6 ms·

> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, I have no trouble imagining that the train can c

• _red 10y ago
  That assumption is: plane with current on-time arrival percentage vs train with mythical 100% on-time arrival. There are a whole host of additional problems that affect rail travel that you never have to think about with air-travel. Currently, Amtrak OTA is 80% - so that means 1/5 of your trips will experience a delay of some sort.
  • khuey 10y ago
    Amtrak doesn't own the right of way for most of their routes.
  • DrScump 10y ago
    Where right-of-way is shared with freight, freight has priority.
    • toomanybeersies 10y ago
      That seems rather backwards. Passengers are the more time-sensitive cargo than freight.
      • dc_gregory 10y ago
        Presumption would be it's much harder to stop/start a freight train vs. a passenger train.
      • detaro 10y ago
        Not to the freight line companies owning the networks (Apparently there is a law saying that Amtrack has priority, but enforcing it has as of now just lead to years of lawsuits, without useful results)
      • sib 10y ago
        Agreed. Except that it's the freight railways that generally own the trackage in most (all?) places where it's shared with Amtrak. And the freight railways generate significantly more revenue from that trackage (about $75B annually vs $3B).
      • ghaff 10y ago
        There's also the small detail that it's the freight companies that actually own the tracks in most cases so they make the rules.
      • mmoche 10y ago
        Sure, but the freight companies own the track, so they prioritize their own trains.
      • Neliquat 10y ago
        Not if you look at the money tied up in the cargo, vs the fares refunded.
    • milesrout 10y ago
      This is the problem with the stupid American capitalist system. You have these sorts of problems. If it were all controlled by the Government, like it is in other countries, nobody would need to have 'priority'. You just schedule the trains properly.
      • Neliquat 10y ago
        Sounds great Benito.
        • DrScump 10y ago
          This is presumably a reference to the famous Mussolini claim about having made the trains run on time[0]. [0] http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp
      • pessimizer 10y ago
        How silly you are, to expect government to be responsible for coordinating things. The only reasonable purpose for government is to hand out candy to friends, relatives, and people who can keep you in government.
    • tdhoot 10y ago
      This is patently false - Amtrak has the right of way by law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308
      • netfire 10y ago
        "intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation" What qualifies as commuter rail? I think most of Amtrak's cross-country tracks would probably not be considered intercity or commuter lines.
        • rchowe 10y ago
          Amtrak is the contracted operator for a number of commuter rail services, such as MARC. Not sure if that counts as "by or for Amtrak". The real issue is that often operationally, a passenger train has to stop for a freight train. If you have a 1000' siding that you have to have a 6 car passenger train pass a 30 car freight train at, the passenger train is going to have to stop for the freight train. That doesn't even take into consideration other factors like how freight dispatchers don't like to stop hazmat/"hot" trains for safety reasons.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        According to this, the law is not enforced: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Amtrak-has-priority-over-freight-but-5923268.php http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Amtrak-has-priority-ov...
      • pm24601 10y ago
        You clearly have never taken Amtrak over distances. I have taken Amtrak numerous times Emeryville - Denver. The reality is: 1. if the siding is only 1km long - the Amtrak train is taking the siding as the freight train will not fit on it. 2. if the dispatcher decides the freight train goes ahead of Amtrak -- there is no lawyer around to argue the point. 3. if there is a long section of single tracking, with freight backed up the opposite direction, the dispatcher allows the all the same direction freights to move. ( 2+ hour delays when that happens ) 4. If there is enough of a delay and a freight train crew in front goes outlaw - then that train stops until a replacement crew is brought in... which usually results in the Amtrak crew going outlaw as well. It has gotten a lot, lot better and the scenery is beautiful - but please don't kid yourself about the realities on the ground. Amtrak has to stay in the good graces of the railroad companies especially with a hostile congress.
  • ghaff 10y ago
    I assumed that the Northeast Corridor (which I believe is the only place where Amtrak actually makes any money) would be much different from other routes but that actually isn't the case. Acela is better than the long distance routes but not by a huge amount. Of course OTA % doesn't account for the size of the miss and I've heard plenty of stories of long distance trains sitting for hours while multi-mile long freights go by.
    • douche 10y ago
      Some trains in the northeast corridor also get bounced by local commuter trains that have priority on the tracks. Several times I've been on the Downeaster headed to Boston and gotten shunted onto sidings, to the point that we got an hour behind schedule.
• ghshephard 10y ago
  "The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours at least once per month." I'm curious how that happened to you - I used to fly SFO-LAX from time to time, and was surprised that they didn't even really worry about me missing my flight - they just told me to catch the next one in line. United runs 27 flights daily from SFO to LAX, and presumably have some extra planes they can inject into the system if needed... (SFO is a United Hub)
  • ajmurmann 10y ago
    If it rains at SFO or there is fog they have to close 2 of the 4 runways and now you got massive delays. I've had a flight delayed from 8pm to 1:30am last year. Having lots of flights going the same way doesn't help, if the flights cannot take off.
    • 1024core 10y ago
      And what do you do if there's a suicide (unfortunately) on the HSR? The Caltrain that runs down the Peninsula from SF to SJ has a pretty high suicide rate; high enough, that there are people posted to look for potential suiciders.
      • Sanddancer 10y ago
        Part of the cost is improving the peninsula rail corridor for full grade separation, along with the suicide prevention improvements Caltrain is already performing on the corridor. When it's built, there should be a lot fewer places for suicide and a lot tighter control.
  • us0r 10y ago
    >United runs 27 flights daily from SFO to LAX That's just United. Southwest (and I'm pretty sure Jetblue and Virgin) has numerous flights to all airports in the greater LA area: https://www.southwest.com/thmpg/flights-from-SFO-to-LAX.html https://www.southwest.com/thmpg/flights-from-SFO-to-LAX.html
  • 10y ago
• yellowapple 10y ago
  "I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way." Especially if the train stops in "several backwater towns" (Fresno and Bakersfield ain't particularly glamorous, but I'd hardly call them "backwaters"; I digress...), this will automatically be more useful than just an ordinary flight between SFO and LAX for that reason alone. In addition, the time required to travel from each airport to where you actually want to be can be much less, since train stations can be built much closer to major metropolitan areas. Plus, weather is far less of a problem; when the planes at SFO are grounded due to fog, the trains will still run on time. For me, the line is effectively useless without Phase 2 (since that connects to Sacramento). With Phase 2 added, you'd have a high-speed connection to all four of California's major cities, significantly improving the already-pretty-great utility of the line.
  • djrogers 10y ago
    That ignores the fact that there are already 6 airports in Southern California and 3 (5 if you include Central Valley airports) in Northern California. Do you really think getting to Disneyland or Pasadena will be faster if you take a train to downtown LA than if you flew to SNA or BUR or ONT?
    • yellowapple 10y ago
      And that ignores the fact that not all of those airports are going to have the same airline coverage as the major ones (namely: SFO and LAX) - and even if they do, certainly not with a significant selection of flights, and certainly not at readily-affordable rates. To the average traveler, they might as well not exist; even Amtrak or Greyhound are more viable. Also, again: weather is still a major factor for any airport.
      • djrogers 10y ago
        Absolutely false - for NorCal-SoCal trips, all of the aforementioned airports have plentiful flights at similar cost to SFO and LAX. And weather primarily affects SFO - OAK and SJC rarely have the same problems as SFO.