3 ms·

> But I still have to go through security, wait around for my gate, walk to the gate and go through another round of waiting, and then I might have to wait for

> But I still have to go through security, wait around for my gate, walk to the gate and go through another round of waiting, and then I might have to wait for luggage at the other end. I'll happily spend the small amount of extra time to be able to just sit down in the Eurostar instead. But it's not a small amount of time. Planes travel 7-10 times faster than passenger rail (Amtrak runs at 50-70 mph, and can't go faster without track upgrades). If you're going to a city that's a 1 hour plane ride away that's still 7-10 hours of travel time just to skip security and baggage claim. Not exactly a good proposition. Even St. Paul to Chicago is not viable by rail when the flight is only 90 minutes. Even with a two hour security line that's still 1/3 the total transit time. "trains have the benefit of being able to serve lots of places in between better." Yes, but only when those places are fairly close and have enough population to fulfill travel demand. And the US doesn't have many regions with those conditions.

vidarh 3y ago
> But it's not a small amount of time. You're quoting a part where I gave a specific example where it is indeed a small amount of time difference, and use it to argue over an entirely different scenario. The Eurostar takes <2h30 hours from London to Paris. The plane takes ca 1h. The plane will leave you ca. 40m travel from the city centre via the RER. But the Eurostar terminal in London is further from me than the nearest airport, and so end-to-end travel time from me to the centre of Paris is marginally shorter with a plane. If I lived on the other side of town, or wanted to go North of Paris CDG instead of to the city centre, the numbers might look entirely different. Hence the point of giving the specific example I did in order to make the point that WHEN they are roughly similar, I still prefer the train. The point you quoted had nothing to do about overall viability across all distances. > Even St. Paul to Chicago is not viable by rail when the flight is only 90 minutes. Even with a two hour security line that's still 1/3 the total transit time. That's fine, but a total strawman related to the argument you quoted. > "trains have the benefit of being able to serve lots of places in between better." Yes, but only when those places are fairly close and have enough population to fulfill travel demand. And the US doesn't have many regions with those conditions. As I've elaborated on at length elsewhere, even the lowest population density states in the US have only exceptionally tiny numbers of people in areas where that is true when compared to existing lines considered viable in Europe. To start with less than 5% of the US population live in states where the average population is lower than Norway, and like in Norway, and just like everywhere else, most of the population even in those states live along corridors that are dense enough - and indeed many of those corridors have existing rail and either do have or used to have passenger trains (e.g. South Montana used to be covered by the North Coast Hiawatha until the late 1970's; it's population density is higher now). Norway has a significant proportion of the population - not all, an entire low density region is without rail at all because it's considered too expensive - within reasonable distance of passenger rail. The US could too - just providing rail cover to similar density stretches as in Norway would mean passenger rail covering the vast majority of the US population. Again, nobody is suggesting 100% coverage - just that far more coverage is entirely viable. The US has areas not considered viable due to US political considerations. That's a choice for the US public to make, but this is not because US geography or demographics is exceptional, but because US politics is.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  > The Eurostar takes <2h30 hours from London to Paris. American railways cannot support those speeds, though. The American rail infrastructure was primarily built for cargo, and supports speeds of 50-70 miles per hour. > That's fine, but a total strawman related to the argument you quoted. The St. Paul to Chicago example was referencing the North Coast Hiawatha in your previous post. You mentioned that some people would only take a small segment of the line, not the entire Seattle to Chicago route. You wrote, "Very few people would be taking it all the way - it took ~47 hours." What specific destinations were you referring to here? > As I've elaborated on at length elsewhere, even the lowest population density states in the US have only exceptionally tiny numbers of people in areas where that is true when compared to existing lines considered viable in Europe. This is patently false. Take California, for instance. The vast majority of the state's 40 million people live in the San Francisco Bay Area and LA - San Diego metro areas. This would be 5-7 hours by rail, but only an hour long flight. Los Angeles to Seattle would be 10+ hours. These aren't places withs small populations. But the metro areas that do exist are far away from one another. Too far to make trains viable for passenger travel. This isn't unique to the west coast. Take St. Louis as another example. The other big metros in its vicinity are Nashville, Kansas city, and Indianapolis. These are all 5+ hours by train but just a 1 hour flight. The cities are spaced out too far to compete with airlines. Few would opt for a 5+ hour plane ride instead of a 1 hour flight. And people who would choose the former are instead served by Greyhound buses that don't take much longer than passenger rail. Again, the only place in America that does have a collection of large cities close together - the Northeast Corridor - has a widely used train line. The rest of America has cities spaced out further than the 100-200 miles where trains outcompete planes. > The US has areas not considered viable due to US political considerations. That's a choice for the US public to make, but this is not because US geography or demographics is exceptional, but because US politics is. False, it is absolutely due to geography and distance, not politics. This is one of the most clear-cut examples of geography influencing transportation choices.

vidarh 3y ago

> But it's not a small amount of time. You're quoting a part where I gave a specific example where it is indeed a small amount of time difference, and use it to argue over an entirely different scenario. The Eurostar takes <2h30 hours from London to Paris. The plane takes ca 1h. The plane will leave you ca. 40m travel from the city centre via the RER. But the Eurostar terminal in London is further from me than the nearest airport, and so end-to-end travel time from me to the centre of Paris is marginally shorter with a plane. If I lived on the other side of town, or wanted to go North of Paris CDG instead of to the city centre, the numbers might look entirely different. Hence the point of giving the specific example I did in order to make the point that WHEN they are roughly similar, I still prefer the train. The point you quoted had nothing to do about overall viability across all distances. > Even St. Paul to Chicago is not viable by rail when the flight is only 90 minutes. Even with a two hour security line that's still 1/3 the total transit time. That's fine, but a total strawman related to the argument you quoted. > "trains have the benefit of being able to serve lots of places in between better." Yes, but only when those places are fairly close and have enough population to fulfill travel demand. And the US doesn't have many regions with those conditions. As I've elaborated on at length elsewhere, even the lowest population density states in the US have only exceptionally tiny numbers of people in areas where that is true when compared to existing lines considered viable in Europe. To start with less than 5% of the US population live in states where the average population is lower than Norway, and like in Norway, and just like everywhere else, most of the population even in those states live along corridors that are dense enough - and indeed many of those corridors have existing rail and either do have or used to have passenger trains (e.g. South Montana used to be covered by the North Coast Hiawatha until the late 1970's; it's population density is higher now). Norway has a significant proportion of the population - not all, an entire low density region is without rail at all because it's considered too expensive - within reasonable distance of passenger rail. The US could too - just providing rail cover to similar density stretches as in Norway would mean passenger rail covering the vast majority of the US population. Again, nobody is suggesting 100% coverage - just that far more coverage is entirely viable. The US has areas not considered viable due to US political considerations. That's a choice for the US public to make, but this is not because US geography or demographics is exceptional, but because US politics is.

Manuel_D 3y ago
> The Eurostar takes <2h30 hours from London to Paris. American railways cannot support those speeds, though. The American rail infrastructure was primarily built for cargo, and supports speeds of 50-70 miles per hour. > That's fine, but a total strawman related to the argument you quoted. The St. Paul to Chicago example was referencing the North Coast Hiawatha in your previous post. You mentioned that some people would only take a small segment of the line, not the entire Seattle to Chicago route. You wrote, "Very few people would be taking it all the way - it took ~47 hours." What specific destinations were you referring to here? > As I've elaborated on at length elsewhere, even the lowest population density states in the US have only exceptionally tiny numbers of people in areas where that is true when compared to existing lines considered viable in Europe. This is patently false. Take California, for instance. The vast majority of the state's 40 million people live in the San Francisco Bay Area and LA - San Diego metro areas. This would be 5-7 hours by rail, but only an hour long flight. Los Angeles to Seattle would be 10+ hours. These aren't places withs small populations. But the metro areas that do exist are far away from one another. Too far to make trains viable for passenger travel. This isn't unique to the west coast. Take St. Louis as another example. The other big metros in its vicinity are Nashville, Kansas city, and Indianapolis. These are all 5+ hours by train but just a 1 hour flight. The cities are spaced out too far to compete with airlines. Few would opt for a 5+ hour plane ride instead of a 1 hour flight. And people who would choose the former are instead served by Greyhound buses that don't take much longer than passenger rail. Again, the only place in America that does have a collection of large cities close together - the Northeast Corridor - has a widely used train line. The rest of America has cities spaced out further than the 100-200 miles where trains outcompete planes. > The US has areas not considered viable due to US political considerations. That's a choice for the US public to make, but this is not because US geography or demographics is exceptional, but because US politics is. False, it is absolutely due to geography and distance, not politics. This is one of the most clear-cut examples of geography influencing transportation choices.