5 ms·

High speed rail has a small niche for routes a few hundred km between two large cities. Any shorter and the car becomes more convenient, any longer and the plan

High speed rail has a small niche for routes a few hundred km between two large cities. Any shorter and the car becomes more convenient, any longer and the plane becomes cheaper and faster.

SECProto 6y ago
Lots of cities where people dont own cars, so the car is actually less convenient (most of the world where high speed rail is even a consideration). Planes are only cheaper and faster when you don't care about land usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and maximum ridership. Additionally, the maglev trains that this article is about have a top speed even more comparable with flight - Tokyo to Osaka will be 67 minutes, same as a flight - but without needing to arrive early, go through security, or commute an hour at each end to get to/from the airport.
- presentation 6y ago
  Agreed, I have friends who were traveling to and from Osaka and Tokyo frequently, and even though the current journey is around 3 hours vs 1 hr for the planes, they still preferred the train since you don't have to deal with security, nor go to a far-flung airport, nor have to be in cramped seats, nor ride a car at all, plus the environmental impact is far less [1]. [1] https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about_shinkansen/ https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about_shinkansen/
  - m_mueller 6y ago
    Tokyo-Osaka is definitely a prime example where it makes a lot of sense. In an close-to-ideal system (like Japan) you could reach major cities 1200km apart (by rail) in 4h, 300kph average. For longer distances than that, the plane becomes indeed more reasonable. That means in US terms, you could do NYC - Chicago in roughly half a day by train, arriving relaxed and being able to work all the way through. If you've never taken a Shinkansen - please try it when you go to Japan. I've never experienced a smoother, more relaxing and more comfortable train than this.
    - presentation 6y ago
      The Chinese ones also feel similar, like they carbon copied the experience, and are (probably artificially) super cheap, so if you visit China sometime I’d recommend their high speed rail too! (The Shanghai airport maglev is impressive as well, though it doesn’t go to a particularly convenient location unfortunately as of when I last was there lol) I’ve taken pretty long high speed rides there, like Shenzhen to Shanghai and Xi’an to Beijing. Smooth experience and makes you wonder why the US is still not doing it...
      - lazylizard 6y ago
        because the us doesnt have a whole bunch of 5m+ pop cities within 2hours of each other...
        m_mueller 6y ago
        there are a bunch within 4 hours however, counting by metro population. Boston - NYC - Philadelpha - DC is the most obvious candidate for a dedicated 300-350kph HSR, that investment should be a no-brainer. Further candidates: Chicago - Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Philadelphia, SF - San Jose - Bakersfield (for connectivity) - LA - San Diego, Dallas - Houston.
        SECProto 6y ago
        And if you look internationally, the Detroit-Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City corridor is in a line with a number of intermediate cities
      - deepnotderp 6y ago
        Because nearly every hsr route in the world loses money (eg CRC is 770 billion in debt) and the U.S. lacks enough high density city pairs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_...)
        6y ago
- deepnotderp 6y ago
  > Planes are only cheaper and faster when you don't care about land usage The land that airports use is negligible compared to hsr tracks
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Rail tracks spend land in small amounts along their length. The terminals are pretty compact and can be largely put underground, so you can arrive to, or depart from, the very busy central areas of e.g. NYC, or London, or Paris, or Tokyo. Planes do not require land under the flight path, but require colossal lumps of land for airports. These may be harder to allocate near a city, and you have to spend 40-60 minutes to get from an airport to the busy central areas of NYC or London. This is a tradeoff, like most things in life.
  - SECProto 6y ago
    HSR can be put underground. And since urban land is expensive, the rails are put underground. 90% of the Chuo Shinkansen will be underground[0]. The first section of the proposed Northeast Maglev in the US will be 75% underground[1]. The Hokkaido Shinkansen extension will be 76% tunnels (and only 7% at grade - the other 17% is bridges and viaducts) [2][3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaido_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaido_Shinkansen [3] pdf warning https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000215188.pdf https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000215188.pdf
zm262 6y ago
Trains free up your time for driving. Also the train boarding and deboarding overhead is much lower.
Barrin92 6y ago
that's a hell of a niche given that it probably describes the distances between countless of population centres on the globe. As the article points out, it's a 2 trillion dollar industry.
nine_k 6y ago
Exactly: large cities a few hundred km away. This is the typical landscape of much of Japan, much of China, especially coastal, much of Europe. It's not much of North America, though, except a few coastal agglomerations. North America is quite sparsely populated — maybe not as sparsely as Siberia or Sahara, but not near European levels, to say nothing of Japan or south of China, so high-speed rail makes relatively little sense here.
- wsatb 6y ago
  Is there actual evidence that it wouldn't work, or we're making an assumption? That is what makes it work in those places but to say it could never work in North America because of that I think is crazy. I think it would connect more sparsely populated areas to the rest of the continent better than the interstate system. If it's convenient, people will use it, and if it's anything like the Shinkansen, then people will definitely use it. The biggest problem in the USA specifically is not where the population centers are but simply politics. It's not necessarily that it can't work, it's that there's a lot of money invested into making sure it never happens.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    It does work im North America where the density is high enough; when I need to do from NYC to Philadelphia, I take a train. But a lot of other areas in the US (to say nothing of Canada) are way less dense. I can arrive on a train into the center of Philadelphia, but is there a center of Silicon Valley? A center of LA or Houston? A center of anything in Nebraska?

High speed rail has a small niche for routes a few hundred km between two large cities. Any shorter and the car becomes more convenient, any longer and the plane becomes cheaper and faster.

SECProto 6y ago

Lots of cities where people dont own cars, so the car is actually less convenient (most of the world where high speed rail is even a consideration). Planes are only cheaper and faster when you don't care about land usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and maximum ridership. Additionally, the maglev trains that this article is about have a top speed even more comparable with flight - Tokyo to Osaka will be 67 minutes, same as a flight - but without needing to arrive early, go through security, or commute an hour at each end to get to/from the airport.

presentation 6y ago
Agreed, I have friends who were traveling to and from Osaka and Tokyo frequently, and even though the current journey is around 3 hours vs 1 hr for the planes, they still preferred the train since you don't have to deal with security, nor go to a far-flung airport, nor have to be in cramped seats, nor ride a car at all, plus the environmental impact is far less [1]. [1] https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about_shinkansen/ https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/about_shinkansen/
- m_mueller 6y ago
  Tokyo-Osaka is definitely a prime example where it makes a lot of sense. In an close-to-ideal system (like Japan) you could reach major cities 1200km apart (by rail) in 4h, 300kph average. For longer distances than that, the plane becomes indeed more reasonable. That means in US terms, you could do NYC - Chicago in roughly half a day by train, arriving relaxed and being able to work all the way through. If you've never taken a Shinkansen - please try it when you go to Japan. I've never experienced a smoother, more relaxing and more comfortable train than this.
  - presentation 6y ago
    The Chinese ones also feel similar, like they carbon copied the experience, and are (probably artificially) super cheap, so if you visit China sometime I’d recommend their high speed rail too! (The Shanghai airport maglev is impressive as well, though it doesn’t go to a particularly convenient location unfortunately as of when I last was there lol) I’ve taken pretty long high speed rides there, like Shenzhen to Shanghai and Xi’an to Beijing. Smooth experience and makes you wonder why the US is still not doing it...
    - lazylizard 6y ago
      because the us doesnt have a whole bunch of 5m+ pop cities within 2hours of each other...
      - m_mueller 6y ago
        there are a bunch within 4 hours however, counting by metro population. Boston - NYC - Philadelpha - DC is the most obvious candidate for a dedicated 300-350kph HSR, that investment should be a no-brainer. Further candidates: Chicago - Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Philadelphia, SF - San Jose - Bakersfield (for connectivity) - LA - San Diego, Dallas - Houston.
        SECProto 6y ago
        And if you look internationally, the Detroit-Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City corridor is in a line with a number of intermediate cities
    - deepnotderp 6y ago
      Because nearly every hsr route in the world loses money (eg CRC is 770 billion in debt) and the U.S. lacks enough high density city pairs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_...)
      - 6y ago
deepnotderp 6y ago
> Planes are only cheaper and faster when you don't care about land usage The land that airports use is negligible compared to hsr tracks
- nine_k 6y ago
  Rail tracks spend land in small amounts along their length. The terminals are pretty compact and can be largely put underground, so you can arrive to, or depart from, the very busy central areas of e.g. NYC, or London, or Paris, or Tokyo. Planes do not require land under the flight path, but require colossal lumps of land for airports. These may be harder to allocate near a city, and you have to spend 40-60 minutes to get from an airport to the busy central areas of NYC or London. This is a tradeoff, like most things in life.
- SECProto 6y ago
  HSR can be put underground. And since urban land is expensive, the rails are put underground. 90% of the Chuo Shinkansen will be underground[0]. The first section of the proposed Northeast Maglev in the US will be 75% underground[1]. The Hokkaido Shinkansen extension will be 76% tunnels (and only 7% at grade - the other 17% is bridges and viaducts) [2][3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaido_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkaido_Shinkansen [3] pdf warning https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000215188.pdf https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000215188.pdf

zm262 6y ago

Trains free up your time for driving. Also the train boarding and deboarding overhead is much lower.

Barrin92 6y ago

that's a hell of a niche given that it probably describes the distances between countless of population centres on the globe. As the article points out, it's a 2 trillion dollar industry.

nine_k 6y ago

Exactly: large cities a few hundred km away. This is the typical landscape of much of Japan, much of China, especially coastal, much of Europe. It's not much of North America, though, except a few coastal agglomerations. North America is quite sparsely populated — maybe not as sparsely as Siberia or Sahara, but not near European levels, to say nothing of Japan or south of China, so high-speed rail makes relatively little sense here.

wsatb 6y ago
Is there actual evidence that it wouldn't work, or we're making an assumption? That is what makes it work in those places but to say it could never work in North America because of that I think is crazy. I think it would connect more sparsely populated areas to the rest of the continent better than the interstate system. If it's convenient, people will use it, and if it's anything like the Shinkansen, then people will definitely use it. The biggest problem in the USA specifically is not where the population centers are but simply politics. It's not necessarily that it can't work, it's that there's a lot of money invested into making sure it never happens.
- nine_k 6y ago
  It does work im North America where the density is high enough; when I need to do from NYC to Philadelphia, I take a train. But a lot of other areas in the US (to say nothing of Canada) are way less dense. I can arrive on a train into the center of Philadelphia, but is there a center of Silicon Valley? A center of LA or Houston? A center of anything in Nebraska?