3 ms·

> They could probably build rail much faster in certain areas and they could use it for people and order logistics. You're not alone in this, but why do you th

> They could probably build rail much faster in certain areas and they could use it for people and order logistics. You're not alone in this, but why do you think passenger rail makes any sense in the U.S? As far as I can tell, it makes very little. People's big plans for rail in the U.S. tend to rely on some major change in one or more factors of feasibility, and people justify these plans by calling that or those factors "trivial, with political will!"; I find it unconvincing.

bonestamp2 8y ago
Well, I don't think high speed passenger rail makes a lot of sense on its own. But, it might make sense along with high speed delivery trains, especially on certain routes: West Coast: (Seattle?), SF, LA, SD Midwest: Twin Cities, Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit Northeast: NY, Philly, DC Southeast: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami Yes, flying is faster and maybe even cheaper. But, the experience of flying is awful and getting worse. If it's between 3 hours in airports, security and an airplane or 4 hours on high speed rail where I can put my feet up, catch a nap in an actual bed, use my cellphone and wifi, collaborate with colleagues, eat good food, etc... I'd take the train every time. Hell, on the Toronto/Ottawa route, flying is cheaper and there's no high speed rail, but many business travelers still choose slow rail because the experience is so much better. Make it a little more competitive in travel time, and it starts to become very attractive. Business travelers aren't as price sensitive, and if they can make good use of the time working or resting then it can easily be justified.
- taurath 8y ago
  Along those routes though you’re talking 3hrs max in the air, vs like 6 in a direct hs rail train with no stops. I’d love to ride a train mind you, ESPECIALLY to get around within metro areas or between close ones (sea to Portland is more time in security and preflight than time in the air). But the long distance ones seem like it’d only make sense along the eastern seaboard
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    SF to SD is 3.5 hrs using Eurostar speeds (not inclusive of Channel Tunnel slowdown). I'm an opponent of CA HSR (on the grounds that America isn't capable of the project management) but I think the technology isn't out of reach.
  - vinay427 8y ago
    Sure, but it's rather unfair to compare time in the air to time from city to city. In the best case (comparing airport entrance to airport exit with TSA PreCheck and no check-in baggage) Detroit to Chicago would take just over 2 hours. In a more reasonable case, considering most people want to end up closer to the city center than the airport, may have check-in bags, and may not be eligible for PreCheck, the train would be noticeably faster and likely more convenient.
- mft_ 8y ago
  I love your positivity, and agree with your overall premise, but let's not get too carried away: > catch a nap in an actual bed, use my cellphone and wifi, collaborate with colleagues, eat good food * Can you recommend a fast train service with affordable sleeper cars; I'm not aware of one? * Mobile phones frequently drop signal moving between cells on fast trains, as anyone trying to stay connected to a meeting will have experienced * My experience of train wifi (at least, in France, UK, Germany, Switzerland) is that it's also patchy and unreliable (does it rely on the same patchy mobile networks?) * Almost without exception, the food I've experienced on trains is very similar to that available on budget airlines - plastic-packed ready-made soups, noodles, sandwiches, etc. Socially and environmentally, though, it's far more pleasant on a train. :)
adrianN 8y ago
There are some areas in the US where passenger rail would make sense. For example in the northeast corridor (Boston–Washington). That could get similar treatment to the Tokaido Shinkansen line.

bonestamp2 8y ago

Well, I don't think high speed passenger rail makes a lot of sense on its own. But, it might make sense along with high speed delivery trains, especially on certain routes: West Coast: (Seattle?), SF, LA, SD Midwest: Twin Cities, Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit Northeast: NY, Philly, DC Southeast: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami Yes, flying is faster and maybe even cheaper. But, the experience of flying is awful and getting worse. If it's between 3 hours in airports, security and an airplane or 4 hours on high speed rail where I can put my feet up, catch a nap in an actual bed, use my cellphone and wifi, collaborate with colleagues, eat good food, etc... I'd take the train every time. Hell, on the Toronto/Ottawa route, flying is cheaper and there's no high speed rail, but many business travelers still choose slow rail because the experience is so much better. Make it a little more competitive in travel time, and it starts to become very attractive. Business travelers aren't as price sensitive, and if they can make good use of the time working or resting then it can easily be justified.

taurath 8y ago
Along those routes though you’re talking 3hrs max in the air, vs like 6 in a direct hs rail train with no stops. I’d love to ride a train mind you, ESPECIALLY to get around within metro areas or between close ones (sea to Portland is more time in security and preflight than time in the air). But the long distance ones seem like it’d only make sense along the eastern seaboard
- scarejunba 8y ago
  SF to SD is 3.5 hrs using Eurostar speeds (not inclusive of Channel Tunnel slowdown). I'm an opponent of CA HSR (on the grounds that America isn't capable of the project management) but I think the technology isn't out of reach.
- vinay427 8y ago
  Sure, but it's rather unfair to compare time in the air to time from city to city. In the best case (comparing airport entrance to airport exit with TSA PreCheck and no check-in baggage) Detroit to Chicago would take just over 2 hours. In a more reasonable case, considering most people want to end up closer to the city center than the airport, may have check-in bags, and may not be eligible for PreCheck, the train would be noticeably faster and likely more convenient.
mft_ 8y ago
I love your positivity, and agree with your overall premise, but let's not get too carried away: > catch a nap in an actual bed, use my cellphone and wifi, collaborate with colleagues, eat good food * Can you recommend a fast train service with affordable sleeper cars; I'm not aware of one? * Mobile phones frequently drop signal moving between cells on fast trains, as anyone trying to stay connected to a meeting will have experienced * My experience of train wifi (at least, in France, UK, Germany, Switzerland) is that it's also patchy and unreliable (does it rely on the same patchy mobile networks?) * Almost without exception, the food I've experienced on trains is very similar to that available on budget airlines - plastic-packed ready-made soups, noodles, sandwiches, etc. Socially and environmentally, though, it's far more pleasant on a train. :)

adrianN 8y ago

There are some areas in the US where passenger rail would make sense. For example in the northeast corridor (Boston–Washington). That could get similar treatment to the Tokaido Shinkansen line.