4 ms·

Amtrak Spent 11 Years and $450M to Save Acela Riders 100 Seconds

20 points by e2e4 4y ago

e2e4 4y ago
"Meanwhile, France built a brand new 210-mile high speed rail line with a max speed of 200 mph in six years." Continuation of the full tile
- musicale 4y ago
  Is there any explanation as to why building rail lines in the US should take longer and cost more than building them in France? The article doesn't seem to offer one. Is it some mystery that can never be solved?
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    we did build a massive, efficient train system: for freight trains. We also have a Massive system for moving people: interstate highways. Those decisions were made years and years ago. Introducing a third system is hard to justify outside of highly obvious congested corridors like the Northeast
  - grepfru_it 4y ago
    Existing rail is owned by the various freight transit companies. Those companies have absolutely zero desire to improve the infrastructure as high speed rail requires modifications that does not benefit freight rail. Then there’s the problem of land ownership, good luck getting the necessary route at a decent price (and governments won’t eminent domain property for rail anymore because of Eisenhower’s highway system). The last reason is why Acela only averages about 8mph faster than a regular train. In the NE corridor, the existing route is so windy that the Acela cannot really hit its max speeds. There is a short area where the Acela travels above 90mph, which I believe is between Delaware and DC. Once you get to NJ you are sharing tracks with various commuter lines which further adds congestion. Places like Texas and California it makes sense but the Northeast is a quagmire of epic proportions
    - dionidium 4y ago
      > Existing rail is owned by the various freight transit companies. This is true everywhere except in the Northeast, which is the focus of this article.
      - grepfru_it 4y ago
        See the part about eminent domain and the lack of space in the NE. My comment still stands
  - jlokier 4y ago
    You might find "Why America can't build" interesting, posted here a couple of days ago. There were a lot of comments discussing that question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31890048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31890048
    - musicale 4y ago
      Yeah, I read that also.

20 points by e2e4 4y ago

e2e4 4y ago

"Meanwhile, France built a brand new 210-mile high speed rail line with a max speed of 200 mph in six years." Continuation of the full tile

musicale 4y ago
Is there any explanation as to why building rail lines in the US should take longer and cost more than building them in France? The article doesn't seem to offer one. Is it some mystery that can never be solved?
- thehappypm 4y ago
  we did build a massive, efficient train system: for freight trains. We also have a Massive system for moving people: interstate highways. Those decisions were made years and years ago. Introducing a third system is hard to justify outside of highly obvious congested corridors like the Northeast
- grepfru_it 4y ago
  Existing rail is owned by the various freight transit companies. Those companies have absolutely zero desire to improve the infrastructure as high speed rail requires modifications that does not benefit freight rail. Then there’s the problem of land ownership, good luck getting the necessary route at a decent price (and governments won’t eminent domain property for rail anymore because of Eisenhower’s highway system). The last reason is why Acela only averages about 8mph faster than a regular train. In the NE corridor, the existing route is so windy that the Acela cannot really hit its max speeds. There is a short area where the Acela travels above 90mph, which I believe is between Delaware and DC. Once you get to NJ you are sharing tracks with various commuter lines which further adds congestion. Places like Texas and California it makes sense but the Northeast is a quagmire of epic proportions
  - dionidium 4y ago
    > Existing rail is owned by the various freight transit companies. This is true everywhere except in the Northeast, which is the focus of this article.
    - grepfru_it 4y ago
      See the part about eminent domain and the lack of space in the NE. My comment still stands
- jlokier 4y ago
  You might find "Why America can't build" interesting, posted here a couple of days ago. There were a lot of comments discussing that question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31890048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31890048
  - musicale 4y ago
    Yeah, I read that also.