9 ms·

>It's easy to tell a pollster you're for high speed rail but how many will actually buy a ticket? Perhaps they should ask for them to prepay for a ticket? I us

>It's easy to tell a pollster you're for high speed rail but how many will actually buy a ticket? Perhaps they should ask for them to prepay for a ticket? I use the MBTA on a fairly frequent basis. I would use it every day if biking didn't half my commute time. I've also used Megabus to visit New York City, for day trips even, Acela for an interview in New York once, and a short domestic air flight to visit a friend in Washington DC for a weekend. These costed ~$30, ~$200, and $500 for round trips, respectively. Note that the bus takes almost five hours, the train takes four hours, and the airline flight took about two to three hours. The bus and train were crossing the same distance between the same two cities, and a comparable air trip would have cost $450 for a 1 hour, 15 minute flight. Why is the transit system structured so that by taking "high-speed" public transit over slower private transit, I reduce my trip by 20% but pay 9x more? Why is it that if I actually want to travel quickly, I have to take a private transit agency (ie: JetBlue), and can quarter the time spent in transit by spending twice as much as the next-fastest option and 15x as much as the slowest option? In particular, how can we talk about a so-called "high-speed" rail system in which the gap between driving and taking a train is only one hour but the cost gap is multiplication by nine?

ghaff 11y ago
Well, Acela isn't really high speed rail; it only shaves off about an hour compared to the regular train (and costs around twice as much). But, that aside, Acela is really competing with air. Their bread and butter traveler is traveling on business and they're taking Acela over a plane because they prefer to travel on Acela for a variety of reasons. They don't really care about cost within reason. Those same travelers won't typically take a bus. If they do, they'll take something like the LimoLiner which is priced in the same ballpark as Amtrak. (I tried it once and didn't like it as much.) However, regular buses are always going to be the cheapest option both because they're typically competing for price-sensitive customers and they can take advantage of a a road network that already exists and that they don't need to maintain (other than whatever taxes they pay).
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Right. Having train travel target business travelers who are neither price-sensitive nor particularly time-sensitive is a choice -- a political choice. For instance, when we say that buses "can take advantage of a a road network that already exists and that they don't need to maintain (other than whatever taxes they pay)", that doesn't mean the infrastructure doesn't need to be paid-for, it means someone other than the transit supplier is paying for it. Why do we suffer this delusion that Amtrak should have fewer eminent-domain rights and take in fewer tax dollars than the highway system, and then act surprised that nobody takes Amtrak? It's like complaining that fruit trees die when you refuse to water them.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    >and then act surprised that nobody takes Amtrak But lots of people take Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor--enough to subsidize the rest of the system. The problem is that there aren't any other areas in the country that are as well-suited for busy inter-city rail as the Boston to DC corridor. Almost everything else is lower density and further apart. I'm not an expert on transportation cost structures but my observation in most places in the world is that, given a decent highway system, buses are going to beat intercity trains every time when it comes to price.
    - takno 11y ago
      Given that buses usually don't beat rail in speed terms, and are usually less environmentally friendly, the only real reason for buses to exist is price. If they can't beat rail on that they simply won't run.
    - ubernostrum 11y ago
      The problem is that there aren't any other areas in the country that are as well-suited for busy inter-city rail as the Boston to DC corridor. A lot of money's being pumped into trying a high-speed rail corridor between Los Angeles and San Francisco. And to be honest, I'd think there's at least a moderately good case for running up to Portland, Seattle and possibly even Vancouver. There's an awful lot of tech-industry commuting by air on those routes right now.
jacques_chester 11y ago
> the airline flight took about two to three hours Only if you assume that getting to and from the airport, and getting through security, and boarding, are all instant. Megabus drop and pickup in Manhattan. Acela goes to and from 34th st. Neither require me to play strip tease or watch 45 minutes of idiotic bin-shoving pantomimes. The nearest airport to Manhattan is LGA, it takes 30-40 minutes depending on traffic. JFK and EWR are 40-60 depending on traffic. None of them have direct subway or rail connections, so you have to either take a car or cobble together various public transportation options (subway then bus, subway then shuttle, subway then taxi, train then monorail) with frequently unsynchronised schedules. The idea that air travel is more convenient than the Acela train in the NE corridor is just silly.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Personally, I prefer taking the train in the Northeast Corridor but: 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station 2. Even though the train is more convenient in a number of ways, flying can get me from Boston into Manhattan earlier in the day than the train. Usually doesn't matter, but it may if you have a morning meeting and can't come down the previous night. 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well.
  - jacques_chester 11y ago
    > 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station There is, but it runs relatively infrequently and you have to switch to the monorail, which is only faster than walking because it has a right of way. > 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well. Sure. I cheat by being the smug git in the middle. But I'd still rather take the train, honestly, from Boston to DC. I hate flying with a radiant intensity that could launch a thousand astronomy PhDs.
    - takno 11y ago
      I hate the monorail at EWR with a passion - the slow speed, the long stop at a parking garage before the terminal, the insane loop round some kind of junkyard/parking lot it takes on the way to the railroad station, but all told it's still only about 10 minutes at worst.
mikeash 11y ago
Acela isn't "high-speed" rail, it's basically normal rail with high-speed hardware which occasionally goes fast enough to barely clear the threshold for calling it "high speed." Acela averages less than 70MPH. In a proper high-speed system that would be more like 180MPH. Boston to DC would be 2.5 hours, vastly faster than flying once you account for airport nonsense.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  In a proper high-speed system that would be more like 180MPH The current record for highest average speed on a rail line is China's 176mph average Shijiazhuang-Zhengzhou. Prior record holder was 173mph on the Champagne-Ardenne to Lorraine run on the LGV Est corridor of the TGV. All high-speed rail systems have stretches where they go faster than that, but average speeds are nowhere near what you're proposing. Unless, of course, your argument is that no "proper high-speed system" exists anywhere in the world today.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    In what world is 176MPH "nowhere near" 180MPH? I was explicitly approximate, and being 4MPH off is pretty good!
    - ubernostrum 11y ago
      I mean "nowhere near" in the sense that the outliers -- the current and previous record holder for average speed -- haven't managed to crack your proposed 180mph criterion for "high speed", and the non-outliers definitely aren't coming close to that number. Common definitions of "high speed" rail kick in at 200kph or 250kph, which are 124mph and 155mph respectively. Even if we go with the higher of those numbers, that's still around a 13% minimum difference in average speed between what's accepted and what you're proposing. (for non-Americans, what I'm arguing with here is the idea that ~290kph would be the minimum average speed to call something "high speed rail")
      - mikeash 11y ago
goatforce5 11y ago
> cost $450 for a 1 hour, 15 minute flight Remember to allow time for getting to/from the airports (which typically are a bit of a trek from downtown areas), allowing time to check in and clear security.
- gozur88 11y ago
  Right. That "1 hour, 15 minute flight" is really a minimum of about four hours. The train is probably faster, door-to-door.

ghaff 11y ago

Well, Acela isn't really high speed rail; it only shaves off about an hour compared to the regular train (and costs around twice as much). But, that aside, Acela is really competing with air. Their bread and butter traveler is traveling on business and they're taking Acela over a plane because they prefer to travel on Acela for a variety of reasons. They don't really care about cost within reason. Those same travelers won't typically take a bus. If they do, they'll take something like the LimoLiner which is priced in the same ballpark as Amtrak. (I tried it once and didn't like it as much.) However, regular buses are always going to be the cheapest option both because they're typically competing for price-sensitive customers and they can take advantage of a a road network that already exists and that they don't need to maintain (other than whatever taxes they pay).

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Right. Having train travel target business travelers who are neither price-sensitive nor particularly time-sensitive is a choice -- a political choice. For instance, when we say that buses "can take advantage of a a road network that already exists and that they don't need to maintain (other than whatever taxes they pay)", that doesn't mean the infrastructure doesn't need to be paid-for, it means someone other than the transit supplier is paying for it. Why do we suffer this delusion that Amtrak should have fewer eminent-domain rights and take in fewer tax dollars than the highway system, and then act surprised that nobody takes Amtrak? It's like complaining that fruit trees die when you refuse to water them.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >and then act surprised that nobody takes Amtrak But lots of people take Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor--enough to subsidize the rest of the system. The problem is that there aren't any other areas in the country that are as well-suited for busy inter-city rail as the Boston to DC corridor. Almost everything else is lower density and further apart. I'm not an expert on transportation cost structures but my observation in most places in the world is that, given a decent highway system, buses are going to beat intercity trains every time when it comes to price.
  - takno 11y ago
    Given that buses usually don't beat rail in speed terms, and are usually less environmentally friendly, the only real reason for buses to exist is price. If they can't beat rail on that they simply won't run.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    The problem is that there aren't any other areas in the country that are as well-suited for busy inter-city rail as the Boston to DC corridor. A lot of money's being pumped into trying a high-speed rail corridor between Los Angeles and San Francisco. And to be honest, I'd think there's at least a moderately good case for running up to Portland, Seattle and possibly even Vancouver. There's an awful lot of tech-industry commuting by air on those routes right now.

jacques_chester 11y ago

> the airline flight took about two to three hours Only if you assume that getting to and from the airport, and getting through security, and boarding, are all instant. Megabus drop and pickup in Manhattan. Acela goes to and from 34th st. Neither require me to play strip tease or watch 45 minutes of idiotic bin-shoving pantomimes. The nearest airport to Manhattan is LGA, it takes 30-40 minutes depending on traffic. JFK and EWR are 40-60 depending on traffic. None of them have direct subway or rail connections, so you have to either take a car or cobble together various public transportation options (subway then bus, subway then shuttle, subway then taxi, train then monorail) with frequently unsynchronised schedules. The idea that air travel is more convenient than the Acela train in the NE corridor is just silly.

ghaff 11y ago
Personally, I prefer taking the train in the Northeast Corridor but: 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station 2. Even though the train is more convenient in a number of ways, flying can get me from Boston into Manhattan earlier in the day than the train. Usually doesn't matter, but it may if you have a morning meeting and can't come down the previous night. 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  > 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station There is, but it runs relatively infrequently and you have to switch to the monorail, which is only faster than walking because it has a right of way. > 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well. Sure. I cheat by being the smug git in the middle. But I'd still rather take the train, honestly, from Boston to DC. I hate flying with a radiant intensity that could launch a thousand astronomy PhDs.
  - takno 11y ago
    I hate the monorail at EWR with a passion - the slow speed, the long stop at a parking garage before the terminal, the insane loop round some kind of junkyard/parking lot it takes on the way to the railroad station, but all told it's still only about 10 minutes at worst.

mikeash 11y ago

Acela isn't "high-speed" rail, it's basically normal rail with high-speed hardware which occasionally goes fast enough to barely clear the threshold for calling it "high speed." Acela averages less than 70MPH. In a proper high-speed system that would be more like 180MPH. Boston to DC would be 2.5 hours, vastly faster than flying once you account for airport nonsense.

ubernostrum 11y ago
In a proper high-speed system that would be more like 180MPH The current record for highest average speed on a rail line is China's 176mph average Shijiazhuang-Zhengzhou. Prior record holder was 173mph on the Champagne-Ardenne to Lorraine run on the LGV Est corridor of the TGV. All high-speed rail systems have stretches where they go faster than that, but average speeds are nowhere near what you're proposing. Unless, of course, your argument is that no "proper high-speed system" exists anywhere in the world today.
- mikeash 11y ago
  In what world is 176MPH "nowhere near" 180MPH? I was explicitly approximate, and being 4MPH off is pretty good!
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    I mean "nowhere near" in the sense that the outliers -- the current and previous record holder for average speed -- haven't managed to crack your proposed 180mph criterion for "high speed", and the non-outliers definitely aren't coming close to that number. Common definitions of "high speed" rail kick in at 200kph or 250kph, which are 124mph and 155mph respectively. Even if we go with the higher of those numbers, that's still around a 13% minimum difference in average speed between what's accepted and what you're proposing. (for non-Americans, what I'm arguing with here is the idea that ~290kph would be the minimum average speed to call something "high speed rail")
    - mikeash 11y ago

goatforce5 11y ago

> cost $450 for a 1 hour, 15 minute flight Remember to allow time for getting to/from the airports (which typically are a bit of a trek from downtown areas), allowing time to check in and clear security.

gozur88 11y ago
Right. That "1 hour, 15 minute flight" is really a minimum of about four hours. The train is probably faster, door-to-door.