29 ms·

I'm all for regional train systems where it makes sense. I don't know enough about the travel habits of the west coast, but here in the North East, the Amtrak N

by jjice 3y ago

I'm all for regional train systems where it makes sense. I don't know enough about the travel habits of the west coast, but here in the North East, the Amtrak NE Regional is pretty handy sometimes. Going between Boston and New York is great and if you buy at the right time, you can get tickets for less than $40 each way. It's convenient and depending on your distance to an airport, only slightly longer, but much more convenient. I'm a big fan. That said, having successful train systems in the US is hard. The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space. If it's a regional train in dense areas, it can make sense (like the NE regional). Maybe the traffic of LA <-> SF makes sense, and if it does and it can be done cost effectively, then it'll work out. My assumption is that after building all the infrastructure into place, the cost of the tickets plus the additional travel time will not be worth it to most who are making this trip. I would love to be wrong, but I'm not counting on it. I love the experience of taking a train, and I take them a good bit here in the North East. That said, they're not the best solution in the US currently, it's it's hard to see a world where they become the best for travel outside commuter rails (the MBTA commuter rail is also fantastic) and dense areas (again, like the NE regional). Trains are not a catch all solution in the US. I hope for them to grow in popularity when they're appropriate, but I see a ton of online discourse (granted, it's likely from a vocal minority) about how trains are always better. They're not, and you can't compare US rail logistics to many regions to Europe.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> the cost of the tickets plus the additional travel time will not be worth it to most who are making this trip If they get the beds and service right, it would be because it’s convenient and comfortable. Like, have a Michelin-class meal, good wine, reliable service that knows the regulars and comfortable beds and good shock absorbers and you’re trumping planes as the first-class option. It doesn’t have to beat flying in all cases to be successful. Price always seemed like a weird niche for passenger rail to aim for—planes don’t have to maintain track!
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  It might be difficult to steal First Class flyers, their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them. The train company might have to join that alliance and offer those rewards too, but would likely be opposed by the airlines it competes with.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them The rewards on a Bay Area-Los Angeles flight are de minimis if you’re a frequent flier. I am one, and I was planning on taking the Coastal Starlight up next month until I learned—in this thread—that it’s kaput for the time being.
- banannaise 3y ago
  > planes don’t have to maintain track! Well, they have to maintain airports, but there's a lot of federal funding that goes into that too. It's always interesting to see where the costs of infrastructure are borne. Rail seems to be one of the few where the carriers (and consumers) are almost entirely directly responsible for the infrastructure. (Admittedly, citation needed.)
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    They also have to maintain air traffic control, parts of the national weather service, parts of the NTSB, the FAA… lots of externalities in the aviation world. (Even before you start thinking about the fact the people who make airliners are the same people who build out Air Force.
diob 3y ago
I've honestly given up on the USA building this sort of infrastructure, accepting that I'll have to move to a country that doesn't get bogged down in the USA being some unique place that can't do the things so many other countries have already done. I feel like even if we were to do it, folks would sabotage it for politics here. It's tiring.
xenadu02 3y ago
> The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space. China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure. There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > China has the same problem China has almost four times the population density of America’s (146 per square kilometre to 37).
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It gets even better when 94% of China's population lives in 43% of the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line The USA is a bit better, 25% live in the western half (mostly on the west coast though).
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    This is a pretty simple consequence of the facts that it has four times the population and is exactly the same size.
- cmelbye 3y ago
  I genuinely wonder whether such a thing is possible without a single centralized political party and severely limited avenues to disagree with the plan.
- skrtskrt 3y ago
  > There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing Well what's stopping us is: 1. prioritization of private property ownership over every other possible measure of societal health, people can drag out these projects fighting over the land in court for decades 2. government cronyism isn't even organized enough to stomp out the issues with #1 using eminent domain, because all the small fractious governments of states and local municipalities are working against each other to each win the cronyism battle. at least in more centralized governments, the cronysim is organized enough to get the project done while skimming 75% of the money off the top.
duderific 3y ago
In the article it states that they will use already existing tracks that are owned by Union Pacific, so there won't need to be any new infrastructure.
rayiner 3y ago
> That said, having successful train systems in the US is hard. The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space. The problem is that it’s not, at least from the standpoint of property rights covering that land. For example, the path from San Francisco to LA is relatively densely populated. And on top of that, the US has an intractable legal system for building infrastructure.
browningstreet 3y ago
CityNerd identifies 56 train segments that should be built, using data and reasonable, precedented criteria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4 His video description: "Nothing that exists in North America fits the definition of true high-speed rail. If we actually ever started building a network, where would we start? And how would we know when we were done? This video details a methodology for answering all those questions, then counts up 56 city pairs we really should've had high-speed rail service between long, long ago."
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > using data and reasonable, precedented criteria That analysis makes several idealistic assumptions, e.g. frictionless international borders. It’s a good starting point, but his other videos analysing specific corridors seem more grounded.
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    I’ve gone on a train between Seattle and Vancouver and back before and it’s relatively easy, you pretty much do all your immigration in Canada and you can just walk off the train in the US
mupuff1234 3y ago
Except the Amtrak is both expensive and slow.
- mulderc 3y ago
  I use Amtrak on the west coast all the time and for my uses it is cheaper than driving while being roughly the same amount of time. I go between the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle frequently and Amtrak is my first choice when planning my travel.

by jjice 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> the cost of the tickets plus the additional travel time will not be worth it to most who are making this trip If they get the beds and service right, it would be because it’s convenient and comfortable. Like, have a Michelin-class meal, good wine, reliable service that knows the regulars and comfortable beds and good shock absorbers and you’re trumping planes as the first-class option. It doesn’t have to beat flying in all cases to be successful. Price always seemed like a weird niche for passenger rail to aim for—planes don’t have to maintain track!

SkyMarshal 3y ago
It might be difficult to steal First Class flyers, their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them. The train company might have to join that alliance and offer those rewards too, but would likely be opposed by the airlines it competes with.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > their opportunity cost is mileage rewards which can be used anywhere in the world the alliance accepts them The rewards on a Bay Area-Los Angeles flight are de minimis if you’re a frequent flier. I am one, and I was planning on taking the Coastal Starlight up next month until I learned—in this thread—that it’s kaput for the time being.
banannaise 3y ago
> planes don’t have to maintain track! Well, they have to maintain airports, but there's a lot of federal funding that goes into that too. It's always interesting to see where the costs of infrastructure are borne. Rail seems to be one of the few where the carriers (and consumers) are almost entirely directly responsible for the infrastructure. (Admittedly, citation needed.)
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  They also have to maintain air traffic control, parts of the national weather service, parts of the NTSB, the FAA… lots of externalities in the aviation world. (Even before you start thinking about the fact the people who make airliners are the same people who build out Air Force.

diob 3y ago

I've honestly given up on the USA building this sort of infrastructure, accepting that I'll have to move to a country that doesn't get bogged down in the USA being some unique place that can't do the things so many other countries have already done. I feel like even if we were to do it, folks would sabotage it for politics here. It's tiring.

xenadu02 3y ago

> The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space. China has the same problem... they simply made it a priority to build the infrastructure. There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> China has the same problem China has almost four times the population density of America’s (146 per square kilometre to 37).
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It gets even better when 94% of China's population lives in 43% of the country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heihe%E2%80%93Tengchong_Line The USA is a bit better, 25% live in the western half (mostly on the west coast though).
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  This is a pretty simple consequence of the facts that it has four times the population and is exactly the same size.
cmelbye 3y ago
I genuinely wonder whether such a thing is possible without a single centralized political party and severely limited avenues to disagree with the plan.
skrtskrt 3y ago
> There is nothing stopping us from doing the same thing Well what's stopping us is: 1. prioritization of private property ownership over every other possible measure of societal health, people can drag out these projects fighting over the land in court for decades 2. government cronyism isn't even organized enough to stomp out the issues with #1 using eminent domain, because all the small fractious governments of states and local municipalities are working against each other to each win the cronyism battle. at least in more centralized governments, the cronysim is organized enough to get the project done while skimming 75% of the money off the top.

duderific 3y ago

In the article it states that they will use already existing tracks that are owned by Union Pacific, so there won't need to be any new infrastructure.

rayiner 3y ago

> That said, having successful train systems in the US is hard. The US is a huge country with a lot of empty space. The problem is that it’s not, at least from the standpoint of property rights covering that land. For example, the path from San Francisco to LA is relatively densely populated. And on top of that, the US has an intractable legal system for building infrastructure.

browningstreet 3y ago

CityNerd identifies 56 train segments that should be built, using data and reasonable, precedented criteria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4 His video description: "Nothing that exists in North America fits the definition of true high-speed rail. If we actually ever started building a network, where would we start? And how would we know when we were done? This video details a methodology for answering all those questions, then counts up 56 city pairs we really should've had high-speed rail service between long, long ago."

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> using data and reasonable, precedented criteria That analysis makes several idealistic assumptions, e.g. frictionless international borders. It’s a good starting point, but his other videos analysing specific corridors seem more grounded.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  I’ve gone on a train between Seattle and Vancouver and back before and it’s relatively easy, you pretty much do all your immigration in Canada and you can just walk off the train in the US

mupuff1234 3y ago

Except the Amtrak is both expensive and slow.

mulderc 3y ago
I use Amtrak on the west coast all the time and for my uses it is cheaper than driving while being roughly the same amount of time. I go between the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle frequently and Amtrak is my first choice when planning my travel.