4 ms·

>I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan. In my opinion I think rail would displace a great deal of airline traffic becaus

>I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan. In my opinion I think rail would displace a great deal of airline traffic because air travel security is such a chore, airlines have done their very best to squeeze out every last nickel and concerns about how green air travel is or is not. Add in the fact that there is far more room per passenger in a train and with dining cars (which are slowly dying) the food can be much better. The biggest downside to rail travel in the US is the rail lines are owned by and geared for freight train operators. You really need completely separate lines (as you have in Japan) to compete on speed, but then competing on price would be difficult since it means building entirely new infrastructure. It could require government subsidy and in the current political climate that seems unlikely.

manigandham 7y ago
Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. If a New York to LA trip goes from 5 to 25 hours then it's no longer viable. Unfortunately the radius that trains can be competitive barely reaches from LA to SF.
- jumpingmice 7y ago
  This is such a tired argument and reflects your superficial comprehension of this topic. Yes, NY to LA is too far for rail service. It is the same distance from Paris to Moscow. Nobody takes trains between Paris and Moscow. However the territory between Paris and Moscow, including both Paris and Moscow, enjoy very robust rail service. The fact that the USA happens to be a large and unified political jurisdiction in no way detracts from the fact that we have local and regional opportunities to establish passenger rail networks.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Since you have a new account, I'll vouch for your comment to keep it alive, but please get rid of that disparaging attitude on HN. If you're going within a city, then home->dest time is roughly equal to home->station->train->station->dest, so if you're going to use a car anyway then you might as well just drive all the way, with more comfort, privacy, and convenience. Stations within walking distance are not realistic except in very dense urban areas like NY (which already has subways). If you're going between cities, traffic is actually not much of an issue so it's again the same equation. Once distance increases to the point of a train being faster (even with stops), air travel then starts to become a better option. Rail requires density. American cities are very spread out and internally sparse internally. Last mile is a serious problem, and that's before considering politics, real-estate, security and defense issues, pricing models, taxes, and other factors. Meanwhile roads are cheap and give people ultimate flexibility. We would all love better transport, but pretending it's simple just because some other country somewhere has some trains isn't very useful.
- technofiend 7y ago
  >Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. That depends entirely on the distance traveled; no one is suggesting a replacement of transcontinental flights with trains. But there's plenty of medium and short haul flights (for example) that would be far more comfortable on a train with little difference in total travel time once you've factored airport security overhead. I'll give you a practical example: my wife and I live in Houston and regularly visit New Orleans. It's a one hour and five minute flight on Southwest which is one of the few airlines that still allow two suitcases per passenger for free. That's a five to six hour drive if I choose to go by car and with rare exception I choose to drive. I'm happy to trade two to three more hours on the road versus the hassle of dealing with the airport. >Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. The time to travel between Houston to New Orleans would be two to three hours by high speed train. That's competitive with the Southwest flight and fast enough I'd seriously consider versus driving myself. In fact at those speeds I'd start looking at longer trips either to Mexico, farther West to Arizona, New Mexico or Colorado or farther East to tourist destinations there. At least for me it would increase my travel options and I'd be sure to take advantage over it over flying.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable. Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place? This is the problem with CA's high speed rail line. They ended up placing both ends in the middle of nowhere when even the LA->SF route would have barely gotten the ridership needed to work. Planes can reroute all the time and independently control schedules and payloads to account for actual passenger demand, while also only needing an airport on either end which already exist. If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do?
    - technofiend 7y ago

manigandham 7y ago

Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. If a New York to LA trip goes from 5 to 25 hours then it's no longer viable. Unfortunately the radius that trains can be competitive barely reaches from LA to SF.

jumpingmice 7y ago
This is such a tired argument and reflects your superficial comprehension of this topic. Yes, NY to LA is too far for rail service. It is the same distance from Paris to Moscow. Nobody takes trains between Paris and Moscow. However the territory between Paris and Moscow, including both Paris and Moscow, enjoy very robust rail service. The fact that the USA happens to be a large and unified political jurisdiction in no way detracts from the fact that we have local and regional opportunities to establish passenger rail networks.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Since you have a new account, I'll vouch for your comment to keep it alive, but please get rid of that disparaging attitude on HN. If you're going within a city, then home->dest time is roughly equal to home->station->train->station->dest, so if you're going to use a car anyway then you might as well just drive all the way, with more comfort, privacy, and convenience. Stations within walking distance are not realistic except in very dense urban areas like NY (which already has subways). If you're going between cities, traffic is actually not much of an issue so it's again the same equation. Once distance increases to the point of a train being faster (even with stops), air travel then starts to become a better option. Rail requires density. American cities are very spread out and internally sparse internally. Last mile is a serious problem, and that's before considering politics, real-estate, security and defense issues, pricing models, taxes, and other factors. Meanwhile roads are cheap and give people ultimate flexibility. We would all love better transport, but pretending it's simple just because some other country somewhere has some trains isn't very useful.
technofiend 7y ago
>Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. That depends entirely on the distance traveled; no one is suggesting a replacement of transcontinental flights with trains. But there's plenty of medium and short haul flights (for example) that would be far more comfortable on a train with little difference in total travel time once you've factored airport security overhead. I'll give you a practical example: my wife and I live in Houston and regularly visit New Orleans. It's a one hour and five minute flight on Southwest which is one of the few airlines that still allow two suitcases per passenger for free. That's a five to six hour drive if I choose to go by car and with rare exception I choose to drive. I'm happy to trade two to three more hours on the road versus the hassle of dealing with the airport. >Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. The time to travel between Houston to New Orleans would be two to three hours by high speed train. That's competitive with the Southwest flight and fast enough I'd seriously consider versus driving myself. In fact at those speeds I'd start looking at longer trips either to Mexico, farther West to Arizona, New Mexico or Colorado or farther East to tourist destinations there. At least for me it would increase my travel options and I'd be sure to take advantage over it over flying.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable. Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place? This is the problem with CA's high speed rail line. They ended up placing both ends in the middle of nowhere when even the LA->SF route would have barely gotten the ridership needed to work. Planes can reroute all the time and independently control schedules and payloads to account for actual passenger demand, while also only needing an airport on either end which already exist. If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do?
  - technofiend 7y ago