8 ms·

Stuff like this is why I have exactly zero faith in the US ever building the type of high speed rail systems that other countries have and we clearly need. Thes

Stuff like this is why I have exactly zero faith in the US ever building the type of high speed rail systems that other countries have and we clearly need. These projects are simply to expensive for private entities to undertake alone and federal and local governments can't stay aligned long enough to see anything that last longer than an election period through to it's finish. Unless someone invents teleportation, what we have currently for transportation infrastructure is probably as good as it will get, with possibly hyper local, minimal improvements.

jimmaswell 8y ago
I have hopes for The Boring Company.
- pm90 8y ago
  Repeat after me: Elon Musk is not the solution to all my problems. More seriously though: its easy to bank all your hopes on one person that seems to deliver things but this isn't how it works in real life. We need a system where its easier to plan and build infrastructure. Not to accept the system as given and wait for superheros who will fix it all by themselves.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    I suppose the invention of the train and automobile by "superheroes" wasn't how real life worked either. In reality they were designed entirely by government committees. Would it be better if we were more proactive as a society in investing in infrastructure? Sure. That doesn't detract from the fact that I like the prospects of what The Boring Company might accomplish.
mikeash 8y ago
Somehow this stuff got built before. There must be a way to get back into that state.
- untog 8y ago
  After witnessing 2008, I'm not sure that even another Great Depression would get America back to the New Deal mindset. Politicians would just blame welfare recipients, or something.
  - Someguywhatever 8y ago
    It was the government forcing banks to lend to people who would normally not qualify for mortgage loans that caused the crisis in the first place. The people who the banks accurately predicted couldn't pay and were normally denied loans were instead actually given loans, subsequently couldn't pay, aaaand everything collapsed. I think that the securitization and sell off of these mortgage backed securities were the banks trying to pass the hot potato off onto somebody else. They knew it would blow up, only the financially illiterate, and busybody do-gooders in government with a regulatory gun to the banks heads didn't see it coming with predictable results.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      "Several candidates made the argument at the debate that the government forced mortgage lenders to make bad loans. But in reality, most subprime loans were made by companies that were not subject to any kind of federal regulation." "No executive of a major mortgage company said at the time that the government was forcing them to make subprime loans. They said they did it because they thought they would make money. And even now, after the crash of the housing market, with all the temptation to point fingers, it is awfully hard to find a mortgage executive who echoes the argument" https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/the-role-of-regulation-in-holding-back-business.html?ref=presidentialdebates https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/the-role-of-r...
      - Someguywhatever 8y ago
        Was there some incentive from government then, was there some kind of deregulation or some other kind of regulatory change? Why would this subprime lending begin in the first place do we know?
duxup 8y ago
I think state to state partnerships with federal funding help could do it.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  You need massive popular support for it to ensure that successive governments keep the already-made plans on time and on budget, as opposed to getting in there and tweaking everything in order to make it their own (and thereby pushing it all out by 5-10 years).
xemdetia 8y ago
In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area (which is essentially following the flow of I-95 anyway). Even maximizing the Acela flow would just being eminent domain to the existing private rail lines to allow expansion and enhancement beyond what they have already. Part of the reason in the Northeast and in general in the US that rail is so weird is because so much of it is privately owned while the interstates and roads are public services. You can't compel people to make efficient change for benefit of passenger rail, where as with the interstates they forced eminent domain suits through to make it happen well after initial infrastructure was established. The other major consumer of rail in the US is freight and they don't generally need high speed rail, and so while I would enjoy having more high speed rail lines as an option I haven't been able to rationalize the use case. Private rail permits use by passenger rail but does not prioritize for it. Here was a good slide deck that I had been using as reference for a while that has good data on how Amtrak exists at all: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/freight_planning/talking_freight/september_2017/21/talkingfreight9_21_2017bl.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/freight_planning/talking_f...
- dionidium 8y ago
  > In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area I wouldn't ignore the routes that connect Chicago to the rest of the Midwest: - Route, FY2015 Passengers, ~Distance (miles) - Chicago – St. Louis, 576,705, 295 - Chicago – Milwaukee, 799,271, 92 - Chicago – Pontiac via Detroit 465,627, 280 These numbers are despite the truly awful experience, in many cases, of waiting long periods for freight traffic to pass. These distances are in the sweet-spot for HSR, which could be quite popular on these routes.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    The Chicago-St. Louis route would be almost entirely over extremely flat agricultural land. If routed correctly, the only challenges would be crossing some rural highways and floodplains. In order to really take advantage of HSR, one would hope that politics wouldn't require silly stops in e.g. Springfield or Champaign. Chicago seems to make a lot of sense as a hub for a new rail network of this sort, but one suspects third-city bias will prevent that.
geezerjay 8y ago
> These projects are simply to expensive for private entities to undertake The problem is not how expensive high-speed railway projects are. The problem is that in general, with a couple of notable exceptiobs, high-speed railway services are massive money drains with absolutely no viable business model. If their natural unprofitability is compounded with infrastructure costs then the problem is further compounded. That's the main reason why private entities routinely invest more money in some profitable projects but they stay clear of even investing in conventional railway services.
- melling 8y ago
  The North East Corridor is profitable. “the most traveled highway in America, spanning 1,900 miles from Miami to Maine.” Who pays for all the roads? The gas tax doesn’t cover it. I’d think that between Boston and at least DC, there’s a need to travel by train at 225 mph. With a little vision, it could go to Miami.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    The challenge in Boston is that the North Station and the South Station don't connect to each other, so there can be no thru-service to the north. Connecting them has often been mooted, but, well, Boston IS the home of the Big Dig.
jcranmer 8y ago
In the US, true HSR (by which I mean 220mph/350km/h service) is not viable outside of the Northeast (where Acela already exists), California, and maybe Texas. Medium-speed rail, running around 125mph, could probably be viable in a Midwest network centered on Chicago, but the needs of Chicago's commuter rail and freight rail networks likely preclude mixing higher speed intercity trains with generally slower local and freight trains on a reliable schedule, and there's insufficient demand to warrant dedicating track for higher speed transit. It's a shame that the NEC hasn't been brought up to higher speeds than 125mph, but that's largely a function of the remediation needed to do that costing serious money [1] and the politics of infrastructure disbursement not favoring doling out cash to favor largely the NYC area. [1] You need, at a minimum, new track with less curves in most of suburban of CT; new Hudson River tunnels; new Portal Bridge; at least a third track in the MD-DE stretch (including a new bridge on the Susquehanna); and replacement of the B&P tunnel, whose condition was "this needs to be replaced" when Amtrak was started and has degraded to "how hasn't this failed yet?"
- bonzini 8y ago
  In Europe most high speed rails use dedicated tracks. For example, tracks for high speed trains are welded together, unlike tracks for slower trains. Instead of leaving a small gaps along the track, high speed tracks deal with thermal expansion by pre-stressing the tracks with hydraulic tensors [1] as they are welded (so high speed trains have no too-toom-too-toom :-)) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressing
  - tuukkah 8y ago
    It seems most tracks today are welded for less maintenance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(rail_transport)#Continuous_welded_rail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(rail_transport)#Conti...
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    AFAIK basically all new rail installations, even freight, are continuous rail. At least in the US. Been that way for quite a while now.
gamblor956 8y ago
The I95 is a 1900-mile long interstate highway... That being said, with the exception of public transit systems like the NYMTA, etc., essentially all of the rail in the US is privately owned, and was privately funded.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > That being said, with the exception of public transit systems like the NYMTA, etc., essentially all of the rail in the US is privately owned, and was privately funded. Government grants to railroads have a rich history. The B&O was partially owned by the state of Maryland (and had an exemption from state taxes!). Most of the western railroads were financed by the government giving them adjacent land to their tracks for free.

jimmaswell 8y ago

I have hopes for The Boring Company.

pm90 8y ago
Repeat after me: Elon Musk is not the solution to all my problems. More seriously though: its easy to bank all your hopes on one person that seems to deliver things but this isn't how it works in real life. We need a system where its easier to plan and build infrastructure. Not to accept the system as given and wait for superheros who will fix it all by themselves.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  I suppose the invention of the train and automobile by "superheroes" wasn't how real life worked either. In reality they were designed entirely by government committees. Would it be better if we were more proactive as a society in investing in infrastructure? Sure. That doesn't detract from the fact that I like the prospects of what The Boring Company might accomplish.

mikeash 8y ago

Somehow this stuff got built before. There must be a way to get back into that state.

untog 8y ago
After witnessing 2008, I'm not sure that even another Great Depression would get America back to the New Deal mindset. Politicians would just blame welfare recipients, or something.
- Someguywhatever 8y ago
  It was the government forcing banks to lend to people who would normally not qualify for mortgage loans that caused the crisis in the first place. The people who the banks accurately predicted couldn't pay and were normally denied loans were instead actually given loans, subsequently couldn't pay, aaaand everything collapsed. I think that the securitization and sell off of these mortgage backed securities were the banks trying to pass the hot potato off onto somebody else. They knew it would blow up, only the financially illiterate, and busybody do-gooders in government with a regulatory gun to the banks heads didn't see it coming with predictable results.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    "Several candidates made the argument at the debate that the government forced mortgage lenders to make bad loans. But in reality, most subprime loans were made by companies that were not subject to any kind of federal regulation." "No executive of a major mortgage company said at the time that the government was forcing them to make subprime loans. They said they did it because they thought they would make money. And even now, after the crash of the housing market, with all the temptation to point fingers, it is awfully hard to find a mortgage executive who echoes the argument" https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/the-role-of-regulation-in-holding-back-business.html?ref=presidentialdebates https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/the-role-of-r...
    - Someguywhatever 8y ago
      Was there some incentive from government then, was there some kind of deregulation or some other kind of regulatory change? Why would this subprime lending begin in the first place do we know?

duxup 8y ago

I think state to state partnerships with federal funding help could do it.

mikepurvis 8y ago
You need massive popular support for it to ensure that successive governments keep the already-made plans on time and on budget, as opposed to getting in there and tweaking everything in order to make it their own (and thereby pushing it all out by 5-10 years).

xemdetia 8y ago

In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area (which is essentially following the flow of I-95 anyway). Even maximizing the Acela flow would just being eminent domain to the existing private rail lines to allow expansion and enhancement beyond what they have already. Part of the reason in the Northeast and in general in the US that rail is so weird is because so much of it is privately owned while the interstates and roads are public services. You can't compel people to make efficient change for benefit of passenger rail, where as with the interstates they forced eminent domain suits through to make it happen well after initial infrastructure was established. The other major consumer of rail in the US is freight and they don't generally need high speed rail, and so while I would enjoy having more high speed rail lines as an option I haven't been able to rationalize the use case. Private rail permits use by passenger rail but does not prioritize for it. Here was a good slide deck that I had been using as reference for a while that has good data on how Amtrak exists at all: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/freight_planning/talking_freight/september_2017/21/talkingfreight9_21_2017bl.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/freight_planning/talking_f...

dionidium 8y ago
> In traveling throughout the US I don't really know how high speed rail is really going to improve anything outside of like the LA to San Fransisco and the existing Acela coverage area I wouldn't ignore the routes that connect Chicago to the rest of the Midwest: - Route, FY2015 Passengers, ~Distance (miles) - Chicago – St. Louis, 576,705, 295 - Chicago – Milwaukee, 799,271, 92 - Chicago – Pontiac via Detroit 465,627, 280 These numbers are despite the truly awful experience, in many cases, of waiting long periods for freight traffic to pass. These distances are in the sweet-spot for HSR, which could be quite popular on these routes.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The Chicago-St. Louis route would be almost entirely over extremely flat agricultural land. If routed correctly, the only challenges would be crossing some rural highways and floodplains. In order to really take advantage of HSR, one would hope that politics wouldn't require silly stops in e.g. Springfield or Champaign. Chicago seems to make a lot of sense as a hub for a new rail network of this sort, but one suspects third-city bias will prevent that.

geezerjay 8y ago

> These projects are simply to expensive for private entities to undertake The problem is not how expensive high-speed railway projects are. The problem is that in general, with a couple of notable exceptiobs, high-speed railway services are massive money drains with absolutely no viable business model. If their natural unprofitability is compounded with infrastructure costs then the problem is further compounded. That's the main reason why private entities routinely invest more money in some profitable projects but they stay clear of even investing in conventional railway services.

melling 8y ago
The North East Corridor is profitable. “the most traveled highway in America, spanning 1,900 miles from Miami to Maine.” Who pays for all the roads? The gas tax doesn’t cover it. I’d think that between Boston and at least DC, there’s a need to travel by train at 225 mph. With a little vision, it could go to Miami.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The challenge in Boston is that the North Station and the South Station don't connect to each other, so there can be no thru-service to the north. Connecting them has often been mooted, but, well, Boston IS the home of the Big Dig.

jcranmer 8y ago

In the US, true HSR (by which I mean 220mph/350km/h service) is not viable outside of the Northeast (where Acela already exists), California, and maybe Texas. Medium-speed rail, running around 125mph, could probably be viable in a Midwest network centered on Chicago, but the needs of Chicago's commuter rail and freight rail networks likely preclude mixing higher speed intercity trains with generally slower local and freight trains on a reliable schedule, and there's insufficient demand to warrant dedicating track for higher speed transit. It's a shame that the NEC hasn't been brought up to higher speeds than 125mph, but that's largely a function of the remediation needed to do that costing serious money [1] and the politics of infrastructure disbursement not favoring doling out cash to favor largely the NYC area. [1] You need, at a minimum, new track with less curves in most of suburban of CT; new Hudson River tunnels; new Portal Bridge; at least a third track in the MD-DE stretch (including a new bridge on the Susquehanna); and replacement of the B&P tunnel, whose condition was "this needs to be replaced" when Amtrak was started and has degraded to "how hasn't this failed yet?"

bonzini 8y ago
In Europe most high speed rails use dedicated tracks. For example, tracks for high speed trains are welded together, unlike tracks for slower trains. Instead of leaving a small gaps along the track, high speed tracks deal with thermal expansion by pre-stressing the tracks with hydraulic tensors [1] as they are welded (so high speed trains have no too-toom-too-toom :-)) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressing
- tuukkah 8y ago
  It seems most tracks today are welded for less maintenance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(rail_transport)#Continuous_welded_rail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_(rail_transport)#Conti...
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  AFAIK basically all new rail installations, even freight, are continuous rail. At least in the US. Been that way for quite a while now.

gamblor956 8y ago

The I95 is a 1900-mile long interstate highway... That being said, with the exception of public transit systems like the NYMTA, etc., essentially all of the rail in the US is privately owned, and was privately funded.

jcranmer 8y ago
> That being said, with the exception of public transit systems like the NYMTA, etc., essentially all of the rail in the US is privately owned, and was privately funded. Government grants to railroads have a rich history. The B&O was partially owned by the state of Maryland (and had an exemption from state taxes!). Most of the western railroads were financed by the government giving them adjacent land to their tracks for free.