3 ms·

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.

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.