6 ms·

There is only 600 km between the two cities (I'm french distance between SF and LA was unknown to me before :) ), a normal train (200 km/h, with TGV it would be

There is only 600 km between the two cities (I'm french distance between SF and LA was unknown to me before :) ), a normal train (200 km/h, with TGV it would be 2h and some) would take a bit much than 3 hours; with google map I only see fields, desert and mountains for nearly 550 km, why sleep in a bus ?

kyralis 7y ago
Because Republicans hate public transit. (And, to be fair, we rather suck at infrastructure for a variety of complex reasons, which explains part of the Republican resistance to such projects.)
- rayiner 7y ago
  High speed trains are “public” transit in the very loosest sense. They are way too expensive to be used by ordinary people on a regular basis. The California HSR was supposed to be $80-100 each way. Multiply that by four for a family trip and compare it to the cost of driving. And even that price is optimistic. A trip from DC to New York on the NER booked a month out for my family, two adults two half-price kids, is $750 round trip. Driving is a fraction of that. That’s for a non-high-speed, already built line that recovered its capital costs decades ago. On a trip that’s half as long. HSR ends up being a heavily subsidized option for upper middle class people and business travelers. (Look at who is in a typical Acela or even Northeast Regional train.) So to be more precise, there is no HSR in California because (1) the fact that we suck at infrastructure projects makes it a very expensive proposition; (2) that taxpayer funded expense would go to benefitting a relatively small and well off set of people living in SF and LA. (Also, which “republicans?” California doesn’t have a single republican in elected statewide office.)
  - rst 7y ago
    In countries with real high speed rail, this is not the case. Tickets on Italian Freccia trains are comparable to US bus fares between major cities. Acela in the US is expensive because it competes with planes - and laughably slow by world standards (not much faster than trains ran on the same routes in the 1950s).
    - rayiner 7y ago
      High speed trains can be very expensive in European countries as well: https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fare... > The French bullet train from Paris to Lyon is often cited as a line that is profitable, but it has a fare of 52 cents a mile. The German bullet train from Hannover to Wurzburg charges 46 cents a mile. > On the East Coast, Amtrak’s Acela system, the closest thing to high-speed rail now operating in the U.S., charges an average of about 50 cents a mile for the 454-mile trip between Washington and Boston. US bus fares are much cheaper. The exact same trip on the Bolt Bus would cost just $212 for a family of four, $0.11 per passenger mile.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        And the Shinkansen, while a great train system especially in combination with Japan's train system generally, isn't cheap. A quick look says $130 for Tokyo to Kyoto--a common several hour route--one way, no-reserved. (Which sounds about right from my experience although I always have gotten one of the tourist passes you can only purchase overseas.) You get outside of Western Europe and Japan and trains tend to get cheaper--don't have recent experience with China--but western trains are pretty pricey generally, especially of the walk up to the counter and buy a ticket variety.
        jbverschoor 7y ago
        As a tourist you can buy a rail pass (500€) which also includes the Shinkansen. But yeah, similar prices and distance as: Amsterdam Berlin Amsterdam Paris Actually they can be 200+ each way
      - rst 7y ago
        Rome to Florence on high speed (Freccia) trais purchased three days in advance is ~$40 for an economy fare. Is someone quoting business class?
      - jbverschoor 7y ago
        Exactly
garmaine 7y ago
Because there is literally no train service between SF and LA—you have to go out of your way to transfer. The train stations are far outside of the city where you want to be. And our trains are SLOW. Less than 100km/h. It takes 8+ hours on a train.
- bdauvergne 7y ago
  There is a lot of way to accelerate an existing line: pendulation, remove curves, add more railways along the existing line, remove stops, on a straight railway any train can go at more than 200km/h. As for the transfer, underground/raised metro lines from the centre to the railway station in the suburbs ? Most of the new TGV station are now done outside city centre in France (for the same reason than here, surface is expensive near city centre).
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Infrastructure projects in America are fucked for a variety of reasons that other posters in this thread discuss. Basically each of those options end up being super expensive, subject to unending legal challenges, and exist in a regulatory environment that does NOT support changing the status quo.
sgc 7y ago
SNCF was in contract to help build a fast train in California, but the political climate created such a backwards "fast train" they pulled out because they didn't want to be involved with making shit. Dragging the US into the future has always been difficult to say the least.

kyralis 7y ago

Because Republicans hate public transit. (And, to be fair, we rather suck at infrastructure for a variety of complex reasons, which explains part of the Republican resistance to such projects.)

rayiner 7y ago
High speed trains are “public” transit in the very loosest sense. They are way too expensive to be used by ordinary people on a regular basis. The California HSR was supposed to be $80-100 each way. Multiply that by four for a family trip and compare it to the cost of driving. And even that price is optimistic. A trip from DC to New York on the NER booked a month out for my family, two adults two half-price kids, is $750 round trip. Driving is a fraction of that. That’s for a non-high-speed, already built line that recovered its capital costs decades ago. On a trip that’s half as long. HSR ends up being a heavily subsidized option for upper middle class people and business travelers. (Look at who is in a typical Acela or even Northeast Regional train.) So to be more precise, there is no HSR in California because (1) the fact that we suck at infrastructure projects makes it a very expensive proposition; (2) that taxpayer funded expense would go to benefitting a relatively small and well off set of people living in SF and LA. (Also, which “republicans?” California doesn’t have a single republican in elected statewide office.)
- rst 7y ago
  In countries with real high speed rail, this is not the case. Tickets on Italian Freccia trains are comparable to US bus fares between major cities. Acela in the US is expensive because it competes with planes - and laughably slow by world standards (not much faster than trains ran on the same routes in the 1950s).
  - rayiner 7y ago
    High speed trains can be very expensive in European countries as well: https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fare... > The French bullet train from Paris to Lyon is often cited as a line that is profitable, but it has a fare of 52 cents a mile. The German bullet train from Hannover to Wurzburg charges 46 cents a mile. > On the East Coast, Amtrak’s Acela system, the closest thing to high-speed rail now operating in the U.S., charges an average of about 50 cents a mile for the 454-mile trip between Washington and Boston. US bus fares are much cheaper. The exact same trip on the Bolt Bus would cost just $212 for a family of four, $0.11 per passenger mile.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      And the Shinkansen, while a great train system especially in combination with Japan's train system generally, isn't cheap. A quick look says $130 for Tokyo to Kyoto--a common several hour route--one way, no-reserved. (Which sounds about right from my experience although I always have gotten one of the tourist passes you can only purchase overseas.) You get outside of Western Europe and Japan and trains tend to get cheaper--don't have recent experience with China--but western trains are pretty pricey generally, especially of the walk up to the counter and buy a ticket variety.
      - jbverschoor 7y ago
        As a tourist you can buy a rail pass (500€) which also includes the Shinkansen. But yeah, similar prices and distance as: Amsterdam Berlin Amsterdam Paris Actually they can be 200+ each way
    - rst 7y ago
      Rome to Florence on high speed (Freccia) trais purchased three days in advance is ~$40 for an economy fare. Is someone quoting business class?
    - jbverschoor 7y ago
      Exactly

garmaine 7y ago

Because there is literally no train service between SF and LA—you have to go out of your way to transfer. The train stations are far outside of the city where you want to be. And our trains are SLOW. Less than 100km/h. It takes 8+ hours on a train.

bdauvergne 7y ago
There is a lot of way to accelerate an existing line: pendulation, remove curves, add more railways along the existing line, remove stops, on a straight railway any train can go at more than 200km/h. As for the transfer, underground/raised metro lines from the centre to the railway station in the suburbs ? Most of the new TGV station are now done outside city centre in France (for the same reason than here, surface is expensive near city centre).
- garmaine 7y ago
  Infrastructure projects in America are fucked for a variety of reasons that other posters in this thread discuss. Basically each of those options end up being super expensive, subject to unending legal challenges, and exist in a regulatory environment that does NOT support changing the status quo.

sgc 7y ago

SNCF was in contract to help build a fast train in California, but the political climate created such a backwards "fast train" they pulled out because they didn't want to be involved with making shit. Dragging the US into the future has always been difficult to say the least.