analysis. The benefits are priceless when we consider the environmental impact.
It only fails the cost/profit analysis. The benefits are priceless when we consider the environmental impact.
>priceless
not really
environmental impact has limited costs, and investing to reduce environmental damage makes sense when benefits are sufficiently large for given cost
not really
environmental impact has limited costs, and investing to reduce environmental damage makes sense when benefits are sufficiently large for given cost
Yep, it's easy to calculate the cost analysis of a train. But the numbers of its benefits aren't defined or understood since environmental impact of what they replace (car creation costs, car maintainence,road build and maintainence, fuel extraction and use). What's the economic (and environmental) cost of cars where these costs aren't priced in to the value proposition?
Even ignoring the environmental impact, good train network is a benefit to a country. Too many people get stuck with the "train lines most be private and profitable" line of thinking.
That too!
CA HSR is indictment of California, not of high-speed rail.
CA HSR is uniquely badly mismanagement and operating in runaway NIMBY land.
CA HSR is uniquely badly mismanagement and operating in runaway NIMBY land.
I don’t understand the point of high speed rail. You can just show up for a domestic flight 30 mins before and you get to your destination 4x faster. The only good thing about trains are the views.
Milan to Rome by rail is 30 minutes from home to a seat on the train (by underground, one train every 3 minutes,) 3 hours to the center of Rome.
By plane is 30 minutes to the closest airport or 90 minutes to the two further away (by train or bus, about one every 20/30 minutes.) Boarding time, probably at least one hour (factor in the connection time with the train or bus). Taxi to take off, one hour flight, taxi to terminal, leaving the plane.
At this point we're spent about the same time. We still have to possibly collect luggage and go from the airport to the city. The high speed train is a no brainer.
Naples is one hour of train further away. The choice between train or plane starts to be more nuanced. I went by train last time because I just sit down once and I don't have to move me and my luggage anymore.
Milan to Paris? Fly.
By plane is 30 minutes to the closest airport or 90 minutes to the two further away (by train or bus, about one every 20/30 minutes.) Boarding time, probably at least one hour (factor in the connection time with the train or bus). Taxi to take off, one hour flight, taxi to terminal, leaving the plane.
At this point we're spent about the same time. We still have to possibly collect luggage and go from the airport to the city. The high speed train is a no brainer.
Naples is one hour of train further away. The choice between train or plane starts to be more nuanced. I went by train last time because I just sit down once and I don't have to move me and my luggage anymore.
Milan to Paris? Fly.
Milan to Paris? Ride. 5 comfortable direct trains per day with tickets starting at 29€! https://www.seat61.com/international-trains/trains-from-Mila...
7 hours? It's borderline but I forgot that they improved that connection recently.
I was flying this summer in Europe and was asked to come to airport 150 minutes before departure.
> The only good thing about trains are the views.
And allowed baggage, and far more space...
> The only good thing about trains are the views.
And allowed baggage, and far more space...
> The only good thing about trains are the views.
I think train-operators should build more trains with transparent walls cars and lounge-space. It's more fun to travel when you don't have to sit in the same place for many hours. But not sure how much it would add to the cost.
I think train-operators should build more trains with transparent walls cars and lounge-space. It's more fun to travel when you don't have to sit in the same place for many hours. But not sure how much it would add to the cost.
[deleted]
flying is miserable unless you are first class
The term "High speed rail" isn't strictly defined, but seems to kick in somewhere between 110 and 155 mph. Pretty much every intercity train in the UK is running at 125mph for at least some of their journey. Europe is full of functioning high speed rail networks - TGV, ICE, Eurostar, networks in Spain and Italy. If you include 125 mph networks then there's loads of them - and those older, slower high speed networks have more or less been profitable.
Even the US has a high speed rail corridor in the North East.
The author tries to make the argument that there's physical limits to high speed rail that mean it'll never catch on. But the limits are far more political than physical.
If you live in the UK or Europe, rail is the go to method of travel between cities.
Edit to add: the distance between LA and San Francisco is 382 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as between either London and Edinburgh and London and Glasgow. There's something like 22 trains a day on each route - more or less every half hour during the day. The time from city centre to city centre is better by train than plane or driving. That's not even a proper "high speed" train - the routes they follow were laid out in the 1800s.