3 ms·

Here's something written for non-industry people: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/0

by likpok 6y ago

Here's something written for non-industry people: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-rai... Your article notes that rail freight costs are much lower in the US (for shippers), while profitability is high. That suggests that the US rail network is... good for freight? I don't know about Portland, but SF has almost no freight traffic. The caltrain tracks don't go anywhere (what are you going to do with a thousand containers at 4th and King?)

Dylan16807 6y ago
> Their owners worry that the plans will demand expensive train-control technology that freight traffic could do without. Oh no, a control system to install on a locomotives and tracks that already costs millions of dollars, how could they afford that? > Most of all they fret that the spending of federal money on upgrading their tracks will lead the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the industry watchdog, to impose tough conditions on them Are you kidding me? These excuses are pathetic. > Add the fact that freight trains do not stick to a regular timetable, but run variable services at short notice to meet demand, and the scope for congestion grows. You were just bragging about having 2.5x the productivity, I would happily trade competent consumer rail for you "only" having 2x productivity.
pansinghkoder 6y ago
Exactly so coming back to my original question: my cannot US invest in high speed train from 4th and King to Napa valley? What is holding it back?
- throwaway1777 6y ago
  NIMBYs. No one in napa or Marin counties want a train.