San Francisco-to-L.A. overnight train inches closer to reality(ktla.com)
ktla.com
San Francisco-to-L.A. overnight train inches closer to reality
https://ktla.com/news/california/san-francisco-to-l-a-overnight-train-inches-closer-to-reality/
143 comments
CityNerd identifies 56 train segments that should be built, using data and reasonable, precedented criteria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
His video description: "Nothing that exists in North America fits the definition of true high-speed rail. If we actually ever started building a network, where would we start? And how would we know when we were done? This video details a methodology for answering all those questions, then counts up 56 city pairs we really should've had high-speed rail service between long, long ago."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
His video description: "Nothing that exists in North America fits the definition of true high-speed rail. If we actually ever started building a network, where would we start? And how would we know when we were done? This video details a methodology for answering all those questions, then counts up 56 city pairs we really should've had high-speed rail service between long, long ago."
> using data and reasonable, precedented criteria
That analysis makes several idealistic assumptions, e.g. frictionless international borders. It’s a good starting point, but his other videos analysing specific corridors seem more grounded.
That analysis makes several idealistic assumptions, e.g. frictionless international borders. It’s a good starting point, but his other videos analysing specific corridors seem more grounded.
I’ve gone on a train between Seattle and Vancouver and back before and it’s relatively easy, you pretty much do all your immigration in Canada and you can just walk off the train in the US
> The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space.
China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure.
There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.
China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure.
There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.
> There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing
Well what's stopping us is:
1. prioritization of private property ownership over every other possible measure of societal health, people can drag out these projects fighting over the land in court for decades
2. government cronyism isn't even organized enough to stomp out the issues with #1 using eminent domain, because all the small fractious governments of states and local municipalities are working against each other to each win the cronyism battle. at least in more centralized governments, the cronysim is organized enough to get the project done while skimming 75% of the money off the top.
Well what's stopping us is:
1. prioritization of private property ownership over every other possible measure of societal health, people can drag out these projects fighting over the land in court for decades
2. government cronyism isn't even organized enough to stomp out the issues with #1 using eminent domain, because all the small fractious governments of states and local municipalities are working against each other to each win the cronyism battle. at least in more centralized governments, the cronysim is organized enough to get the project done while skimming 75% of the money off the top.
[deleted]
> China has the same problem
China has almost four times the population density of America’s (146 per square kilometre to 37).
China has almost four times the population density of America’s (146 per square kilometre to 37).
It gets even better when 94% of China's population lives in 43% of the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line
The USA is a bit better, 25% live in the western half (mostly on the west coast though).
The USA is a bit better, 25% live in the western half (mostly on the west coast though).
This is a pretty simple consequence of the facts that it has four times the population and is exactly the same size.
> China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure.
If you look at China's HSR map, they have exactly one line that goes into the western half of the country (from Lanzhou to Urumuqi). It only takes 9 hours, only a few stops in between.
If you look at China's HSR map, they have exactly one line that goes into the western half of the country (from Lanzhou to Urumuqi). It only takes 9 hours, only a few stops in between.
Large amount of US popular is clustered around key areas (East Coast corridor, West Coast Corridor, Midwestern cities etc.
No reason these couldn't be linked up and are more populous than many equivalent regions with HSR. It's like power grids, noone is arguing that one big one from SF to NY is the right solution.
No reason these couldn't be linked up and are more populous than many equivalent regions with HSR. It's like power grids, noone is arguing that one big one from SF to NY is the right solution.
China is even more densely packed behind the Heihe–Tengchong Line. Oh, don't misunderstand, China has it even harder than we do, if you look at eastern China...where people live, a lot of it is not flat and they are tunneling through lots of mountains to make these HSR lines work. Actually, that might make it easier for them, since their population is much more focused (no room for huge suburbs), and their only real challenge is building tunnels and viaducts.
I genuinely wonder whether such a thing is possible without a single centralized political party and severely limited avenues to disagree with the plan.
Other than economics, I think. The state railway in China is like $1tn in debt and it's reported that some routes are hardly used.
> There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.
However achieving property rights for the land needed for the project is a much bigger issue in the US than in China, where I doubt they receive much dissidence from people affected due to their infrastructure improvements.
However achieving property rights for the land needed for the project is a much bigger issue in the US than in China, where I doubt they receive much dissidence from people affected due to their infrastructure improvements.
> That said, having successful train systems in the US is hard. The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space.
The problem is that it’s not, at least from the standpoint of property rights covering that land. For example, the path from San Francisco to LA is relatively densely populated. And on top of that, the US has an intractable legal system for building infrastructure.
The problem is that it’s not, at least from the standpoint of property rights covering that land. For example, the path from San Francisco to LA is relatively densely populated. And on top of that, the US has an intractable legal system for building infrastructure.
> the cost of the tickets plus the additional travel time will not be worth it to most who are making this trip
If they get the beds and service right, it would be because it’s convenient and comfortable. Like, have a Michelin-class meal, good wine, reliable service that knows the regulars and comfortable beds and good shock absorbers and you’re trumping planes as the first-class option.
It doesn’t have to beat flying in all cases to be successful. Price always seemed like a weird niche for passenger rail to aim for—planes don’t have to maintain track!
If they get the beds and service right, it would be because it’s convenient and comfortable. Like, have a Michelin-class meal, good wine, reliable service that knows the regulars and comfortable beds and good shock absorbers and you’re trumping planes as the first-class option.
It doesn’t have to beat flying in all cases to be successful. Price always seemed like a weird niche for passenger rail to aim for—planes don’t have to maintain track!
> planes don’t have to maintain track!
Well, they have to maintain airports, but there's a lot of federal funding that goes into that too. It's always interesting to see where the costs of infrastructure are borne. Rail seems to be one of the few where the carriers (and consumers) are almost entirely directly responsible for the infrastructure. (Admittedly, citation needed.)
Well, they have to maintain airports, but there's a lot of federal funding that goes into that too. It's always interesting to see where the costs of infrastructure are borne. Rail seems to be one of the few where the carriers (and consumers) are almost entirely directly responsible for the infrastructure. (Admittedly, citation needed.)
They also have to maintain air traffic control, parts of the national weather service, parts of the NTSB, the FAA… lots of externalities in the aviation world. (Even before you start thinking about the fact the people who make airliners are the same people who build out Air Force.
It might be difficult to steal First Class flyers, their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them. The train company might have to join that alliance and offer those rewards too, but would likely be opposed by the airlines it competes with.
> their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them
The rewards on a Bay Area-Los Angeles flight are de minimis if you’re a frequent flier. I am one, and I was planning on taking the Coastal Starlight up next month until I learned—in this thread—that it’s kaput for the time being.
The rewards on a Bay Area-Los Angeles flight are de minimis if you’re a frequent flier. I am one, and I was planning on taking the Coastal Starlight up next month until I learned—in this thread—that it’s kaput for the time being.
In the article it states that they will use already existing tracks that are owned by Union Pacific, so there won't need to be any new infrastructure.
I've honestly given up on the USA building this sort of infrastructure, accepting that I'll have to move to a country that doesn't get bogged down in the USA being some unique place that can't do the things so many other countries have already done.
I feel like even if we were to do it, folks would sabotage it for politics here. It's tiring.
I feel like even if we were to do it, folks would sabotage it for politics here. It's tiring.
Except the Amtrak is both expensive and slow.
I use Amtrak on the west coast all the time and for my uses it is cheaper than driving while being roughly the same amount of time. I go between the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle frequently and Amtrak is my first choice when planning my travel.
If you could leave SF in the evening and have a comfortable bed to have a solid night sleep and arrive in LA in the morning, it would totally be worth more than a flight.
As someone who did a lot of SF / LA travel for sales and marketing events the only way to get there early and be fresh for the presentations was to leave the night before on a flight ($100), stay at the airport hotel ($100-200) and then uber to the meeting / conference in the morning (always far away from LAX $50).
So $350 is not crazy if you have high quality accommodations and I'm sure it could be much cheaper making this a very compelling option for both business and leisure travel even if it's slow!
As someone who did a lot of SF / LA travel for sales and marketing events the only way to get there early and be fresh for the presentations was to leave the night before on a flight ($100), stay at the airport hotel ($100-200) and then uber to the meeting / conference in the morning (always far away from LAX $50).
So $350 is not crazy if you have high quality accommodations and I'm sure it could be much cheaper making this a very compelling option for both business and leisure travel even if it's slow!
The tracks discussed in the article are BNSF. Amtrak already runs the Coast Starlight on that track and for much of it they can't even run the legal max 79mph due to poor track conditions. The delays cause them to miss their time slot and get further delayed by freight trains coming out of LA.
BNSF has zero interest in upgrading the track to handle higher speeds. That would not help operating ratio even if it let them move more freight and charge higher rents. For US railroads operating ratio is God.
The funny part is high-speed passenger service is usually very profitable. The trips are so short you don't need to turnover or time out crews. A lot of routes you don't even need to put them up in a hotel, they go out and come back. That keeps labor costs very low.
For the curious I once ran the numbers on China high-speed rail vs California's HSR project in terms of miles of HS track. A rough estimate was about 3x the cost to do the project here in the US. Given wages and most importantly property values in California that actually isn't out of line. China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density. Because they cover large distances on some routes they pay (all else equal) more than others do. China has simply invested more in their rail infrastructure because they see it as a priority.
FWIW The USA used to do those kinds of investments. It was government-backstops of investments that allowed the Transcontinental Railroad project to happen in the first place. Plus railroad land grants (free land if you build a railroad).
BNSF has zero interest in upgrading the track to handle higher speeds. That would not help operating ratio even if it let them move more freight and charge higher rents. For US railroads operating ratio is God.
The funny part is high-speed passenger service is usually very profitable. The trips are so short you don't need to turnover or time out crews. A lot of routes you don't even need to put them up in a hotel, they go out and come back. That keeps labor costs very low.
For the curious I once ran the numbers on China high-speed rail vs California's HSR project in terms of miles of HS track. A rough estimate was about 3x the cost to do the project here in the US. Given wages and most importantly property values in California that actually isn't out of line. China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density. Because they cover large distances on some routes they pay (all else equal) more than others do. China has simply invested more in their rail infrastructure because they see it as a priority.
FWIW The USA used to do those kinds of investments. It was government-backstops of investments that allowed the Transcontinental Railroad project to happen in the first place. Plus railroad land grants (free land if you build a railroad).
> China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density
They also have much easier procurement. It's easy to build a railway line in China when local municipalities can rezone entire swathes of farm and urban land with minimal legal recourse.
They also have much easier procurement. It's easy to build a railway line in China when local municipalities can rezone entire swathes of farm and urban land with minimal legal recourse.
The general layout and terrain of the line probably make it incredibly difficult to "speed up" regardless of how much money you dump into it. While it does go through some population centers it has to meander through mountains and follow rough/barren coast lines that don't really offer great opportunities for future growth and ridership.
The high speed line through the central valley makes more sense when you consider these limitations. If they're able to speed things up enough then it does become competitive with air travel - but this is definitely a case of "time = money". It's much easier for higher-paid individuals to just take a a short flight for day trips to LA/SF than sit in a train or traffic.
The high speed line through the central valley makes more sense when you consider these limitations. If they're able to speed things up enough then it does become competitive with air travel - but this is definitely a case of "time = money". It's much easier for higher-paid individuals to just take a a short flight for day trips to LA/SF than sit in a train or traffic.
> China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density.
There is only one HSR line that has been built in the western half of China, a line from Lanzhou to Urumuqi. It is pretty devoid of rails of any kind on that side. It was a huge technical achievement when they were able to build just a normal rail to Lhasa.
There is only one HSR line that has been built in the western half of China, a line from Lanzhou to Urumuqi. It is pretty devoid of rails of any kind on that side. It was a huge technical achievement when they were able to build just a normal rail to Lhasa.
I should have been more precise.
There are several regions of the US where HSR could be built with similar density to China which itself has lower density than some other countries yet spent the money to build HSR anyway.
There are several regions of the US where HSR could be built with similar density to China which itself has lower density than some other countries yet spent the money to build HSR anyway.
> The tracks discussed in the article are BNSF.
No. The unique trackage to be used between SFBA and LA is the "Coast Line" which is owned by Union Pacific.
FTA: "Dreamstar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Union Pacific Railroad, [...] that would allow Dreamstar to operate its trains on the tracks owned by Union Pacific."
Ctrl+F "BNSF" finds no matches in the article.
No. The unique trackage to be used between SFBA and LA is the "Coast Line" which is owned by Union Pacific.
FTA: "Dreamstar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Union Pacific Railroad, [...] that would allow Dreamstar to operate its trains on the tracks owned by Union Pacific."
Ctrl+F "BNSF" finds no matches in the article.
Apologies, it turns out we are both correct.
Coast Starlight uses both BNSF and UP track. Nevertheless the point stands: neither has any intention of making the track better for passenger service. Expect frequent delays and long trip times - far longer than driving.
I still hope that CA's HSR project will eventually complete the line and give us actual high-speed service. They seem to be focusing on building the middle segment because they can get it done quicker and easier, which turns the north SF and south LA extensions into a sunk cost problem: "well we already build HSR through the central valley, it makes no sense and is super embarassing not to finish it...". All told that's probably the best strategy.
Coast Starlight uses both BNSF and UP track. Nevertheless the point stands: neither has any intention of making the track better for passenger service. Expect frequent delays and long trip times - far longer than driving.
I still hope that CA's HSR project will eventually complete the line and give us actual high-speed service. They seem to be focusing on building the middle segment because they can get it done quicker and easier, which turns the north SF and south LA extensions into a sunk cost problem: "well we already build HSR through the central valley, it makes no sense and is super embarassing not to finish it...". All told that's probably the best strategy.
Whats the price point? Trains have always had similar prices to flying. Nice thing about flying to SF is that i can fly in the morning and fly back out in the evening.
> Trains have always had similar prices to flying.
They shouldn't though, it's absurd that they are that way in the US.
They shouldn't though, it's absurd that they are that way in the US.
Have you ever seen how big the US is?!? Rail systems work in Europe because densities are extremely high.
The closest city to the Bay Area is Sacramento which is 90mi/150km - which is the maximum distance that a commuter rail system can work between two metropolitan areas while still being cheaper than flying.
San Francisco to Los Angeles is 620-700km - so from Cologne to Prague.
Unlike that route, you'd need to be building through multiple mountain ranges in California AND there are very few cities in between to justify ridership.
The closest city to the Bay Area is Sacramento which is 90mi/150km - which is the maximum distance that a commuter rail system can work between two metropolitan areas while still being cheaper than flying.
San Francisco to Los Angeles is 620-700km - so from Cologne to Prague.
Unlike that route, you'd need to be building through multiple mountain ranges in California AND there are very few cities in between to justify ridership.
Tokyo to Kyoto is 280mi/445km and it's an extremely fast and comfortable train ride.
In between Tokyo and Kyoto you have Nagoya Metropolitan Region, which has a population of 10 million.
There is no similar sized city in between the Bay Area and LA MSA.
This impacts the incentives to build in the US.
Metropolitan Areas in the Western United States are VERY far from each other. And this isn't because of sprawl.
Take a look at a satellite map of the Western US sometime.
There is no similar sized city in between the Bay Area and LA MSA.
This impacts the incentives to build in the US.
Metropolitan Areas in the Western United States are VERY far from each other. And this isn't because of sprawl.
Take a look at a satellite map of the Western US sometime.
The trip from Tokyo to Kyoto goes through several cities that have >200k people living in them, several of them being larger than Sacramento. Your point about Tokyo -> Kyoto doesn't change the previous issue of economics of trains due to lack of density.
Stops (and Population) on Tokaido Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kyoto: Yokohama: 3mm+ Odawara: 200k+ Hamamatsu: 700k+ Shizuoka: 600k+ Nagoya: 2mm+
Stops (and Population) on Tokaido Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kyoto: Yokohama: 3mm+ Odawara: 200k+ Hamamatsu: 700k+ Shizuoka: 600k+ Nagoya: 2mm+
... and let's not forget that if you ride that same train for another 50 miles you get to Osaka (~3M) and then Kobe (~1.5M).
Brussels - Paris (~300km):
train 1:30hs, €109
flight 1:00hs (+ check in time and baggage pick up), ~$300
driving 3:30hs
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Brussels,+Belgium/Paris,+Fra...
San Francisco - Sacramento (~85 miles):
train: 2:30hs, $33
driving: 1:30hs
train 1:30hs, €109
flight 1:00hs (+ check in time and baggage pick up), ~$300
driving 3:30hs
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Brussels,+Belgium/Paris,+Fra...
San Francisco - Sacramento (~85 miles):
train: 2:30hs, $33
driving: 1:30hs
San Francisco-Sacramento has a railway line built already (Capitol Corridor), and it is very intermittent.
Furthermore, the Capitol Corridor doesn't pick you up from SF. You need to commute to the Amtrak station in Richmond.
Bay Area to Sacramento is the farthest distance that can be financial feasible in the Western United States.
A better use of money would be better integrating all of the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley into a single high frequency system (think ACE on steroids).
Furthermore, the Capitol Corridor doesn't pick you up from SF. You need to commute to the Amtrak station in Richmond.
Bay Area to Sacramento is the farthest distance that can be financial feasible in the Western United States.
A better use of money would be better integrating all of the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley into a single high frequency system (think ACE on steroids).
So, San Francisco to Sacramento does not have a railway line already built (at least, not one with passenger service in use.) San Jose to Sacramento does, and there are some stations with other transit connections to SF, notably Richmond, but Richmond (like Oakland, or any of the other East Bay stops) is a different place than San Francisco.
It is not so much generically “very intermittent” as optimized for Sacramento to East Bay commuting, with reduced traffic on the extended connection to San Jose, and in the counter-commute direction and off-commute times.
It is not so much generically “very intermittent” as optimized for Sacramento to East Bay commuting, with reduced traffic on the extended connection to San Jose, and in the counter-commute direction and off-commute times.
Exactly! And it's almost impossible to cross coordinate between BART, Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, VTA, ACE, and other myriad of public transit systems in NorCal.
I've literally had to wait for Capitol Corridor trains for an hour because my Bart ride was delayed.
This is why money is better spent integrating the systems at the subregional level instead.
I've literally had to wait for Capitol Corridor trains for an hour because my Bart ride was delayed.
This is why money is better spent integrating the systems at the subregional level instead.
I believe it is a case of "yes, and". A significant benefit of Rail transport is when you can go to the train station from your home by public transport, and when you arrive to your destination city in a place where you can take public transport to your final destination. Good public transport has many benefits and should be prioritized.
I'm baffled that there are large American airports that have no connectivity to public transport at all. Just improving that would already be significant. That doesn't mean that rail isn't worthwhile to pursue: SF to LA makes sense (mountain ranges are not necessarily relevant, that's the reason it goes the "long way" through the central valley, lack of density in between isn't as relevant because HSR has very infrequent stops in between destinations, having a handful of stops in the central valley would be enough to cater to those low population centers that don't wish to drive the full way), but if when you arrive to LA you have to rent a car to get around, that reduces the benefit or rail.
I'm baffled that there are large American airports that have no connectivity to public transport at all. Just improving that would already be significant. That doesn't mean that rail isn't worthwhile to pursue: SF to LA makes sense (mountain ranges are not necessarily relevant, that's the reason it goes the "long way" through the central valley, lack of density in between isn't as relevant because HSR has very infrequent stops in between destinations, having a handful of stops in the central valley would be enough to cater to those low population centers that don't wish to drive the full way), but if when you arrive to LA you have to rent a car to get around, that reduces the benefit or rail.
> it's almost impossible to cross coordinate between BART, Caltrain
These are easy. They even both take Clipper.
> money is better spent integrating the systems at the subregional level
Totally agree. Even just making San Francisco better traversed by public transit than car would be a blessing.
These are easy. They even both take Clipper.
> money is better spent integrating the systems at the subregional level
Totally agree. Even just making San Francisco better traversed by public transit than car would be a blessing.
> These are easy
Timing is an issue. I'd say 40% of the time I ever took Caltrain, I missed the Bart connection at Millbrae, adding either 25 minutes to the commute, or adding an additional $15-20 dollars.
Also pricing isn't integrated. While they all take Clipper, funds are not coalesced together. I cannot use clipper cash to pay for a caltrain ride and vice versa.
Clipper is like a crappy Oyster knockoff.
Timing is an issue. I'd say 40% of the time I ever took Caltrain, I missed the Bart connection at Millbrae, adding either 25 minutes to the commute, or adding an additional $15-20 dollars.
Also pricing isn't integrated. While they all take Clipper, funds are not coalesced together. I cannot use clipper cash to pay for a caltrain ride and vice versa.
Clipper is like a crappy Oyster knockoff.
> I cannot use clipper cash to pay for a caltrain ride and vice versa.
You absolutely can use cash on your clipper card to pay for a one way caltrain ride.
Likewise Bart and Muni are integrated in SF. My muni monthly pass includes bart rides in the city.
You absolutely can use cash on your clipper card to pay for a one way caltrain ride.
Likewise Bart and Muni are integrated in SF. My muni monthly pass includes bart rides in the city.
In addition, there is no pedestrian walkway between san francisco and either marin (north bay) or oakland (east bay) depite both being major commuter hubs. 7 miles is a long ways to walk, but it's only about 30 min by bike, and even less by electric bike. You need a car or to find a bus that will take you to a rail line.
> In addition, there is no pedestrian walkway between san francisco and either marin (north bay) or oakland (east bay) depite both being major commuter hubs.
The Golden Gate Bridge (San Francisco to Marin) does, in fact, have sidewalks.
https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/visiting-the-bridge/bikes-...
It’s true there is no pedestrian/bike connection from San Francisco to Oakland, and that seems unlikely to change (the main improvement planned there involves electric ferry service from SF to Treasure Island connecting to the East Span of the Bay Bridge.
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestria...
> You need a car or to find a bus that will take you to a rail line.
Or you can take a train that takes you to the other rail line (in the East Bay, but then there’s not much rail to connect to in Marin anyway); BART is a thing.
The Golden Gate Bridge (San Francisco to Marin) does, in fact, have sidewalks.
https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/visiting-the-bridge/bikes-...
It’s true there is no pedestrian/bike connection from San Francisco to Oakland, and that seems unlikely to change (the main improvement planned there involves electric ferry service from SF to Treasure Island connecting to the East Span of the Bay Bridge.
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestria...
> You need a car or to find a bus that will take you to a rail line.
Or you can take a train that takes you to the other rail line (in the East Bay, but then there’s not much rail to connect to in Marin anyway); BART is a thing.
> Rail systems work in Europe because densities are extremely high.
Rail systems work in Europe because European cities have decent local transit/walkability. Rail systems are challenging in the US because the US invested heavily in destroying local transit and walkability for a mixture of reasons (auto industry influence, deliberate attempts at de facto racial segregation, especially in the wake of pressures against de jure segregation, and some other reasons), so once you get somewhere by rail you can’t get anywhere else, unless the train station wastes a whole lot of space – and airports already do, but its less of a burden for them because airports need to be pretty sprawling to start with — having giant parking lots for round trip passengers and rental cars and for access to serve as giant road transport (bus, taxi, rideshare) hubs.
Which is why you can’t just build long-range passenger rail in the US, you have to also build or significantly upgrade local transit networks at the termini and intermediate stops and also deal with the local development patterns in all those places (you don’t have to do it all at once, but if you don’t, you have to accept that you aren’t getting all the benefits until you do.)
And you are going to be fought the whole way by forces that recognize the connections and oppose any part of it, for any of the reasons the status quo exists as it does.
Rail systems work in Europe because European cities have decent local transit/walkability. Rail systems are challenging in the US because the US invested heavily in destroying local transit and walkability for a mixture of reasons (auto industry influence, deliberate attempts at de facto racial segregation, especially in the wake of pressures against de jure segregation, and some other reasons), so once you get somewhere by rail you can’t get anywhere else, unless the train station wastes a whole lot of space – and airports already do, but its less of a burden for them because airports need to be pretty sprawling to start with — having giant parking lots for round trip passengers and rental cars and for access to serve as giant road transport (bus, taxi, rideshare) hubs.
Which is why you can’t just build long-range passenger rail in the US, you have to also build or significantly upgrade local transit networks at the termini and intermediate stops and also deal with the local development patterns in all those places (you don’t have to do it all at once, but if you don’t, you have to accept that you aren’t getting all the benefits until you do.)
And you are going to be fought the whole way by forces that recognize the connections and oppose any part of it, for any of the reasons the status quo exists as it does.
Take a look at a map sometime.
When I travel from Brussels to Berlin (similar to SF to LA), I can pass through Cologne (pop 3.3m), Frankfurt (pop 770k), Hannover (pop 500k), and Hamburg (pop 5.5m).
When I travel from the Bay Area to Greater Los Angeles, I can only pass through Fresno (pop 700k) and Bakersfield (pop 500k)
This is the issue. There isn't enough population between metros in the Western United States to support the financial burden of managing such a system.
When I travel from Brussels to Berlin (similar to SF to LA), I can pass through Cologne (pop 3.3m), Frankfurt (pop 770k), Hannover (pop 500k), and Hamburg (pop 5.5m).
When I travel from the Bay Area to Greater Los Angeles, I can only pass through Fresno (pop 700k) and Bakersfield (pop 500k)
This is the issue. There isn't enough population between metros in the Western United States to support the financial burden of managing such a system.
I don’t disagree that its an issue, but it is not, IMO, the issue, or even the most important one. Access between the station and the rest of the metro at the termini (and also at whatever stations might exist along the route) is more of an issue than the frequency and size of the intermediate cities along the route.
This isn't limited to the US. For the trip distances we're talking about here European trains are often just as expensive as flying if not more so.
European trains will take you from city center to city center with little to no security line.
If you go by air, first you need to leave the city to go to the airport, hand off your luggage to a stranger with the promise it will be reunited with you, go through dense security, wait an hour for your plane to arrive, funnel through a single door, sit in a tiny cramped seat, then wait for the whole plane to exit through a single door, go find your luggage, then find ground transportation to the city center.
Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process. More if you are planning to go to the airport during rush hour.
If you go by air, first you need to leave the city to go to the airport, hand off your luggage to a stranger with the promise it will be reunited with you, go through dense security, wait an hour for your plane to arrive, funnel through a single door, sit in a tiny cramped seat, then wait for the whole plane to exit through a single door, go find your luggage, then find ground transportation to the city center.
Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process. More if you are planning to go to the airport during rush hour.
> Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process
I show up 30 minutes before boarding at my small American airport. Add 20 minutes for travel to the airport and 45 for getting out and you’re sitting comfortably at 90 minutes + flight time door to door to anywhere in the world.
In Europe, I agree, it was closed to 90 minutes pre and post flight plus travel time to and from the airport.
I show up 30 minutes before boarding at my small American airport. Add 20 minutes for travel to the airport and 45 for getting out and you’re sitting comfortably at 90 minutes + flight time door to door to anywhere in the world.
In Europe, I agree, it was closed to 90 minutes pre and post flight plus travel time to and from the airport.
How true is your experience at a major international airport, which most travelers use.
> How true is your experience at a major international airport, which most travelers use
I show up to JFK about 45 minutes before boarding in the early weekday AM, or, if I have the misfortune of having to check a bag, about 75 minutes before. (Same for SFO, PHX and IAD.) American airports are far more efficient, for frequent fliers, than European ones are for Europeans.
For good measure. They get it right. If you're rich in Europe, take the train.
I show up to JFK about 45 minutes before boarding in the early weekday AM, or, if I have the misfortune of having to check a bag, about 75 minutes before. (Same for SFO, PHX and IAD.) American airports are far more efficient, for frequent fliers, than European ones are for Europeans.
For good measure. They get it right. If you're rich in Europe, take the train.
Depends on the major international airport, but DFW and BOS (Dallas-Fort Worth and Boston) are both fine. My wife flies to DFW from a small airport and back frequently, to see her parents. It's really not much different in terms of time to check in and clear security if you have Precheck (though at airports with multiple security screening areas, do notice which ones offer Precheck at what hours so you don't have to do the slow screen), though the small airport will sometimes let things slide that big airports won't [0], especially if the TSA agents recognize you personally. Her parents even live a shorter drive away from DFW than we do from our small airport.
[0] American Airlines at my small airport, for two early-morning flights to different destinations, had all checked baggage going through one agent whose intervention was required for every. single. bag. even if checked in with a kiosk. Of course there was no way we could get the bags on, so we were going to miss the flight. But we went through TSA (both Global Entry/Precheck) with obviously too-big bags and liquids, and they said "no way that's a carry-on", and we said we were going to have the gate agent check it for us, and they said good luck.
We made the flight.
[0] American Airlines at my small airport, for two early-morning flights to different destinations, had all checked baggage going through one agent whose intervention was required for every. single. bag. even if checked in with a kiosk. Of course there was no way we could get the bags on, so we were going to miss the flight. But we went through TSA (both Global Entry/Precheck) with obviously too-big bags and liquids, and they said "no way that's a carry-on", and we said we were going to have the gate agent check it for us, and they said good luck.
We made the flight.
3 hours maybe for international travel. Nearly all of my airport door-to-gate times have been under an hour, with very few exceptions. No TSA-PreCheck either. This includes international airports.
In Japan, it's often significantly cheaper to fly than take a train. You can fly from Tokyo to Osaka one-way on budget airlines for <$50 but a one-way train on cheapest shinkansen is about 30% more (even more for a reserved seat)
Hot take: trains do not appeal to the American culture in the same way it does to other cultures.
Speak for yourself pal. Trains being politically difficult doesn't make them unappealing, train lovers just don't have the industrial weight of aviation and big car behind them.
The US had a massive, federally subsidized passenger rail industry since the 19th century. The first transcontinental railroad was one of the defining achievements of the country. The reason Americans abandoned passenger rail for airlines and cars wasn’t because of lack of support for railroads, it’s because airlines and cars rendered passenger rail obsolete. Freight rail still makes sense though, and the US uses more freight rail than any other country.
Hot take: Americans don't love flying either.
Airplanes are just the most cost-effective, reliable, and fastest method to get around for long-distance travel in the US. Train service is often so bad that people would rather drive their cars and sit in traffic for long periods of time, because train travel is still worse.
Make train travel cheaper, reliable, comfortable, and to places that people actually want to go, and people will take them. Of course some of these problems are much harder to fix than others.
Airplanes are just the most cost-effective, reliable, and fastest method to get around for long-distance travel in the US. Train service is often so bad that people would rather drive their cars and sit in traffic for long periods of time, because train travel is still worse.
Make train travel cheaper, reliable, comfortable, and to places that people actually want to go, and people will take them. Of course some of these problems are much harder to fix than others.
Yes, but as you say they're faster and about the same cost.
> Make train travel cheaper, reliable, comfortable, and to places that people actually want to go, and people will take them. Of course some of these problems are much harder to fix than others.
How?
> Make train travel cheaper, reliable, comfortable, and to places that people actually want to go, and people will take them. Of course some of these problems are much harder to fix than others.
How?
They don't on the east coast. For example depending on the timing you can do NYC - DC or NYC - Boston for like $15 one way on Amtrak. There are 50+ trains a day, and they all go full. SF - LA is only slightly longer, and there's no reason for it to cost hundreds.
No way. I've taken that route many times over the last decade and never paid less than $35. It also usually takes 4.5 hours unless you take the Acela which I've never seen for less than $80.
It's cheaper, and I take it because it's a better experience in a lot of ways, but it's also regularly not full. I've had entire train cars to myself before.
It's cheaper, and I take it because it's a better experience in a lot of ways, but it's also regularly not full. I've had entire train cars to myself before.
Amtrak has 20 trains a day from NYP -> BOS; not 50.
I commute on along the North East Corridor, and if you want a train that'll get you into NY by around 9am or leaves around 5-6pm, you're definitely not getting that for $15 on a weekday.
I commute on along the North East Corridor, and if you want a train that'll get you into NY by around 9am or leaves around 5-6pm, you're definitely not getting that for $15 on a weekday.
There is, actually. There are 5 major cities between Boston and DC, so a direct rail line between the two can serve 10 different major routes. There are only 2 major cities between SF and LA, namely SF and LA themselves, which leaves you with one major route.
I just priced an Amtrak ticket from LA to Seattle. Its was $250 round trip in coach. Thats the same price for a regularly priced airplane ticket for coach.
> NYC - Boston for like $15 one way
Bullshit.
I went to school in Boston. To get a one way like that I'd have to book weeks in advanced and it would be in the middle of the night.
I'm on the Amtrak website right now and if I book a one way trip from South Station (boston) to Penn Station (NYC) for today, it is $250 (tbf, it would be a last minute booking). If I book one for weeks in advance, it's still at $40-100.
Bullshit.
I went to school in Boston. To get a one way like that I'd have to book weeks in advanced and it would be in the middle of the night.
I'm on the Amtrak website right now and if I book a one way trip from South Station (boston) to Penn Station (NYC) for today, it is $250 (tbf, it would be a last minute booking). If I book one for weeks in advance, it's still at $40-100.
NYP-BOS
May 7, 7:50pm-12:15am
$20
May 7, 7:50pm-12:15am
$20
[X] Weeks in advance
[ ] Middle of the nightHmm, maybe it's middle age catching up with me, but a train pulling in South St at quarter after midnight feels like the middle of the night to me.
Why would I commute from NYC to Boston at 8pm on a Tuesday? The fact that this is one of the few counters you could find only proves my point.
Ride is already too long to use as a commute
Similar in price, but difference in experience. I would much rather travel by train with kids <5 than by a plane.
[deleted]
What's the total door-to-door commute time for you, including getting to the airport and going through security?
Stop downvoting this guy. It's a fair point.
Replies are less likely to be downvoted when they aren't judgmental against those with dissimilar views as the poster.
What is the fair point? At this point we should be welcoming alternate form of transportation at any price point in my opinion as long as it is not 5-10x.
The money spent on that long distance alternate transport can be better spent enhancing existing short distance transport.
There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Investing on enhancing and integrating the Capitol Corridor, ACE, Caltrains, BART, Muni, and VTA into a unified system has a better RoI than a 400-500mi rail line that will most likely have a train leaving on an hourly cadence.
It's a similar story for Los Angeles and San Diego.
Flights cost around $100-200 for a round trip and take around 3 hours even factoring in security and commute to and from the airport. It would be the same length of time commuting from a railway station to the other, the railway would take 2 additional hours, and the price would be roughly comparable.
There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Investing on enhancing and integrating the Capitol Corridor, ACE, Caltrains, BART, Muni, and VTA into a unified system has a better RoI than a 400-500mi rail line that will most likely have a train leaving on an hourly cadence.
It's a similar story for Los Angeles and San Diego.
Flights cost around $100-200 for a round trip and take around 3 hours even factoring in security and commute to and from the airport. It would be the same length of time commuting from a railway station to the other, the railway would take 2 additional hours, and the price would be roughly comparable.
> The money spent on that long distance alternate transport can be better spent enhancing existing short distance transport.
> There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Exactly. The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else. That is the most useful metric.
If spending $100B on SF to LA (400mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, then that's 400M passenger-miles, or 250 dollars per pax-mile.
But if spending $5B on (say) SF to SJ (50mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, which is 50M passenger-miles, then it is 100 dollars per pax-mile, a much better tradeoff.
> There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Exactly. The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else. That is the most useful metric.
If spending $100B on SF to LA (400mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, then that's 400M passenger-miles, or 250 dollars per pax-mile.
But if spending $5B on (say) SF to SJ (50mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, which is 50M passenger-miles, then it is 100 dollars per pax-mile, a much better tradeoff.
> The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else
San Jose to SF (Caltrain) has a yearly ridership of 5.5 Million.
Los Angeles to SF has a yearly ridership of 2.2 Million.
I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently.
San Jose to SF (Caltrain) has a yearly ridership of 5.5 Million.
Los Angeles to SF has a yearly ridership of 2.2 Million.
I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently.
> I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently.
I live in California, chief. You know what they say about making ASSumptions?
And I was using round numbers to make the calculations easier and the point easier to understand.
I live in California, chief. You know what they say about making ASSumptions?
And I was using round numbers to make the calculations easier and the point easier to understand.
> Dreamstar trains would be running on the track that make up the Coast Line railroad line between Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay area, which travels primarily along the California coast. That line is already in use by Amtrak‘s Pacific Surfliner and Coast Starlight, among others.
This isn’t the high speed train which is what I thought at first reading the headline. That’d require new tracks.
This is just an overnight Amtrack that’ll inevitably get delayed like Amtrack always is and you’ll wake up not in San Francisco but in the middle of the Gilroy garlic festival.
This isn’t the high speed train which is what I thought at first reading the headline. That’d require new tracks.
This is just an overnight Amtrack that’ll inevitably get delayed like Amtrack always is and you’ll wake up not in San Francisco but in the middle of the Gilroy garlic festival.
> you’ll wake up not in San Francisco but in the middle of the Gilroy garlic festival.
I know this was meant as a humorous example of where one might end up because of a delay, but I can think of a million worse places to be stuck at than Gilroy. Better that than somewhere like Hanford, King City, Barstow, or even Bakersfield.
I know this was meant as a humorous example of where one might end up because of a delay, but I can think of a million worse places to be stuck at than Gilroy. Better that than somewhere like Hanford, King City, Barstow, or even Bakersfield.
Is there anyone who wouldn't rather be at a Garlic Festival than San Fran?
I can think of a few people...
Vampires?
> Garlic Festival
Oh no, the festival is permanently cancelled [1].
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Gilroy-Garlic-Festival-n...
Oh no, the festival is permanently cancelled [1].
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/Gilroy-Garlic-Festival-n...
That's a serious bummer.
I'm not trying to make a pun, but it's times like this I feel the world is losing its flavor. So many neat things that were around when I was a kid have been cancelled because I guess no one wants to bother or because one bad thing happened.
I'm not trying to make a pun, but it's times like this I feel the world is losing its flavor. So many neat things that were around when I was a kid have been cancelled because I guess no one wants to bother or because one bad thing happened.
Sadness! Wow, this comment thread has been a real emotional roller coaster today.
Yeah, I had to scrub plans for riding the Coastal Starlight next month…
> an overnight Amtrack that’ll inevitably get delayed like Amtrack always is
If they strike an agreement with the track owner, I don’t see why that would be. Amtrak failed because nobody enforces the part of the law that gives passenger trains primacy.
If they strike an agreement with the track owner, I don’t see why that would be. Amtrak failed because nobody enforces the part of the law that gives passenger trains primacy.
Amtrak only has primacy when on schedule.
That actually makes some sense. The railroad plans a scheduled hole in the flow of freight trains that they can put a passenger train in. (Passenger trains are faster than many freight trains, so it takes some juggling to make it work.)
If the passenger train is late, the planned spot to put it in isn't there. Now they have to create a spot for it on the fly. That isn't always possible (or possible at an acceptable cost) to the freight railroad.
That actually makes some sense. The railroad plans a scheduled hole in the flow of freight trains that they can put a passenger train in. (Passenger trains are faster than many freight trains, so it takes some juggling to make it work.)
If the passenger train is late, the planned spot to put it in isn't there. Now they have to create a spot for it on the fly. That isn't always possible (or possible at an acceptable cost) to the freight railroad.
The coastal Amtrak rail line was recently closed by a landslide.
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/california-storms-sever...
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/california-storms-sever...
This sounds great. Having traveled around the world I have to say US domestic travel experience is absolutely horrendous. Obviously it is a very big country but at least on the coast lines I wish we had affordable alternatives to flying and driving.
> Company officials said they hope this new overnight passenger rail service would give Californians and other travelers a more comfortable, convenient and Earth-friendly alternative to short-haul flights.
The renderings and anecdotal knowledge about that rail route make me think this is not going to be an electrically powered train. What fuel would it use?
The renderings and anecdotal knowledge about that rail route make me think this is not going to be an electrically powered train. What fuel would it use?
Even a coal-fired train has a lower carbon footprint per passenger-mile than a plane.
A wood fired steam train is carbon neutral.
Diesel, like the vast majority of trains in the US. Even if the US performed electrification of trains, this would be a low-priority to electrify because it's not a major shipping route.
> Even if the US performed electrification of trains,
It does.
> this would be a low-priority to electrify because it’s not a major shipping route.
US rail electrification is more focused on passenger routes than shipping routes; an electric freight engine for mainline use has been introduced (just last year), but its not intended as the sole power source for a train, but rather to improve efficiency by being used in a consist with diesel engines, recharging with regenerative braking, reducing overall fuel use.
It does.
> this would be a low-priority to electrify because it’s not a major shipping route.
US rail electrification is more focused on passenger routes than shipping routes; an electric freight engine for mainline use has been introduced (just last year), but its not intended as the sole power source for a train, but rather to improve efficiency by being used in a consist with diesel engines, recharging with regenerative braking, reducing overall fuel use.
[deleted]
Overnight sleeper trains have to have a place in the future West Coast mass transportation. Surely it's a lot cheaper, and maybe even more convenient to do a comfortable overnight trip rather than some high speed rail connection that's still a few hours.
I've taken the overnight train from Edinburgh to London. It arrives early morning but you could stay in the train for several hours while it was in the station. Quite comfortable.
On the other hand, I took an overnight train from Wuhan to Beijing. It was crowded, the cars not so modern, and I didn't sleep all that well. The high speed rail train between those two cities was a much shorter and better experience.
On the other hand, I took an overnight train from Wuhan to Beijing. It was crowded, the cars not so modern, and I didn't sleep all that well. The high speed rail train between those two cities was a much shorter and better experience.
Until it's cheaper than flying, I don't see that it's going to get mass adoption. Because even if it did, the price would rise to equal or eclipse flying, like Amtraks DC to NYC corridor where a ticket can be more than the cost of airfare.
Ticket price maybe is the same, but airports are always out of the way and either require paying for expensive parking or cab rides.
Also my experience with trains are they are way more casual of a travel experience. Show up a few minutes before and walk on. Airplanes are always an ordeal. Like You need to add security line buffer time. Or wait for for bags
Less threat of a firey death in a Boeing plane to be topical too lol
Also my experience with trains are they are way more casual of a travel experience. Show up a few minutes before and walk on. Airplanes are always an ordeal. Like You need to add security line buffer time. Or wait for for bags
Less threat of a firey death in a Boeing plane to be topical too lol
I dunno, I think we're still in a zone where Amtrak derailments have killed more people in the last decade than domestic aviation issues, and that's even before you account for the fact that there's probably multiple magnitudes more passenger/miles by plane than train.
I definitely prefer the experience of rail travel - boarding and riding though.
I definitely prefer the experience of rail travel - boarding and riding though.
In Europe the train often costs more than flying in my (rather limited) experience.
But you start and end your train ride very close to your destination and you aren’t locked in a shitty small seat. Every single bit of the trip is better, with the possible exception of the travel time. Even this might be better if you measure door to door.
But you start and end your train ride very close to your destination and you aren’t locked in a shitty small seat. Every single bit of the trip is better, with the possible exception of the travel time. Even this might be better if you measure door to door.
I used to be a cheerleader for trains in the US. But there are a dozen setbacks for every win. Building infrastructure like this just isnt in the cards at this stage
overnight on land will happen on self driving cars before it happens on rails
overnight on land will happen on self driving cars before it happens on rails
> Building infrastructure like this just isnt in the cards at this stage
What infrastructure? This new service would run on existing rails and terminate at existing stations. The only thing new would be the trains themselves. (The proposed later addition of a drive-on/drive-off car carrier service would involve some additional infrastructure.)
What infrastructure? This new service would run on existing rails and terminate at existing stations. The only thing new would be the trains themselves. (The proposed later addition of a drive-on/drive-off car carrier service would involve some additional infrastructure.)
Lol. Like here in Europe Bulgaria to Romania have trains.. everybody has trains. What's the big issue with putting a train in over there?
The US has a huge rail system with tons of capacity. It uses it for moving cargo, which makes much of the US economy possible. If cargo is moved off of the rail system to make room for passenger service, that cargo will go on trucks on the roads. Heavy cargo on trucks driving over roads is not a good outcome.
That said, trains are a nice way of seeing the country. Because the rail system is mainly for cargo, passenger service in most places is not good for time sensitive travel. It is great for sightseeing. This route being overnight is disappointing as it takes away the sightseeing but maybe they've found some available slots during the night between cargo loads.
Anyone who has a chance to travel between Portland and Vancouver by train should take it. You get views of the coast not available by road. Just be sure to get a seat on the side of the train that faces the ocean or you're going to have to enjoy seeing lots and lots of trees.
That said, trains are a nice way of seeing the country. Because the rail system is mainly for cargo, passenger service in most places is not good for time sensitive travel. It is great for sightseeing. This route being overnight is disappointing as it takes away the sightseeing but maybe they've found some available slots during the night between cargo loads.
Anyone who has a chance to travel between Portland and Vancouver by train should take it. You get views of the coast not available by road. Just be sure to get a seat on the side of the train that faces the ocean or you're going to have to enjoy seeing lots and lots of trees.
in the USA the railroads consolidated after the Civil War, and certain companies were abusive about access and costs; several large fortunes were made but politics responded. One hundred plus years later, the automobile has center stage, with its road network. Other factors are also listed in other comments here..
the auto lobby convinced major cities to completely overhaul their transport infrastructure too.
Bulgaria to Romania has a high population density and is very flat compared to California, and especially when traveling from Sofia to Bucharest.
Furthermore, planes and driving have always been an option in the US.
Furthermore, planes and driving have always been an option in the US.
Switzerland has trains too and that it is very famously very much not flat, has the same GDP per capita as California. While the population in Switzerland is nearly twice the Californian density on average, the SF-LA corridor contains two absurdly dense metropolitan areas, with a total population nearly double the entire country of Switzerland, so the average density where it matters for this route is high. In fact California is almost perfectly designed for a rail backbone, as nearly everyone lives on one line from San Diego, through LA to San Francisco and there's a 300 mile plain in the middle so it's not mountains all the way.
Yes, you need some enormous tunnels. That's more than possible, ask the Swiss or Norwegians. And yes, it's an earthquake zone, but it's still functionally a political problem.
Yes, you need some enormous tunnels. That's more than possible, ask the Swiss or Norwegians. And yes, it's an earthquake zone, but it's still functionally a political problem.
Isn't some of this also network effects though? Having a Swiss train system has a lot more value because it connects to the German and French and Austrian train systems. You build a train line from LA to SF and it serves those cities, but if you want to go to Phoenix or Monterrey Mexico, you're in for a bad time.
Then connect it (actually it's already connected, it's just slow, the trains only go every few days and you change in Flagstaff and a bus is half the time and 1/3 the cost). Again, these are all fundamentally problems of "we just don't really want to" or "we really don't want to".
I'm not saying it's in any way practical reality because there's always a million reasons why It Just Can't Be Done. But that those million reasons are human choices, not physical laws of nature (other than the mountains, but it's 2024, not 1824, that can be done). It's just a chronic lack of intestinal fortitude.
I'm not saying it's in any way practical reality because there's always a million reasons why It Just Can't Be Done. But that those million reasons are human choices, not physical laws of nature (other than the mountains, but it's 2024, not 1824, that can be done). It's just a chronic lack of intestinal fortitude.
Defining it as "a human choice" is both clearly accurate and misses the point. Yes. It's obviously not physically impossible. But just ascribing it to "a chronic lack of intestinal fortitude" as if everyone involved is just too much of a sissy to blow a hole in a mountain like people used to is absurdly reductionist. It ignores the vast history of how much past US grand projects like the interstate and the railroads were built on the back of destroying the environment and often genocidally taking land from native Americans.
Yes, some of it is for dumb reasons, but there's also plenty of reasons that aren't just "we used to be a real country". It is, in fact, not 1824 any more. We can't just offer thousands of Chinese immigrants $2 a week and have half of them die while putting a hole in the Rocky Mountains. Yes, that's "a human choice", but the physical dimensions of the problem define the very real tradeoffs that have to be made. The "physical laws of nature" don't stop us from doing all sorts of things we'd probably regret, many of which we do regret now.
To go back to my original point, those reasons are a lot more compelling when you're spending some billions of dollars that connect to another country's billions of dollars of trains, and you get some regular amount of cross-traffic. Sure, we could build more, but we're not going to build a Deutsche Bahn amount of rail within Arizona. They're about the same geographic size, and Germany has 10x the population. Likely same with Nevada and Oregon. So what do you propose we connect to that has anywhere near the same network effect of cross-travel?
Yes, some of it is for dumb reasons, but there's also plenty of reasons that aren't just "we used to be a real country". It is, in fact, not 1824 any more. We can't just offer thousands of Chinese immigrants $2 a week and have half of them die while putting a hole in the Rocky Mountains. Yes, that's "a human choice", but the physical dimensions of the problem define the very real tradeoffs that have to be made. The "physical laws of nature" don't stop us from doing all sorts of things we'd probably regret, many of which we do regret now.
To go back to my original point, those reasons are a lot more compelling when you're spending some billions of dollars that connect to another country's billions of dollars of trains, and you get some regular amount of cross-traffic. Sure, we could build more, but we're not going to build a Deutsche Bahn amount of rail within Arizona. They're about the same geographic size, and Germany has 10x the population. Likely same with Nevada and Oregon. So what do you propose we connect to that has anywhere near the same network effect of cross-travel?
> that can be done
It can be done, but it is very expensive. A 8 mi mountain railway tunnel like Wienerwald cost around $400m to build. That same amount could literally be spent to expand the Altamount Corridor Express railway (ACE) into downtown San Jose, thus having an impact in a closely integrated metropolitan area of 10m residents.
Why spend that (and much more) money integrating two cities that aren't even that closely tied from a commuting standpoiint.
Only 2.2 million people travel between Greater LA and the Bay Area annually, but 5.5 million travel between San Jose and San Francisco annually.
Clearly there is some demand for LA-SF connectivity, but it's hard to justify.
It can be done, but it is very expensive. A 8 mi mountain railway tunnel like Wienerwald cost around $400m to build. That same amount could literally be spent to expand the Altamount Corridor Express railway (ACE) into downtown San Jose, thus having an impact in a closely integrated metropolitan area of 10m residents.
Why spend that (and much more) money integrating two cities that aren't even that closely tied from a commuting standpoiint.
Only 2.2 million people travel between Greater LA and the Bay Area annually, but 5.5 million travel between San Jose and San Francisco annually.
Clearly there is some demand for LA-SF connectivity, but it's hard to justify.
American exceptionalism means it has to stay how it is.
Sofia to Bucharest is approx 400km.
San Francisco to Los Angeles is approx 630-700km.
Sofia to Bucharest is largely flat.
San Francisco to Los Angeles requires building rail lines in multiple mountain ranges that rival the Carpathians.
Imagine having to build a 600km high speed railway line through 3 mountain ranges the size and height of the Carpathians, oh and almost nobody lives in between the two metros.
It does not make financial sense.
San Francisco to Los Angeles is approx 630-700km.
Sofia to Bucharest is largely flat.
San Francisco to Los Angeles requires building rail lines in multiple mountain ranges that rival the Carpathians.
Imagine having to build a 600km high speed railway line through 3 mountain ranges the size and height of the Carpathians, oh and almost nobody lives in between the two metros.
It does not make financial sense.
We have railways across and through the alps. Look up the Brenner Base Tunnel or Gotthard Base Tunnel.
Somehow Europe builds those things even across national borders. To be fair, there's not really an alternative if one wants to connect southern and northern Europe.
Somehow Europe builds those things even across national borders. To be fair, there's not really an alternative if one wants to connect southern and northern Europe.
> We have railways across and through the alps. Look up the Brenner Base Tunnel or Gotthard Base Tunnel.
Absolutely, and those were multibillion dollar projects that could be justified to help connect 4-5 different heavily populated regions - Vienna, Innsbruck, Veneto, and Milan.
In between the Bay Area and Los Angeles Metro there are only 2 metropolitan areas (Fresno, Bakersfield), and they have a combined population less than 20% of Veneto.
Absolutely, and those were multibillion dollar projects that could be justified to help connect 4-5 different heavily populated regions - Vienna, Innsbruck, Veneto, and Milan.
In between the Bay Area and Los Angeles Metro there are only 2 metropolitan areas (Fresno, Bakersfield), and they have a combined population less than 20% of Veneto.
Oh, it's much bigger than just connecting Austria to northern Italy. That project is about connecting Germany (and Scandinavia) to Italy.
BUt that's my point. It's integrating two extremely dense regions with multiple large cities in between. Between the Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles, all you have is Fresno and Bakersfield.
That's it.
That's it.
I agree, just wanted to point that out.
If the californian high speed railway would be the right thing to build, it'd have been built 60 years ago. Maybe it will be viable one day, but apparently it has not been so far.
If the californian high speed railway would be the right thing to build, it'd have been built 60 years ago. Maybe it will be viable one day, but apparently it has not been so far.
When it comes to trains there is always people who talks about the geographical challenges of building tracks or whatever. I mean these are mostly fixed cost investments and we know exactly how to do them. Why is it such a big deal to build bridges and tunnels?
Fixed costs until it needs to be maintained.
I take it you've never been to the US.
Sofia to Bucharest is approx 400km.
San Francisco to Los Angeles is 600km.
Sofia to Bucharest is largely flat.
San Francisco to Los Angeles requires building rail lines in multiple mountain ranges that rival the Carpathians.
Imagine having to build a 600km high speed railway line through 3 mountain ranges the size and height of the Carpathians, oh and almost nobody lives in between the two metros.
It does not make financial sense.
Sofia to Bucharest is approx 400km.
San Francisco to Los Angeles is 600km.
Sofia to Bucharest is largely flat.
San Francisco to Los Angeles requires building rail lines in multiple mountain ranges that rival the Carpathians.
Imagine having to build a 600km high speed railway line through 3 mountain ranges the size and height of the Carpathians, oh and almost nobody lives in between the two metros.
It does not make financial sense.
Additionally, trying to buy any of the land in between, let alone get environmental damage clearances for building all those tunnels and bridges is probably borderline impossible. Most US rail was built in the era where we were actively taking the land by force and just demolishing nature in the pursuit of progress. It's not clear to me that we could build something like the highway system or a major new rail system in a way that wouldn't be massively detrimental to the environment or the communities along the routes without also making it insanely expensive/inefficient.
maybe im just a hater but rather take the 1 hour plane ride
… while I too would probably also take the plane, the door-to-door isn't an hour. For one, even the flight time alone is about 90 minutes, but you're going to be adding at least — and I'm being extremely generous here — another 90 minutes for boarding/unboarding, ticketing, security, and delays combined. It's no less than 3 hours, and I'm probably being way too generous even then.
You aren't a hater, just a rational human.
Once again, it’s only economical to build something if it’s “luxury”
Hopefully when the cars and the line are rundown in 20 years regular people will be able to afford this as a way of travel
Hopefully when the cars and the line are rundown in 20 years regular people will be able to afford this as a way of travel
[deleted]
It's convenient and depending on your distance to an airport, only slightly longer, but much more convenient. I'm a big fan.
That said, having successful train systems in the US is hard. The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space. If it's a regional train in dense areas, it can make sense (like the NE regional). Maybe the traffic of LA <-> SF makes sense, and if it does and it can be done cost effectively, then it'll work out.
My assumption is that after building all the infrastructure into place, the cost of the tickets plus the additional travel time will not be worth it to most who are making this trip. I would love to be wrong, but I'm not counting on it.
I love the experience of taking a train, and I take them a good bit here in the North East. That said, they're not the best solution in the US currently, it's it's hard to see a world where they become the best for travel outside commuter rails (the MBTA commuter rail is also fantastic) and dense areas (again, like the NE regional).
Trains are not a catch all solution in the US. I hope for them to grow in popularity when they're appropriate, but I see a ton of online discourse (granted, it's likely from a vocal minority) about how trains are always better. They're not, and you can't compare US rail logistics to many regions to Europe.