9 ms·

Unpopular opinion, but I really don't see why we should want high speed rail in the first place. It's slower than flying on a commuter airline, but the tickets

Unpopular opinion, but I really don't see why we should want high speed rail in the first place. It's slower than flying on a commuter airline, but the tickets cost nearly as much, and it's also enormously expensive to build. Then there's also the issue of throughput and last mile logistics. You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway. Being a high speed train, stops are necessarily few and far between, so once you arrive at the station you still have to figure out how to travel tens of miles to where you really want to go. My perception is that it's a huge money pit for something that's quite frankly inferior to our current infrastructure. We would be much better off improving our current insterstate system.

fatjokes 9y ago
Some of the negatives you're listing are only true in America. In Asia and Europe, high-speed train is much cheaper than train, faster when accounting for security and check-in, and 10x more comfortable. You also don't generally get abused by TSA and airline workers.
jacquesm 9y ago
Rail is superior to highways on quite a few dimensions: - faster (200 Km/h and up) - much lower accident per passenger mile - in theory it should be cheaper (it isn't for a variety of reasons, many of those are political) - it allows you to work while you're in motion (much harder in a car or a plane) - more land efficient - connects the centers of cities rather than the outskirts which in many cases removes that last mile problem because the majority of traffic is city-to-city For the United States the situation is better served anyway by comparing rail and air travel, air travel scales better as the distance increases, is (roughly) comparable in cost per ticket and tends to be faster on longer distances.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Rail is mostly used for cargo. Rail is about 4 times more efficient than a truck is fuel wise. Labor wise, more than an order of magnitude. A 100-unit train can carry 10,000 tons whereas a truck is closer to 20 tons.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    The context of the discussion is high speed rail, which is for passengers.
    - IntelMiner 9y ago
      There's no reason that high speed rail couldn't work for both, however
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        There is relatively little economic incentive to make high speed rail work for cargo. Cargo that's large enough to go by rail tends to go for the lowest price per ton that can be found, it competes with long haul trucks, barges and oceangoing ships. It does not compete with air cargo (which tends to focus on high value and light stuff).
      - masklinn 9y ago
        There are plenty of reasons: * the weight of freight significantly impacts the track's lifecycle, and HSR tend to be on the "light cargo" side with a train being about 10% cargo by weight * the bulk and varying shape makes it impossible to build high-speed trains with any interesting flexibility and capability as they need to be highly profiled * and you don't want your high-speed passenger traffic to be held up by freight. * the cost/benefit calculation makes no sense, it's much more price-efficient to carry freight using gigantic regular-speed trainsets than using small high-speed ones, and what little freight is so time-sensitive that you need to put it on an HSR can be put there as a special case None of the big HSR countries use it for anything resembling serious freight, the only one which came even remotely close was France which had 3.5 mail trainsets, which were wound down and ultimately retired in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste
        gsnedders 9y ago
        China has some freight going on HSR nowadays, though they are mostly on slower lines (i.e., 200-250km/h, so 125-155mph IIRC) that were opened on new routes. But yes, weight is a big deal: the LGV in France, for example, have a maximum axle loading of 17 tons. Much of the US freight network is over 35 tons, from memory.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You forgot one important point: Anyone can take rail. In order to drive, you already have to own a car (and be able to drive). Many people, especially those who live in cities, don't have cars, so taking a train just costs the price of the ticket, whereas driving requires renting or buying a car. Unless you're traveling very frequently, it's cheaper to not own a car.
  - landon32 9y ago
    I don't think high speed rail would help here. We already have normal speed trains that are affordable, and I'd imagine high speed rails would just be more expensive. Unless you're talking about the highly possible near future where even the middle class doesn't has cars, but would pay more for a train ticket that's faster.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Ah good one, totally missed that point. Thank you.
  - brightball 9y ago
    Aren't most cities more expensive to live in than the cost of owning a car in the suburbs?
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      There are other costs associated with living in the suburbs than just the cost of a car. There is also commute time, which - if your time isn't valuable to you - need not be a problem but for many people this wasted time is a real issue.
      - Scarblac 9y ago
        And the same time spent in a train can be productive. In a car, it's just a complete waste.
        closeparen 9y ago
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  Rail also doesn't have taxiing time, takeoff/landing time nor baggage time. And no seat belts. I love it, but I also understand much of America is located farther apart than other countries. Yet, we should prepare for denser days.
  - imnotlost 9y ago
    And no TSA which is a huge win. You can bring your devices without worrying about having them inspected and potentially cloned.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      You can bring your devices without worrying about having them inspected Why not? True, hostage-taking is generally not a risk on rail (Pelham 1-2-3 aside), but HSR is just as tempting a target for terrorism. Imagine a detonation that derails an HSR from elevated rail, at speed, in an urban setting.
      - Klockan 9y ago
        The easiest way to derail a train is to manipulate its tracks, inspecting passengers would do nothing to prevent this.
- vosper 9y ago
  I suspect that by the time we could build a high speed rail network in the US (say 30-40 years, minimum) autonomous vehicles on the freeway will be the superior option. There's no fundamental reason that road vehicles couldn't exceed 200kph, just that humans are completely incapable of piloting safely at anywhere near those speeds. Once the need for a forward-looking pilot is gone you could design vehicles completely around the comfort of the occupants. And, better than HSR, the same vehicle can go door-to-door.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > here's no fundamental reason that road vehicles couldn't exceed 200kph Actually, there is: energy costs for road traffic go up as the square of the velocity, for rail this is much better because there is only one (very aerodynamic) front section for as many carriages as you want to put behind the loc and steel-on-steel has much better rolling resistance than rubber-on-asphalt or concrete.
    - vosper 9y ago
      That's a fair point, what's the energy cost of building thousands of miles of new railways, rather than using existing freeways? (okay, I'm being a little facetious) With regard to aerodynamics, I am assuming that following distances for advanced autonomous vehicles will be minimal. They could maybe drive bumper-to-bumper as long as all cars in the ... er ... train were similarly capable.
      - sangnoir 9y ago
        You'd want to physically couple those cars because should any one of them unexpectedly lose locomotion, they'll be a huge train wreck.
      - ocschwar 9y ago
        Track costs far less (in money and energy) to build and maintain than freeway.
        9y ago
- cirrus-clouds 9y ago
  >in theory it should be cheaper Rail is heavily subsidised in many European countries. But a well-run and affordable rail service is such an essential motor of economic well-being that subsidies are generally accepted as essential by governments and most of the public. For an example of what what happens when more and more of the cost of a ticket is shouldered by the commuter, look at the UK. We have some of the highest rail fares in the whole of Europe. Below is research from the TUC (Trades Union Congress) in the UK who campaign against rail privatisation. Whether or not you agree with their stance on privatisation, the cost of a monthly season ticket in the UK is enormous. Monthly season ticket comparison: UK vs Europe: UK: Luton to London St. Pancras (35 miles) £387 UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) £292 Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) £85 France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) £61 Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) £61 Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) £75 Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-their-salary-rail-fares-other https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk...
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    That's hardly related to privatisation though. Railways are not that profitable. The government could up subsidies if it wanted to to reduce ticket prices without nationalising the routes: it already enforces price controls. One reason those routes are so expensive is that UK rail is in many regions frequently at or over capacity. Supply/demand does its thing until prices hit the caps. This is especially true around London. Price controls always cause shortages and in this case it's a shortage of seats and investment in capacity upgrades. Seems people prefer that to more expensive tickets or higher taxpayer subsidies. Also the infrastructure is ancient - the steam locomotive was literally invented in the UK - and investment was largely abandoned during the decades of government ownership. The current railways often have infrastructure in them built a century ago. Finally, some lines actually pay the government money rather than receive subsidies. I don't think the UK position is wrong. It just means people who choose to use the railways instead of driving or moving pay more of the costs. Seems fair.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
- avar 9y ago
  Germany has 200km/h and up roads in some places, so this is hardly a convincing counterargument to simply improving the interstate system.
  - lorenzhs 9y ago
    You're allowed to go as fast as you safely can on some of our roads, but even on those the flow of traffic is maybe at 130-140 km/h (80-90 mph). Sustaining 200km/h in a car is very hard (extreme focus is required) and quite expensive as fuel economy drops sharply. Plus most cars can't actually do it.
michaelchisari 9y ago
slower than flying on a commuter airline Less security, bigger seats, room to move around. The time loss going from New York to Chicago or Seattle to Los Angeles would be minimal if you count the total time spent in transit, and the trip would be much less stressful. you still have to figure out how to travel tens of miles to where you really want to go. Same with air travel, except it's easier for trains to end up in city centers instead of airports outside of the city. as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway Which is much more environmentally damaging, and requires drivers. When autonomous, electric vehicles are the rule instead of the exception this might not be the case, but for now I'd much rather take a train than drive.
- ivan_gammel 9y ago
  >>you still have to figure out how to travel tens of miles to where you really want to go. >Same with air travel, except it's easier for trains to end up in city centers instead of airports outside of the city. With developed network of local and regional lines it's usually more convenient to travel by train, because you just switch to metro or local train on the same station. E.g. in Germany there are long distance speed trains (ICE), regionals (RE), local trains (S-Bahn), metro (U-Bahn) and very good public transit. I haven't find a place yet, where you will really need a car to get there. One comment on the website mentions airport-like security checks, saying that they'll slow down the boarding by the same amount of time. Actually, it's not true - just look at "Sapsan" trains between Moscow and St.Petersburg in Russia. There's, in fact, airport-like security check right before the train and it does not make boarding significantly slower.
CydeWeys 9y ago
Airports are located pretty far from city centers. It's not uncommon to have to add at least an hour on both ends to handle transportation to/from airports, and that transportation can often be expensive in its own right if a cab is the best option. When I go from NYC to DC and back, I don't fly, I take the train or bus. It ends up being significantly cheaper and doesn't take any longer, plus there's less annoying switching between modes of transit. Cities less than 400 km apart are already better traveled between using bus or low-speed rail -- now more than double that minimum radius for true high-speed rail and you can see how it would have a big impact on US long-distance travel.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  5 years ago I tool the train from Edinburgh to London. That is not a fast train. 400 miles in 4.5 hours. But was kinda like being on a BART train without the crazy people. The trip is longer than flying (not by much) but the stress load is a lot less than flying. Someone mentioned longer distances in the US. But far as I get most places building rail through the flat nowhere lands is really cheap. And the trains can run at max speed with few stops. If you built a line from Chicago to Denver, okay 900 miles. But at 220 MPH, four hours. Be better than flying.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Totally agreed that I'm willing to spend a little bit longer on a train over a plane. It is a more enjoyable and relaxed travel experience.
vvpan 9y ago
Well, here's an example. The route between Moscow and St. Petersburg (about 400 miles, about the same as LA to SF) is a very popular train route. Flying between these cities makes no sense because a high speed train between them takes 4 hours and you board and get off right in the middle of each city. If you were flying you'd need to get to the airport, pass through security, fly, collect baggage, get to the destination city. So train ends up being faster, cheaper and much much more comfortable.
fooker 9y ago
>It's slower than flying on a commuter airline, but the tickets cost nearly as much That is a good indication there is demand. Prices can only go down if trains are more frequent and available to all places.
krschultz 9y ago
The northeast corridor is faster than flying. The trains stop in the downtown of each city which cuts out the travel time to and from the airport, and you don't have to arrive at the train station as early before boarding. The ticket prices are high because Amtrak is subsidizing the non-profitable routes with the North East Corridor. If it was run as a business they would cut all the trains in the middle of the country and re-invest the profit in the NEC, or lower fares. If it was run as a public good, then there would be more of a subsidy. Right now Amtrak in this place where it's restricted by being beholden to politics but not enjoying the benefit of full throated government support.
usaphp 9y ago
> It's slower than flying on a commuter airline When the flight says it's 40 minutes - it's not really 40 minutes, add time for tsa, baggage, landing etc and you get at least 2-3 hours wasted of your day
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  It doesn't include TSA or boarding, but it does include landing/taxiing. Flight time = gate to gate.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  It doesn't include TSA or boarding, but it does include landing/taxiing. Flight time = gate to gate.
zkms 9y ago
> It's slower than flying on a commuter airline, but the tickets cost nearly as much, and it's also enormously expensive to build High-speed rail in many non-US countries is vastly cheaper to construct and much faster and reliable than USian high-speed rail. > You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway. With off-the-shelf railcars and a well-tested train control system rail can get far higher throughput than freeways. If you do the USian thing and have to get extremely customised/bespoke rolling stock and try to make your own bespoke train control system, well, you indeed do get the disaster you're describing. > My perception is that it's a huge money pit for something that's quite frankly inferior to our current infrastructure. We would be much better off improving our current insterstate system. US rail indeed sucks and it needs to be unfucked before more money is dumped into it. None of the suckiness (slowness, high construction cost per mile, high ticket prices) is inherent to high-speed rail, though.
rocky1138 9y ago
Have you ever actually traveled on high speed rail?
melling 9y ago
Hey, your opinion is quite popular, and wrong. How do people figure out how to get from airports to their final destinations? How many people can put put in trains? China is going to get 32,000 people per hour in their low-speed maglev: http://gbtimes.com/china/beijing-launch-first-maglev-line-2016 http://gbtimes.com/china/beijing-launch-first-maglev-line-20... The throughput is higher in rail than cars. Also, you are trying to make HSR fit as a solution where cars would be better. No one said that trains are best in every situation. And absolutely no one said that we should remove all of our high-ways and replace them with rail. However, between cities over several hundred thousand people, and within 500-7600 miles, they work out well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gumby 9y ago
Have you used it? Your experience doesn't match mine in using HSR in Europe, China and Japan. The vehicle speed is lower but the total travel time (much less inconvenience) of rail vs air is much lower, except for transcontinental trips. And the rail stations are usually more conveniently located compared to airports.
- vorg 9y ago
  And in larger Chinese cities, every HSL station is connected directly to the city subway system (or has the subway station under construction). That also means you don't have to allow extra time for contingencies, which usually means arriving early at the airport.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> * the tickets cost nearly as much* Given that we don't have a high speed rail system in place, I'm not sure where this number is coming from. > You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway. My wife, my kid and I flew down to Texas, and are going to be spending about 20 hours doing long-distance drives. I would absolutely love to be in a few high-speed train cars than stuck in a car, in a continuous stream of people, where one of us has to remain at relatively high alert for hours at a time, while the other one is strapped into a seat, trying to entertain the other other one who is strapped into a smaller seat, but has boundless energy and no concept of patience. If we had some sort of road-train system where we weren't welded to a gas pedal and a steering wheel, then maybe.
prodikl 9y ago
i think we can all agree that the main issue (in america) is population density (lack thereof, could the system ever pay for itself?) and the american suburban lifestyle not being compatible with high speed rail
rdiddly 9y ago
Your opinion is not unpopular; it's the default and prevailing opinion in the US or any economy with access to cheap energy and without any efficiency incentives (read: scarcity or foresight). Flying is the most energy- and carbon-intensive mode per passenger-mile. Which as alluded above, is not a meaningful economic factor, yet. (Unfortunately by the time it becomes meaningful enough to be profitable, it might be too late to transition to anything else because the capital won't be there.) RE highway vs. train - If you can imagine a continuous stream of cars on a highway, why wouldn't you be able to also imagine a continuous stream of trains on a track? A mile of track filled with train cars can hold more people than a mile of highway, easily. And it has one centralized power plant with a much higher efficiency factor (because it's a larger engine and because it uses better fuel for the purpose). It also has far less total wind resistance, since the train has only one front face and one rear face. And if it's high-speed rail, well, it moves faster than cars. But again, efficiency is not currently a meaningful factor. Traveling the last few miles from the train stop is very much a solved problem. Even if you drive, that beats making the whole journey by car in my book. But those wishing to minimize it can always move closer in near the stop... thereby concentrating land-use in cities again and maybe letting the scourge of suburbia die off like it needs to... in a paroxysm of mold-infested particle-board.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mehwoot 9y ago
I went to Japan for the first time recently, and holy crap, high speed rail is amazing. It's like flying business class, or better. You have so much leg room, free wifi and a powerpoint next to you. You don't have to check your bags in or go through security or any of that crap, you just turn up at the station 5 minutes before it leaves and then sit down in genuine comfort and hack away on your laptop for a couple of hours. If it were an option in my country I'd definitely take it for any trip up to ~1,200km.
trophycase 9y ago
Flying sucks. Hard or impossible to sleep, uncomfortable, can't walk around, little to no food, airport security.

fatjokes 9y ago

Some of the negatives you're listing are only true in America. In Asia and Europe, high-speed train is much cheaper than train, faster when accounting for security and check-in, and 10x more comfortable. You also don't generally get abused by TSA and airline workers.

jacquesm 9y ago

Rail is superior to highways on quite a few dimensions: - faster (200 Km/h and up) - much lower accident per passenger mile - in theory it should be cheaper (it isn't for a variety of reasons, many of those are political) - it allows you to work while you're in motion (much harder in a car or a plane) - more land efficient - connects the centers of cities rather than the outskirts which in many cases removes that last mile problem because the majority of traffic is city-to-city For the United States the situation is better served anyway by comparing rail and air travel, air travel scales better as the distance increases, is (roughly) comparable in cost per ticket and tends to be faster on longer distances.

CalChris 9y ago
Rail is mostly used for cargo. Rail is about 4 times more efficient than a truck is fuel wise. Labor wise, more than an order of magnitude. A 100-unit train can carry 10,000 tons whereas a truck is closer to 20 tons.
- masklinn 9y ago
  The context of the discussion is high speed rail, which is for passengers.
  - IntelMiner 9y ago
    There's no reason that high speed rail couldn't work for both, however
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      There is relatively little economic incentive to make high speed rail work for cargo. Cargo that's large enough to go by rail tends to go for the lowest price per ton that can be found, it competes with long haul trucks, barges and oceangoing ships. It does not compete with air cargo (which tends to focus on high value and light stuff).
    - masklinn 9y ago
      There are plenty of reasons: * the weight of freight significantly impacts the track's lifecycle, and HSR tend to be on the "light cargo" side with a train being about 10% cargo by weight * the bulk and varying shape makes it impossible to build high-speed trains with any interesting flexibility and capability as they need to be highly profiled * and you don't want your high-speed passenger traffic to be held up by freight. * the cost/benefit calculation makes no sense, it's much more price-efficient to carry freight using gigantic regular-speed trainsets than using small high-speed ones, and what little freight is so time-sensitive that you need to put it on an HSR can be put there as a special case None of the big HSR countries use it for anything resembling serious freight, the only one which came even remotely close was France which had 3.5 mail trainsets, which were wound down and ultimately retired in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste
      - gsnedders 9y ago
        China has some freight going on HSR nowadays, though they are mostly on slower lines (i.e., 200-250km/h, so 125-155mph IIRC) that were opened on new routes. But yes, weight is a big deal: the LGV in France, for example, have a maximum axle loading of 17 tons. Much of the US freight network is over 35 tons, from memory.
CydeWeys 9y ago
You forgot one important point: Anyone can take rail. In order to drive, you already have to own a car (and be able to drive). Many people, especially those who live in cities, don't have cars, so taking a train just costs the price of the ticket, whereas driving requires renting or buying a car. Unless you're traveling very frequently, it's cheaper to not own a car.
- landon32 9y ago
  I don't think high speed rail would help here. We already have normal speed trains that are affordable, and I'd imagine high speed rails would just be more expensive. Unless you're talking about the highly possible near future where even the middle class doesn't has cars, but would pay more for a train ticket that's faster.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Ah good one, totally missed that point. Thank you.
- brightball 9y ago
  Aren't most cities more expensive to live in than the cost of owning a car in the suburbs?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    There are other costs associated with living in the suburbs than just the cost of a car. There is also commute time, which - if your time isn't valuable to you - need not be a problem but for many people this wasted time is a real issue.
    - Scarblac 9y ago
      And the same time spent in a train can be productive. In a car, it's just a complete waste.
      - closeparen 9y ago
chillingeffect 9y ago
Rail also doesn't have taxiing time, takeoff/landing time nor baggage time. And no seat belts. I love it, but I also understand much of America is located farther apart than other countries. Yet, we should prepare for denser days.
- imnotlost 9y ago
  And no TSA which is a huge win. You can bring your devices without worrying about having them inspected and potentially cloned.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    You can bring your devices without worrying about having them inspected Why not? True, hostage-taking is generally not a risk on rail (Pelham 1-2-3 aside), but HSR is just as tempting a target for terrorism. Imagine a detonation that derails an HSR from elevated rail, at speed, in an urban setting.
    - Klockan 9y ago
      The easiest way to derail a train is to manipulate its tracks, inspecting passengers would do nothing to prevent this.
vosper 9y ago
I suspect that by the time we could build a high speed rail network in the US (say 30-40 years, minimum) autonomous vehicles on the freeway will be the superior option. There's no fundamental reason that road vehicles couldn't exceed 200kph, just that humans are completely incapable of piloting safely at anywhere near those speeds. Once the need for a forward-looking pilot is gone you could design vehicles completely around the comfort of the occupants. And, better than HSR, the same vehicle can go door-to-door.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > here's no fundamental reason that road vehicles couldn't exceed 200kph Actually, there is: energy costs for road traffic go up as the square of the velocity, for rail this is much better because there is only one (very aerodynamic) front section for as many carriages as you want to put behind the loc and steel-on-steel has much better rolling resistance than rubber-on-asphalt or concrete.
  - vosper 9y ago
    That's a fair point, what's the energy cost of building thousands of miles of new railways, rather than using existing freeways? (okay, I'm being a little facetious) With regard to aerodynamics, I am assuming that following distances for advanced autonomous vehicles will be minimal. They could maybe drive bumper-to-bumper as long as all cars in the ... er ... train were similarly capable.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      You'd want to physically couple those cars because should any one of them unexpectedly lose locomotion, they'll be a huge train wreck.
    - ocschwar 9y ago
      Track costs far less (in money and energy) to build and maintain than freeway.
      - 9y ago
cirrus-clouds 9y ago
>in theory it should be cheaper Rail is heavily subsidised in many European countries. But a well-run and affordable rail service is such an essential motor of economic well-being that subsidies are generally accepted as essential by governments and most of the public. For an example of what what happens when more and more of the cost of a ticket is shouldered by the commuter, look at the UK. We have some of the highest rail fares in the whole of Europe. Below is research from the TUC (Trades Union Congress) in the UK who campaign against rail privatisation. Whether or not you agree with their stance on privatisation, the cost of a monthly season ticket in the UK is enormous. Monthly season ticket comparison: UK vs Europe: UK: Luton to London St. Pancras (35 miles) £387 UK: Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Piccadilly (32 miles) £292 Germany: Dusseldorf to Cologne (28 miles) £85 France: Mantes-la-Jolie to Paris (34 miles) £61 Italy: Anzione to Rome (31 miles) £61 Spain: Aranjuez to Madrid (31 miles) £75 Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk-commuters-spend-6-times-much-their-salary-rail-fares-other https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/uk...
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  That's hardly related to privatisation though. Railways are not that profitable. The government could up subsidies if it wanted to to reduce ticket prices without nationalising the routes: it already enforces price controls. One reason those routes are so expensive is that UK rail is in many regions frequently at or over capacity. Supply/demand does its thing until prices hit the caps. This is especially true around London. Price controls always cause shortages and in this case it's a shortage of seats and investment in capacity upgrades. Seems people prefer that to more expensive tickets or higher taxpayer subsidies. Also the infrastructure is ancient - the steam locomotive was literally invented in the UK - and investment was largely abandoned during the decades of government ownership. The current railways often have infrastructure in them built a century ago. Finally, some lines actually pay the government money rather than receive subsidies. I don't think the UK position is wrong. It just means people who choose to use the railways instead of driving or moving pay more of the costs. Seems fair.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
avar 9y ago
Germany has 200km/h and up roads in some places, so this is hardly a convincing counterargument to simply improving the interstate system.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  You're allowed to go as fast as you safely can on some of our roads, but even on those the flow of traffic is maybe at 130-140 km/h (80-90 mph). Sustaining 200km/h in a car is very hard (extreme focus is required) and quite expensive as fuel economy drops sharply. Plus most cars can't actually do it.

michaelchisari 9y ago

slower than flying on a commuter airline Less security, bigger seats, room to move around. The time loss going from New York to Chicago or Seattle to Los Angeles would be minimal if you count the total time spent in transit, and the trip would be much less stressful. you still have to figure out how to travel tens of miles to where you really want to go. Same with air travel, except it's easier for trains to end up in city centers instead of airports outside of the city. as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway Which is much more environmentally damaging, and requires drivers. When autonomous, electric vehicles are the rule instead of the exception this might not be the case, but for now I'd much rather take a train than drive.

ivan_gammel 9y ago
>>you still have to figure out how to travel tens of miles to where you really want to go. >Same with air travel, except it's easier for trains to end up in city centers instead of airports outside of the city. With developed network of local and regional lines it's usually more convenient to travel by train, because you just switch to metro or local train on the same station. E.g. in Germany there are long distance speed trains (ICE), regionals (RE), local trains (S-Bahn), metro (U-Bahn) and very good public transit. I haven't find a place yet, where you will really need a car to get there. One comment on the website mentions airport-like security checks, saying that they'll slow down the boarding by the same amount of time. Actually, it's not true - just look at "Sapsan" trains between Moscow and St.Petersburg in Russia. There's, in fact, airport-like security check right before the train and it does not make boarding significantly slower.

CydeWeys 9y ago

Airports are located pretty far from city centers. It's not uncommon to have to add at least an hour on both ends to handle transportation to/from airports, and that transportation can often be expensive in its own right if a cab is the best option. When I go from NYC to DC and back, I don't fly, I take the train or bus. It ends up being significantly cheaper and doesn't take any longer, plus there's less annoying switching between modes of transit. Cities less than 400 km apart are already better traveled between using bus or low-speed rail -- now more than double that minimum radius for true high-speed rail and you can see how it would have a big impact on US long-distance travel.

Gibbon1 9y ago
5 years ago I tool the train from Edinburgh to London. That is not a fast train. 400 miles in 4.5 hours. But was kinda like being on a BART train without the crazy people. The trip is longer than flying (not by much) but the stress load is a lot less than flying. Someone mentioned longer distances in the US. But far as I get most places building rail through the flat nowhere lands is really cheap. And the trains can run at max speed with few stops. If you built a line from Chicago to Denver, okay 900 miles. But at 220 MPH, four hours. Be better than flying.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Totally agreed that I'm willing to spend a little bit longer on a train over a plane. It is a more enjoyable and relaxed travel experience.

vvpan 9y ago

Well, here's an example. The route between Moscow and St. Petersburg (about 400 miles, about the same as LA to SF) is a very popular train route. Flying between these cities makes no sense because a high speed train between them takes 4 hours and you board and get off right in the middle of each city. If you were flying you'd need to get to the airport, pass through security, fly, collect baggage, get to the destination city. So train ends up being faster, cheaper and much much more comfortable.

fooker 9y ago

>It's slower than flying on a commuter airline, but the tickets cost nearly as much That is a good indication there is demand. Prices can only go down if trains are more frequent and available to all places.

krschultz 9y ago

The northeast corridor is faster than flying. The trains stop in the downtown of each city which cuts out the travel time to and from the airport, and you don't have to arrive at the train station as early before boarding. The ticket prices are high because Amtrak is subsidizing the non-profitable routes with the North East Corridor. If it was run as a business they would cut all the trains in the middle of the country and re-invest the profit in the NEC, or lower fares. If it was run as a public good, then there would be more of a subsidy. Right now Amtrak in this place where it's restricted by being beholden to politics but not enjoying the benefit of full throated government support.

usaphp 9y ago

> It's slower than flying on a commuter airline When the flight says it's 40 minutes - it's not really 40 minutes, add time for tsa, baggage, landing etc and you get at least 2-3 hours wasted of your day

WillPostForFood 9y ago
It doesn't include TSA or boarding, but it does include landing/taxiing. Flight time = gate to gate.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
It doesn't include TSA or boarding, but it does include landing/taxiing. Flight time = gate to gate.

zkms 9y ago

> It's slower than flying on a commuter airline, but the tickets cost nearly as much, and it's also enormously expensive to build High-speed rail in many non-US countries is vastly cheaper to construct and much faster and reliable than USian high-speed rail. > You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway. With off-the-shelf railcars and a well-tested train control system rail can get far higher throughput than freeways. If you do the USian thing and have to get extremely customised/bespoke rolling stock and try to make your own bespoke train control system, well, you indeed do get the disaster you're describing. > My perception is that it's a huge money pit for something that's quite frankly inferior to our current infrastructure. We would be much better off improving our current insterstate system. US rail indeed sucks and it needs to be unfucked before more money is dumped into it. None of the suckiness (slowness, high construction cost per mile, high ticket prices) is inherent to high-speed rail, though.

rocky1138 9y ago

Have you ever actually traveled on high speed rail?

melling 9y ago

Hey, your opinion is quite popular, and wrong. How do people figure out how to get from airports to their final destinations? How many people can put put in trains? China is going to get 32,000 people per hour in their low-speed maglev: http://gbtimes.com/china/beijing-launch-first-maglev-line-2016 http://gbtimes.com/china/beijing-launch-first-maglev-line-20... The throughput is higher in rail than cars. Also, you are trying to make HSR fit as a solution where cars would be better. No one said that trains are best in every situation. And absolutely no one said that we should remove all of our high-ways and replace them with rail. However, between cities over several hundred thousand people, and within 500-7600 miles, they work out well.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gumby 9y ago

Have you used it? Your experience doesn't match mine in using HSR in Europe, China and Japan. The vehicle speed is lower but the total travel time (much less inconvenience) of rail vs air is much lower, except for transcontinental trips. And the rail stations are usually more conveniently located compared to airports.

vorg 9y ago
And in larger Chinese cities, every HSL station is connected directly to the city subway system (or has the subway station under construction). That also means you don't have to allow extra time for contingencies, which usually means arriving early at the airport.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

> * the tickets cost nearly as much* Given that we don't have a high speed rail system in place, I'm not sure where this number is coming from. > You're limited to putting people in a few train cars, as opposed to a continuous stream of people on a freeway. My wife, my kid and I flew down to Texas, and are going to be spending about 20 hours doing long-distance drives. I would absolutely love to be in a few high-speed train cars than stuck in a car, in a continuous stream of people, where one of us has to remain at relatively high alert for hours at a time, while the other one is strapped into a seat, trying to entertain the other other one who is strapped into a smaller seat, but has boundless energy and no concept of patience. If we had some sort of road-train system where we weren't welded to a gas pedal and a steering wheel, then maybe.

prodikl 9y ago

i think we can all agree that the main issue (in america) is population density (lack thereof, could the system ever pay for itself?) and the american suburban lifestyle not being compatible with high speed rail

rdiddly 9y ago

Your opinion is not unpopular; it's the default and prevailing opinion in the US or any economy with access to cheap energy and without any efficiency incentives (read: scarcity or foresight). Flying is the most energy- and carbon-intensive mode per passenger-mile. Which as alluded above, is not a meaningful economic factor, yet. (Unfortunately by the time it becomes meaningful enough to be profitable, it might be too late to transition to anything else because the capital won't be there.) RE highway vs. train - If you can imagine a continuous stream of cars on a highway, why wouldn't you be able to also imagine a continuous stream of trains on a track? A mile of track filled with train cars can hold more people than a mile of highway, easily. And it has one centralized power plant with a much higher efficiency factor (because it's a larger engine and because it uses better fuel for the purpose). It also has far less total wind resistance, since the train has only one front face and one rear face. And if it's high-speed rail, well, it moves faster than cars. But again, efficiency is not currently a meaningful factor. Traveling the last few miles from the train stop is very much a solved problem. Even if you drive, that beats making the whole journey by car in my book. But those wishing to minimize it can always move closer in near the stop... thereby concentrating land-use in cities again and maybe letting the scourge of suburbia die off like it needs to... in a paroxysm of mold-infested particle-board.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mehwoot 9y ago

I went to Japan for the first time recently, and holy crap, high speed rail is amazing. It's like flying business class, or better. You have so much leg room, free wifi and a powerpoint next to you. You don't have to check your bags in or go through security or any of that crap, you just turn up at the station 5 minutes before it leaves and then sit down in genuine comfort and hack away on your laptop for a couple of hours. If it were an option in my country I'd definitely take it for any trip up to ~1,200km.

trophycase 9y ago

Flying sucks. Hard or impossible to sleep, uncomfortable, can't walk around, little to no food, airport security.