4 ms·

We desperately need more investment in regional mass transit. That's not the market Amtrak serves. I'm not convinced we need to invest more on inter-city passen

We desperately need more investment in regional mass transit. That's not the market Amtrak serves. I'm not convinced we need to invest more on inter-city passenger trains. Of the most popular city pairs for flights, probably only Los Angels <-> Las Vegas makes sense for a rail trip, but LA is so sprawling and lacking in regional mass transit that getting to any train station would probably take away any advantage.

thebradbain 7y ago
Dallas to Houston is, I believe, the most popular short-haul flight route in the US (maybe SF-LA beats it, but it's up there), and the geography/distance makes so much sense for a high speed rail that a private company, Texas Central, has secured private capital and is working with the government to bring a Japanese-style Shinkansen to Texas. The station locations have already been secured in downtown Dallas and Houston, and groundbreaking is tentatively set for next year. A 90 minute train ride connecting Texas' largest two cities? Compared to the 4hr trip a car takes or ~2hr for a plane (factoring in security)? At a (tentative) price point of ~two tanks of gas? I'm optimistic that it won't only be a commercial success, but also that it will convince people (and politicians) that a HSR-network is in the public's best interest, even for routes that don't necessarily make sense from a commercial (private) perspective. https://www.texascentral.com/ https://www.texascentral.com/
- TylerE 7y ago
  At almost 400 miles, I wouldn't consider SF to LA really short haul. That's almost double Houston-Dallas.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Short haul is anything less than 600-800 nmi, depending on who you ask.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      For a plane, sure. But for rail, even high speed rail, not so much.
  - devdas 7y ago
    640 km is about 2 hours of non stop high speed rail travel.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      No it isn't the fastest high speed train in the world only averages 280km/h. Shinkasen and TGV average 260-265 on most routes.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  Didn’t see it on the list I checked of ten busiest routes, but this is good info, thanks.
phlakaton 7y ago
To the contrary, regional mass transit is the only thing Amtrak does that is profitable. Depending on how you define region, of course. As population grows, train speeds increase, and road traffic worsens, we may need to rethink what we consider a "region."
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  I don’t see commuter rail speeds increasing much in the US. If the LIRR, Metro North, and Jersey Transit could have effective speeds (i.e. station to station) of even 60 miles an hour it would be a game changer for the US’ largest and most economically important metro area. Alas, that’s a pipe dream, much less bringing New Haven or Philadelphia into the reasonable commuting radius which is what I suspect you are alluding to.
  - phlakaton 7y ago
    I'm a West-Coaster so am not sure why that would be so impossible a task. What stops us in the Bay Area is heavy diesel trains and lots of stops with no passing tracks, and I understand we're working on fixing all of those issues, slowly though we may progress.
beatgammit 7y ago
I keep hoping we'll get SLC <-> LA via Las Vegas. We have commuter rail from SLC down about 100 miles, and there are some fairly popular destinations along that route that could benefit from train access (lots of National and State parks, St. George is a popular retirement and vacation destination, etc). But to be viable, it has to be competitive with airline travel, and that means fast trains. It currently costs more to go from SLC <-> SF than by airplane, and it takes a full day (18 hours or so, I forget exactly) to get there vs 2 hours or so by airplane and 10 hours by car. If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph), it would be competitive with airlines if you take into account security and baggage on both ends. I know I would take Amtrak if that were the case, but for now, I'm only going to take it as a vacation in itself. There are a lot of companies in CA that have offices in Utah now, so improving the train system between them may make sense if they can get speeds to be reasonable.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph) So, you're either blasting a giant gap in the Sierras, blasting a giant tunnel under the Sierras, or have some novel HSR technology that'll run over the Sierras. For a much less useful route, it'll probably be more expensive than the actual full proposed CA HSR system.
  - beowulfey 7y ago
    Not saying it is worth it, but I did want to point out a massive tunnel below mountains has been done before[1]. The Gotthard tunnel train below the Alps cost about $12 billion to tunnel about 35 miles. Pretty awesome engineering. For reference, the LA<->SFO train was last estimated about $75-100 billion to complete before it was canceled. Of course, there's almost no way anyone could build such a train tunnel in the USA for the same price as they did in Switzerland. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

thebradbain 7y ago

Dallas to Houston is, I believe, the most popular short-haul flight route in the US (maybe SF-LA beats it, but it's up there), and the geography/distance makes so much sense for a high speed rail that a private company, Texas Central, has secured private capital and is working with the government to bring a Japanese-style Shinkansen to Texas. The station locations have already been secured in downtown Dallas and Houston, and groundbreaking is tentatively set for next year. A 90 minute train ride connecting Texas' largest two cities? Compared to the 4hr trip a car takes or ~2hr for a plane (factoring in security)? At a (tentative) price point of ~two tanks of gas? I'm optimistic that it won't only be a commercial success, but also that it will convince people (and politicians) that a HSR-network is in the public's best interest, even for routes that don't necessarily make sense from a commercial (private) perspective. https://www.texascentral.com/ https://www.texascentral.com/

TylerE 7y ago
At almost 400 miles, I wouldn't consider SF to LA really short haul. That's almost double Houston-Dallas.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Short haul is anything less than 600-800 nmi, depending on who you ask.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    For a plane, sure. But for rail, even high speed rail, not so much.
- devdas 7y ago
  640 km is about 2 hours of non stop high speed rail travel.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    No it isn't the fastest high speed train in the world only averages 280km/h. Shinkasen and TGV average 260-265 on most routes.
bradleyjg 7y ago
Didn’t see it on the list I checked of ten busiest routes, but this is good info, thanks.

phlakaton 7y ago

To the contrary, regional mass transit is the only thing Amtrak does that is profitable. Depending on how you define region, of course. As population grows, train speeds increase, and road traffic worsens, we may need to rethink what we consider a "region."

bradleyjg 7y ago
I don’t see commuter rail speeds increasing much in the US. If the LIRR, Metro North, and Jersey Transit could have effective speeds (i.e. station to station) of even 60 miles an hour it would be a game changer for the US’ largest and most economically important metro area. Alas, that’s a pipe dream, much less bringing New Haven or Philadelphia into the reasonable commuting radius which is what I suspect you are alluding to.
- phlakaton 7y ago
  I'm a West-Coaster so am not sure why that would be so impossible a task. What stops us in the Bay Area is heavy diesel trains and lots of stops with no passing tracks, and I understand we're working on fixing all of those issues, slowly though we may progress.

beatgammit 7y ago

I keep hoping we'll get SLC <-> LA via Las Vegas. We have commuter rail from SLC down about 100 miles, and there are some fairly popular destinations along that route that could benefit from train access (lots of National and State parks, St. George is a popular retirement and vacation destination, etc). But to be viable, it has to be competitive with airline travel, and that means fast trains. It currently costs more to go from SLC <-> SF than by airplane, and it takes a full day (18 hours or so, I forget exactly) to get there vs 2 hours or so by airplane and 10 hours by car. If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph), it would be competitive with airlines if you take into account security and baggage on both ends. I know I would take Amtrak if that were the case, but for now, I'm only going to take it as a vacation in itself. There are a lot of companies in CA that have offices in Utah now, so improving the train system between them may make sense if they can get speeds to be reasonable.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph) So, you're either blasting a giant gap in the Sierras, blasting a giant tunnel under the Sierras, or have some novel HSR technology that'll run over the Sierras. For a much less useful route, it'll probably be more expensive than the actual full proposed CA HSR system.
- beowulfey 7y ago
  Not saying it is worth it, but I did want to point out a massive tunnel below mountains has been done before[1]. The Gotthard tunnel train below the Alps cost about $12 billion to tunnel about 35 miles. Pretty awesome engineering. For reference, the LA<->SFO train was last estimated about $75-100 billion to complete before it was canceled. Of course, there's almost no way anyone could build such a train tunnel in the USA for the same price as they did in Switzerland. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel