8 ms·

other than maybe parts of the Northeast Corridor, do any of the othe "megaregions" solve that problem?

by laweijfmvo 3y ago

ddoolin 3y ago
Perhaps Central FL - Miami on the Brightline?
basil-rash 3y ago
LA/OxnardVentura/SanDiego is an easy train. As is Portland/Seattle.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Does the Portland/Seattle train get priority over freight?
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    Probably not, but light rail will get you around the Puget Sound pretty easy. https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Puget Sound is an enormous geographic region. Light rail doesn’t even serve most of Seattle’s needs (yet). There’s currently one line to the airport. The largest residential neighborhoods in the city aren’t even close. It’s not viable for “getting around” outside of very narrow cases. It’s a backbone for a system that is still being built.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    Probably not, but then why should it? Freight is a massive industry for port cities, not to mention the huge amount of downstream folks across the country that depend on them. A few folks being a bit later on their already-long journey is hardly too steep a price to pay for the continued efficiency of the rail network.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      I think you lost track of the context. You claimed Portland/Seattle is an easy train in response to someone asking if it solves the problem of freight priorities. I’m not here to debate transit philosophy.
      - basil-rash 3y ago
        Train scheduling is not a simple binary “freight gets priority = problem, passengers get priority = no problem” matter. The GP referred to a specific implementation of a priority system in which passengers could be delayed for more than the base length of their trip, which presumably makes planning around taking the train quite difficult. This is the “problem” with it. Someone else asked if the other areas experience that problem. I said the Portland/Seattle and LA/SanDiego trains do not. That doesn’t mean they don’t have some variety of a prioritization scheme whereby freight often goes in front of passengers, it means they don’t experience the specific problem GP referred to whereby passengers can experience massive delays more than doubling the length of their trip. This in turn makes commenting via train in these areas comparatively “easy”.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    No. Was on one while we were waiting for a freight train. Conductor even had a funny comment about how we were waiting for a priority <cough> Amazon prime packages </cough> train.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- NewJazz 3y ago
  Train tracks to SD get washed away every year it seems.
bombcar 3y ago
The San Diego - LA basin is moderately well covered, but the train is still slower than driving - most of the time. Unless you have exceptionally fast and direct rail, the train is almost always slower than driving, even in Europe, when counted door to door.
- tensor 3y ago
  This is definitely not true. Europes high speed trains are far far faster than driving. For example, Rome to Milan via italo is 3h - 3h 40min while driving is 6h. Even the "normal high speed" train is only ~5h. Similarly Marseille to Paris is only 3.5h by train while driving is almost 8h. It entirely depends on your source and destination. Between major economic hubs train is usually faster than driving, and as you can see by a significant amount. For other routes the train is similar or slightly slower. In North America, on the other hand, the train is almost always MUCH MUCH slower than driving, if you can take it at all. Not to mention far more expensive.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    The OP said “unless you have exceptionally fast rail” and was talking door to door. When you add in getting to the station, waiting on a train to arrive, and getting from the station to your destination, the average speed of the train does need to be a good deal faster.
    - tensor 3y ago
      The context of this thread is travel between major economic hubs. So if you are in say Rome, it does not take 30 min to get to the station. Also, the OPs wording made it sound rare, especially given his claim that it is rare, but the examples I gave are typical, not rare.
      - NewJazz 3y ago
        But it could take an hour to get from where you want to go in Houston to/from the station. Houston is not Rome!
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Basically every city near Chicago has a decent train line to get there.

other than maybe parts of the Northeast Corridor, do any of the othe "megaregions" solve that problem?

ddoolin 3y ago

Perhaps Central FL - Miami on the Brightline?

basil-rash 3y ago

LA/OxnardVentura/SanDiego is an easy train. As is Portland/Seattle.

mulmen 3y ago
Does the Portland/Seattle train get priority over freight?
- NewJazz 3y ago
  Probably not, but light rail will get you around the Puget Sound pretty easy. https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Puget Sound is an enormous geographic region. Light rail doesn’t even serve most of Seattle’s needs (yet). There’s currently one line to the airport. The largest residential neighborhoods in the city aren’t even close. It’s not viable for “getting around” outside of very narrow cases. It’s a backbone for a system that is still being built.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  Probably not, but then why should it? Freight is a massive industry for port cities, not to mention the huge amount of downstream folks across the country that depend on them. A few folks being a bit later on their already-long journey is hardly too steep a price to pay for the continued efficiency of the rail network.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    I think you lost track of the context. You claimed Portland/Seattle is an easy train in response to someone asking if it solves the problem of freight priorities. I’m not here to debate transit philosophy.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      Train scheduling is not a simple binary “freight gets priority = problem, passengers get priority = no problem” matter. The GP referred to a specific implementation of a priority system in which passengers could be delayed for more than the base length of their trip, which presumably makes planning around taking the train quite difficult. This is the “problem” with it. Someone else asked if the other areas experience that problem. I said the Portland/Seattle and LA/SanDiego trains do not. That doesn’t mean they don’t have some variety of a prioritization scheme whereby freight often goes in front of passengers, it means they don’t experience the specific problem GP referred to whereby passengers can experience massive delays more than doubling the length of their trip. This in turn makes commenting via train in these areas comparatively “easy”.
- seadan83 3y ago
  No. Was on one while we were waiting for a freight train. Conductor even had a funny comment about how we were waiting for a priority <cough> Amazon prime packages </cough> train.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NewJazz 3y ago
Train tracks to SD get washed away every year it seems.

bombcar 3y ago

The San Diego - LA basin is moderately well covered, but the train is still slower than driving - most of the time. Unless you have exceptionally fast and direct rail, the train is almost always slower than driving, even in Europe, when counted door to door.

tensor 3y ago
This is definitely not true. Europes high speed trains are far far faster than driving. For example, Rome to Milan via italo is 3h - 3h 40min while driving is 6h. Even the "normal high speed" train is only ~5h. Similarly Marseille to Paris is only 3.5h by train while driving is almost 8h. It entirely depends on your source and destination. Between major economic hubs train is usually faster than driving, and as you can see by a significant amount. For other routes the train is similar or slightly slower. In North America, on the other hand, the train is almost always MUCH MUCH slower than driving, if you can take it at all. Not to mention far more expensive.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  The OP said “unless you have exceptionally fast rail” and was talking door to door. When you add in getting to the station, waiting on a train to arrive, and getting from the station to your destination, the average speed of the train does need to be a good deal faster.
  - tensor 3y ago
    The context of this thread is travel between major economic hubs. So if you are in say Rome, it does not take 30 min to get to the station. Also, the OPs wording made it sound rare, especially given his claim that it is rare, but the examples I gave are typical, not rare.
    - NewJazz 3y ago
      But it could take an hour to get from where you want to go in Houston to/from the station. Houston is not Rome!

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Basically every city near Chicago has a decent train line to get there.