9 ms·

Won't happen. The political reality is that America is opposed to these things, and I'm not sure which party is more to blame. Sorry, but it's true. These thin

by revscat 10y ago

Won't happen. The political reality is that America is opposed to these things, and I'm not sure which party is more to blame. Sorry, but it's true. These things come up over and over again, only to be killed root and branch by whatever means necessary.

edblarney 10y ago
So is Canada. We have zero high speed rail. In fact, many traveller rail lines have been closed over the years. Sadly.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Because Canada has many (more?) of the same geographical and distance/density issues that make most high-speed rail uninteresting in the US unless you ignore economics.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Canada has the benefit of most of the population almost lined up along the US border, at least the distance issues are only 1 dimensional.
    - angry_octet 10y ago
      There is a crossover point in distance where it is going to be quicker and cheaper to fly. Except for (Detroit-)Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal the distances are too great.
      - mikekchar 10y ago
        Even on the Detroit-Toronto-Ottawa leg, which should be hugely profitable, Via manages to screw it up. Admittedly my experience is several years old, but I once took the train from Ottawa to London, Ontario. It took over 12 hours which I think was something like 5 hours late. Because all of the passengers to Detroit missed their connection, Via drove them by taxi from London. I asked the porter if this was common. He told me it happened on virtually every run. I used to take the train everywhere that I could when I lived in Ottawa and the Hamilton-Montreal side was quite a bit better, but still ghastly. If Canada ever gets serious about rail, they need to do something about the rail infrastructure and the Via monopoly. Don't think it will ever happen though.
        angry_octet 10y ago
        Its also really good that the train station in Ottawa is miles from anywhere. There is a public bus that wants exact change.
      - guruz 10y ago
        I don't know the distances in US/Canada, but I want to mention one thing because this annoys me in virtually every discussion here on HN: How long the travel takes is not the only metric. We have flights, trains (with different speeds/comfort) and busses in Germany between the same cities. And all of those modes are used! And it's not even a money issue, very often flights are cheaper than trains but still people take the train. :) It's not black and white.
        angry_octet 10y ago
        Yes, but the distances are really much bigger. And I'm a lover of trains and the gentle rattle of an overnight train. - Toronto to Winnipeg -- 2300km via Chicago, Milwaukee; 20h by car non-stop. -- 2h30 by plane, plus 120 min check-in and TSA buggery - Munich to Berlin -- 530km, 6h by ICE train -- 1h10 by plane, plus 60 min check-in In Germany we're talking the difference between a pleasant afternoon reading a book and eating pastries, versus the hectic boarding and deplaning from an airport out of town. Consider instead: - Dortmund to Moscow -- 2300km, 36h by train (ICE and whatever ancient rolling stock eastern Europe uses). -- 3h by plane. Are you really going to take the train?
        guruz 10y ago
        You are right (except for the fact that the Munich airport is 50 minutes from the city and one of Berlin's airports is too so your math is off there). I think I was remembering the discussions about SF->LA or Boston->NY->Washington when writing my comment.
        chrisseaton 10y ago
        One thing you aren't mentioning about trains is they go from city centre to city centre. An airport is often half an hour or more to the city centre. Sometimes is's very awkward and expensive to get from the airport to the city. I used to live in a little village in the UK. I could walk 200m from my house to the village train station, and from there I could be in the city centre of any city in the UK in a few hours, with the only changes being strolling from one platform to another a couple of times inside a nice train station. I could have lunch on the train and then work at a big desk with a power socket and WiFi for the rest of the journey. No need for a taxi or bus or anything at either end. I'd be deposited right in the city centre ready for whatever I needed to do. There was almost zero impact on my day compared to being at my home desk. You can't say that about flying.
asafira 10y ago
Is there a good source to learn more about this, and especially your polarized view? I have friends into this discussion, but never understood the exact details each side was fussing about.
skybrian 10y ago
In California, it's pretty clear it's Republicans to blame: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/feds-delay-caltrain-electrification-money/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/feds-delay-caltrain-el...
- potatosoup 10y ago
  It's not so clear cut. The Republicans may be trying to put breaks on the never ending money drain that this project was. FWIW Trump looks to be very pro-High speed rail in general [1] esp as he is going to be pushing through his proposed 1TB infrastructure overhaul. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/03/abe-says-japan-to-show-unwavering-alliance-with-us-under-trump.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/03/abe-says-japan-to-show-u...
  - skybrian 10y ago
    You are arguing they had good reasons. But it still seems pretty clear that it's a partisan issue.
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      You can blame Republicans for opposing it and blame Democrats for treating it like a gravy train and inflating the price, route, and build time, and cutting the speed. We are ten years into the project, and have nothing to show for it. This is how mega projects like this are run, it's hard to blame people for opposing them. Republicans could have been made to look like fools for opposing it if it was on time and on budget, and had a reasonable route. The original promise was $50 tickets & 220 mph speeds!!
  - threeseed 10y ago
    I would be very surprised if that 1T infrastructure spending bill ever sees the light of day. Firstly, the US has a massive budget deficit and with upcoming corporate tax cuts the question will be where the money is going to come from. Secondly, the US is approaching full employment at ~5%. Now sure there is significant underemployment but you have to wonder if (a) there is enough people to build out all this infrastructure and (b) if the states even have enough shovel ready projects. Because they sure didn't during the GFC when Obama was looking for an infrastructure stimulus.
matheweis 10y ago
I think it's simply that America has a larger geographical scale relative Europe causing there to be a lower ROI... That being said, I never have understood why we can't get support for a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
- danieldk 10y ago
  But this is about a 140 miles / 225 km railway line, which is approximately the same scale as European high-speed trains.
- coliveira 10y ago
  It has little to do with geography and everything to do with the auto industry. They don't want to allow public transportation as government-sponsored way to reduce the profits of the auto industry.
  - Agustus 10y ago
    What active work do the automotive companies do to discourage rail? The light and high speed rail companies put on a very good dog and pony show to representatives. They shower them with money, explain the economic incentives and all sorts of other items. The government will then actively try to sell it to the tax base. Any person speaking out against it is called as a Luddite or sponsored by the oil industry (although these are contrived, as they are actually representatives of a economic think tank). The head winds for rail is always heavily supported by a directly benefiting industry. So, I am genuinely interested in your source for the automotive statement you made. Also, please do not use l up the unproven "conspiracy" from prior to world war 2.
    - Kluny 10y ago
      Usually it comes in the form of telling blue-collar people that any threat to their business model is a threat to their jobs. It seems to be very effective.
PNWChris 10y ago
I disagree. King county voters just funded a $54 billion, 30+ year light rail and transit development plan last November[0]. I actually think this new rail plan has a great chance of happening. Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, and surrounding areas have a lot of enthusiasm for new transit. The traffic is getting outrageous, and people are genuinely interested in investing in alternatives to cars. Heck, I take the light rail back from the airport nearly every time now. Plus, every time I drive to Portland I get trapped in Olympia traffic, and there's literally no highway to Vancouver proper. Fast, reliable rail would be a godsend! [0]: http://soundtransit3.org/ http://soundtransit3.org/
- trome 10y ago
  The scope for Sound Transit 3 is too small, primarily due to our Legislature kneecapping Sound Transit's taxing authority, and sub-area equity forcing Sound Transit to not build high ridership lines like what was proposed along the 44's route (which would have been the 2nd highest ridership line in the region, after Ballard to Downtown). The appetite is definitely there, we can't build or zone our way out of traffic, and short of Trump killing Microsoft and Amazon like he did Boeing recently (with the spate of canceled 777 contracts and all), the city will keep growing.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    What did trump do to cancel 777 contracts? That thing was hurting on its own I thought.

by revscat 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago

So is Canada. We have zero high speed rail. In fact, many traveller rail lines have been closed over the years. Sadly.

ghaff 10y ago
Because Canada has many (more?) of the same geographical and distance/density issues that make most high-speed rail uninteresting in the US unless you ignore economics.
- flukus 10y ago
  Canada has the benefit of most of the population almost lined up along the US border, at least the distance issues are only 1 dimensional.
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    There is a crossover point in distance where it is going to be quicker and cheaper to fly. Except for (Detroit-)Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal the distances are too great.
    - mikekchar 10y ago
      Even on the Detroit-Toronto-Ottawa leg, which should be hugely profitable, Via manages to screw it up. Admittedly my experience is several years old, but I once took the train from Ottawa to London, Ontario. It took over 12 hours which I think was something like 5 hours late. Because all of the passengers to Detroit missed their connection, Via drove them by taxi from London. I asked the porter if this was common. He told me it happened on virtually every run. I used to take the train everywhere that I could when I lived in Ottawa and the Hamilton-Montreal side was quite a bit better, but still ghastly. If Canada ever gets serious about rail, they need to do something about the rail infrastructure and the Via monopoly. Don't think it will ever happen though.
      - angry_octet 10y ago
        Its also really good that the train station in Ottawa is miles from anywhere. There is a public bus that wants exact change.
    - guruz 10y ago
      I don't know the distances in US/Canada, but I want to mention one thing because this annoys me in virtually every discussion here on HN: How long the travel takes is not the only metric. We have flights, trains (with different speeds/comfort) and busses in Germany between the same cities. And all of those modes are used! And it's not even a money issue, very often flights are cheaper than trains but still people take the train. :) It's not black and white.
      - angry_octet 10y ago
        Yes, but the distances are really much bigger. And I'm a lover of trains and the gentle rattle of an overnight train. - Toronto to Winnipeg -- 2300km via Chicago, Milwaukee; 20h by car non-stop. -- 2h30 by plane, plus 120 min check-in and TSA buggery - Munich to Berlin -- 530km, 6h by ICE train -- 1h10 by plane, plus 60 min check-in In Germany we're talking the difference between a pleasant afternoon reading a book and eating pastries, versus the hectic boarding and deplaning from an airport out of town. Consider instead: - Dortmund to Moscow -- 2300km, 36h by train (ICE and whatever ancient rolling stock eastern Europe uses). -- 3h by plane. Are you really going to take the train?
        guruz 10y ago
        You are right (except for the fact that the Munich airport is 50 minutes from the city and one of Berlin's airports is too so your math is off there). I think I was remembering the discussions about SF->LA or Boston->NY->Washington when writing my comment.
        chrisseaton 10y ago
        One thing you aren't mentioning about trains is they go from city centre to city centre. An airport is often half an hour or more to the city centre. Sometimes is's very awkward and expensive to get from the airport to the city. I used to live in a little village in the UK. I could walk 200m from my house to the village train station, and from there I could be in the city centre of any city in the UK in a few hours, with the only changes being strolling from one platform to another a couple of times inside a nice train station. I could have lunch on the train and then work at a big desk with a power socket and WiFi for the rest of the journey. No need for a taxi or bus or anything at either end. I'd be deposited right in the city centre ready for whatever I needed to do. There was almost zero impact on my day compared to being at my home desk. You can't say that about flying.

asafira 10y ago

Is there a good source to learn more about this, and especially your polarized view? I have friends into this discussion, but never understood the exact details each side was fussing about.

skybrian 10y ago

In California, it's pretty clear it's Republicans to blame: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/feds-delay-caltrain-electrification-money/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/feds-delay-caltrain-el...

potatosoup 10y ago
It's not so clear cut. The Republicans may be trying to put breaks on the never ending money drain that this project was. FWIW Trump looks to be very pro-High speed rail in general [1] esp as he is going to be pushing through his proposed 1TB infrastructure overhaul. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/03/abe-says-japan-to-show-unwavering-alliance-with-us-under-trump.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/03/abe-says-japan-to-show-u...
- skybrian 10y ago
  You are arguing they had good reasons. But it still seems pretty clear that it's a partisan issue.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    You can blame Republicans for opposing it and blame Democrats for treating it like a gravy train and inflating the price, route, and build time, and cutting the speed. We are ten years into the project, and have nothing to show for it. This is how mega projects like this are run, it's hard to blame people for opposing them. Republicans could have been made to look like fools for opposing it if it was on time and on budget, and had a reasonable route. The original promise was $50 tickets & 220 mph speeds!!
- threeseed 10y ago
  I would be very surprised if that 1T infrastructure spending bill ever sees the light of day. Firstly, the US has a massive budget deficit and with upcoming corporate tax cuts the question will be where the money is going to come from. Secondly, the US is approaching full employment at ~5%. Now sure there is significant underemployment but you have to wonder if (a) there is enough people to build out all this infrastructure and (b) if the states even have enough shovel ready projects. Because they sure didn't during the GFC when Obama was looking for an infrastructure stimulus.

matheweis 10y ago

I think it's simply that America has a larger geographical scale relative Europe causing there to be a lower ROI... That being said, I never have understood why we can't get support for a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

danieldk 10y ago
But this is about a 140 miles / 225 km railway line, which is approximately the same scale as European high-speed trains.
coliveira 10y ago
It has little to do with geography and everything to do with the auto industry. They don't want to allow public transportation as government-sponsored way to reduce the profits of the auto industry.
- Agustus 10y ago
  What active work do the automotive companies do to discourage rail? The light and high speed rail companies put on a very good dog and pony show to representatives. They shower them with money, explain the economic incentives and all sorts of other items. The government will then actively try to sell it to the tax base. Any person speaking out against it is called as a Luddite or sponsored by the oil industry (although these are contrived, as they are actually representatives of a economic think tank). The head winds for rail is always heavily supported by a directly benefiting industry. So, I am genuinely interested in your source for the automotive statement you made. Also, please do not use l up the unproven "conspiracy" from prior to world war 2.
  - Kluny 10y ago
    Usually it comes in the form of telling blue-collar people that any threat to their business model is a threat to their jobs. It seems to be very effective.

PNWChris 10y ago

I disagree. King county voters just funded a $54 billion, 30+ year light rail and transit development plan last November[0]. I actually think this new rail plan has a great chance of happening. Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, and surrounding areas have a lot of enthusiasm for new transit. The traffic is getting outrageous, and people are genuinely interested in investing in alternatives to cars. Heck, I take the light rail back from the airport nearly every time now. Plus, every time I drive to Portland I get trapped in Olympia traffic, and there's literally no highway to Vancouver proper. Fast, reliable rail would be a godsend! [0]: http://soundtransit3.org/ http://soundtransit3.org/

trome 10y ago
The scope for Sound Transit 3 is too small, primarily due to our Legislature kneecapping Sound Transit's taxing authority, and sub-area equity forcing Sound Transit to not build high ridership lines like what was proposed along the 44's route (which would have been the 2nd highest ridership line in the region, after Ballard to Downtown). The appetite is definitely there, we can't build or zone our way out of traffic, and short of Trump killing Microsoft and Amazon like he did Boeing recently (with the spate of canceled 777 contracts and all), the city will keep growing.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  What did trump do to cancel 777 contracts? That thing was hurting on its own I thought.