3 ms·

You may have gotten the impression that I hate trains from my comment. I don't hate trains. I hate when people try to propose trains as a solution to transit si

You may have gotten the impression that I hate trains from my comment. I don't hate trains. I hate when people try to propose trains as a solution to transit situations they are completely unsuited for. Rail is the highest volume mass transit solution. The layout of population centers in the US at a macro and micro level leads to this level of throughput rarely being necessary when all other factors are considered. There are indeed several locations in the US where high speed rail lines which do not exist would be a very good idea and would obviously supplant short-haul flights which currently serve those routes. There are also many cases where commuter rail systems which don't, or barely exist would make excellent additions to the metropolitan areas around major cities. However, this is the exception, not the rule. It is not relevant to the vast majority of origin destination pairs when traveling in the US. Passenger rail in the US needs to answer the question "How is this tangibly better than the alternatives?". To which the answer is usually "Its not". For shorter distance trips the inconvenience of not having a car once you get to your destination usually ends up outweighing the benefits of not having to drive yourself. For longer distance trips, flying is usually going to be dramatically faster. As mentioned, there certainly are examples which fall into that sweet spot in the middle but in the US they are relatively few and far between.

dangus 3y ago
My argument is that the sweet spot in the middle is incredibly common, and almost every sweet spot in the middle market is vastly underserved. Texas triangle, Northeast Corridor (needs more speed and service frequency), Florida, California and Pacific Northwest, all need high speed service. The problem of needing a car once you arrive locally is another correctable piece of policy failure, and that problem doesn’t stop a huge number of people from making a huge number of short hop flights in the United States. In 2019, 44.5 million cars were rented in the US, so I think people very frequently jump on a medium to short distance flight and renting a car at their destination. Plus, we have ride sharing apps.
jcranmer 3y ago
> However, this is the exception, not the rule. It is not relevant to the vast majority of origin destination pairs when traveling in the US. This is I think something where I think you're in agreement with the substance, but not the wording. If you look at a list of the MSAs in the US, the MSAs in the top 50 that aren't practically serviceable by HSR in some fashion are Seattle, Denver, Portland, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Salt Lake, New Orleans, and Birmingham. And five of those aren't entirely implausible. So most people actually live somewhere where some form of HSR is plausible. In the Northeast and California, the problem is more that it hasn't been built yet; for the Midwest, Chicago is strong enough that it can drive HSR traffic without concomitant (and probably unlikely) planning changes in other Midwestern cities; Texas probably needs unlikely planning changes to be viable. For the Southeast, Florida would need unlikely planning changes to be viable on its own, but connecting to a strong Midwest and Northeast system via Atlanta could also be viable. Connections past that probably aren't viable (sorry, Memphis and New Orleans). And I think you recognize that there are several strong areas in the US--I doubt your list of viable HSR routes are much different from them. I just think you're underestimating how much of the intercity traffic in the US that actually entails.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Among "the alternatives" that rail has to be better than: Busses using the existing highways. They won't be as fast as high speed rail, but they will be (in most cases) faster than non-high-speed rail, and the infrastructure costs will be massively less. Also, we can implement the plan this year, not a decade or three from now. Busses have a bad reputation, as being ugly, uncomfortable, and smelly. So do trains, but with high speed rail, you buy some really nice trainsets. Well, for much less than the cost of rail right of way, you could buy some really nice busses.

dangus 3y ago

My argument is that the sweet spot in the middle is incredibly common, and almost every sweet spot in the middle market is vastly underserved. Texas triangle, Northeast Corridor (needs more speed and service frequency), Florida, California and Pacific Northwest, all need high speed service. The problem of needing a car once you arrive locally is another correctable piece of policy failure, and that problem doesn’t stop a huge number of people from making a huge number of short hop flights in the United States. In 2019, 44.5 million cars were rented in the US, so I think people very frequently jump on a medium to short distance flight and renting a car at their destination. Plus, we have ride sharing apps.

jcranmer 3y ago

> However, this is the exception, not the rule. It is not relevant to the vast majority of origin destination pairs when traveling in the US. This is I think something where I think you're in agreement with the substance, but not the wording. If you look at a list of the MSAs in the US, the MSAs in the top 50 that aren't practically serviceable by HSR in some fashion are Seattle, Denver, Portland, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Salt Lake, New Orleans, and Birmingham. And five of those aren't entirely implausible. So most people actually live somewhere where some form of HSR is plausible. In the Northeast and California, the problem is more that it hasn't been built yet; for the Midwest, Chicago is strong enough that it can drive HSR traffic without concomitant (and probably unlikely) planning changes in other Midwestern cities; Texas probably needs unlikely planning changes to be viable. For the Southeast, Florida would need unlikely planning changes to be viable on its own, but connecting to a strong Midwest and Northeast system via Atlanta could also be viable. Connections past that probably aren't viable (sorry, Memphis and New Orleans). And I think you recognize that there are several strong areas in the US--I doubt your list of viable HSR routes are much different from them. I just think you're underestimating how much of the intercity traffic in the US that actually entails.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Among "the alternatives" that rail has to be better than: Busses using the existing highways. They won't be as fast as high speed rail, but they will be (in most cases) faster than non-high-speed rail, and the infrastructure costs will be massively less. Also, we can implement the plan this year, not a decade or three from now. Busses have a bad reputation, as being ugly, uncomfortable, and smelly. So do trains, but with high speed rail, you buy some really nice trainsets. Well, for much less than the cost of rail right of way, you could buy some really nice busses.