8 ms·

I would travel more around the USA if we had a decedent high-speed rail system. Spent too much time flying, red-eyes, and driving for work, 7-12+ hours one way,

• likeabatterycar 2y ago
  Can you provide sources for the Big Oil conspiracy you cite? Because nationwide high speed rail isn't as easy - or practical - as you think. California hadn't been able to build a train a fraction of that distance without delays and squandering massive amounts of money. The PNW has been unable to build it from Portland to Vancouver. The US is many times larger than any European country or Japan. There are US states similar in size to EU countries with comparable rail networks. The US literally invented air travel, which made traveling long distances by train largely obsolete. Aircraft aren't limited to where they can go by rails. So please explain with all these concrete examples of failure how it's a corporate conspiracy and not general purpose government ineptitude?
  • thatcat 2y ago
    China, Russia, and India have high speed rail. Can you cite the reasons that these large countries are capable of building high speed rail while the US is not? Where is the recent innovation in US air travel? It has gotten considerably worse over the last 30 years. Supersonic passenger flights stopped in 2003 around the same time that TSA added hours to every flight.
    • karaterobot 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • thatcat 2y ago
        The proof is in the profits that result from a favorable and otherwise illogical set of choices. Who even cares about the details? The oil and related industries are notoriously corrupt, introducing lead into gas knowing the toxic effects among other policy choices aimed at reducing alternatives to cars such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... Where's the logical argument against high speed rail that is based on physical limitations of reality and not simply uh its infeasible because policy?
        • likeabatterycar 2y ago
          > Who even cares about the details? This could be the greatest rebuttal to an argument I've ever seen on this site.
        • mh- 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • voidfunc 2y ago
            It's /r/fuckcars leaking into HN.
          • thatcat 2y ago
            You think asking someone else to do the research to prove a conspiracy for you is intellectually honest? Do we really need to get caught up in the details of how health insurance is a conspiracy to know that it is a conspiracy? Do conspiracies need to be coordinated to be successful or can they be informal, unspoken, and implied culturally so as to conceal their existence? Isn't worrying about those specific details actually a distraction? There is already proof that there are better systems by their existence world wide. Why don't you do the research to explain why the richest country in the world doesn't have a high speed train system and write a paper on it? Publish it on Arxiv, include physical reasons that it is not possible.
    • Beijinger 2y ago
      Policy, The Koch Brothers and "eminent domain" problems in the US.
    • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • thatcat 2y ago
        A ton of new destinations? wow what an amazing improvement! Is it possible that was just inevitable network effect and had nothing to do with intentional investments in R/D? It's almost as if the development of technology and politics are interrelated. Half the cost of building US airports were subsidized by the government when they added them. Path of development and real estate prices are related to accessibility. Most of the US is not accessible, there are an equal number of paved and unpaved roads in miles. Consider receiving mail in a rural area where it's going to be 3-5 days for an amazon prime package and the closest store is 30+ miles. If you randomly sample locations in the US you'll find that is actually really common, it's just not experienced by many people. Rail networks aren't about going on vacation, it's about developing real national infrastructure that creates efficiencies that boost multiple parts of the economy.
        • likeabatterycar 2y ago
          > A ton of new destinations? wow what an amazing improvement! Is it possible that was just inevitable network effect and had nothing to do with intentional investments in R/D? No, not possible at all. Intentional investments in R&D led to more fuel-efficient and long-range aircraft technology such as the B787 and A350 which allowed new point-to-point routes between cities that were never before possible, abandoning the hub-and-spoke model of the past. Like Auckland-NYC nonstop. Imagine if they had to build rails between those two.
          • thatcat 2y ago
            Oh yes, the common US route of Auckland to NYC. Not having to stop when you make that flight must save a bit of time for 10s if not 100s of people.
            • likeabatterycar 2y ago
    • likeabatterycar 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • badpun 2y ago
      Russia hardly has high speed rail, it's just one line (Moscow to St. Petersburg) and top speed is just 200 km/h for most of the line.
      • LAC-Tech 2y ago
        2.5 times faster than any train in my wealthy, western country.
        • aetherson 2y ago
          I don't know which wealthy, western country you live in, but to be clear in the US Acela trains get up to 150 mph (241 kmh) -- admittedly in a short section, but with other sections that have a top speed of 135 mph (217 kmh). The entire route from Washington to New York has an average speed (including stops) of 90mph (140 kmh). Should Acela be faster? Probably! But people should be clear-eyed about what the reality of the situation is.
          • sokoloff 2y ago
            That might be the average scheduled speed, but it’s not my average experienced speed on Acela, with about half the trips seeing significant delays from schedule.
          • LAC-Tech 2y ago
            New Zealand. You know that place americans fantasize about moving to when the newly elected president has the wrong colour tie. Trains are 80km/h max.
            • EdiX 2y ago
              If New Zealand is a western country do you consider Canada to be the middle east?
              • LAC-Tech 2y ago
                I never took the term "western" to be purely geographical
    • aetherson 2y ago
      I mean, the recent innovation in US air travel is that the TSA no longer adds hours to every flight. Like, is it maddening that we're curing a self-inflicted problem? Sure, of course it is. But the railfan community is also stuck in 2010. Every flight I've been on in the last 10 years I've walked through a metal detector, not a scanner, I've kept my shoes and belt on, my laptop in my bag. It's like 2000 all over again, except that now we have to pay a nominal fee every 5 years or whatever it is to use PreCheck. Everyone should be mad that we dug this hole and then climbed out of it, but people shouldn't pretend that we're still in the hole.
      • ghaff 2y ago
        I tend to show up fairly early because neither myself nor my limo companies like the stress. But the idea that you need to show up hours early just isn't true in general.
      • mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        Still, we don't put airports in the middle of built-up downtown areas, and for good reason. You usually have to hail a taxi or bus from an airport, whereas you can step out of a (good) train station and be right where you want to be.
        • aetherson 2y ago
          Still nonsense. Train stations and airports are where they are. Lots of them are quite close to downtowns. Others aren't. Nobody's changing their locations in existing large cities. There are plenty of cities where the nearest airport is closer than the nearest long distance rail station. There are plenty of cities where they aren't.
        • monkeywork 2y ago
          Boston, San Diego, and Wash DC all have airports roughly 3 miles outside their main core. Toronto (YTZ) has an airport less than 2 miles.
          • 2y ago
    • ajmurmann 2y ago
      As others have pointed out Russia didn't have high-speed rail. The reason is related to the real reason the US doesn't have it. It's of course density. Relevant US cities are much further apart. You practically need hsr to make it practical at all which prevents incremental improvement of the train system. I hear that's different on the east coast (I've spent very little time there) but it certainly sets culture when for most of the country trains are a bad option.
  • mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Japan is almost all mountains, it's one of the worst geographies to build high speed rail where tunnels and turn radii need to be especially large. But they pulled it off anyway. The bullet train initially only connected metros like Tokyo and Osaka but today runs all the way to many remoter areas. The most recently added line connects Fukui prefecture, population 780k. The US has many areas with suitable population density to be served by high speed rail, and with more accomodative geography than Japan. It's just that in the US, it was considered fine to use government funds and authority to bulldoze land for the interstate system, but not for high speed rail.
    • chgs 2y ago
      Washington - Atlanta with stops at Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte. I don’t understand why this isn’t an hourly train.
  • rpearl 2y ago
    > California hadn't been able to build a train a fraction of that distance without delays and squandering[??] massive amounts of money. It costs money and time to build HSR. Fine. The J(N)R director who ran the shinkansen project literally lied to multiple levels of government to shield the (2x+) budget overruns. He resigned and then within a year of it opening he was given a medal for extraordinary contributions to Japan. > Because nationwide high speed rail isn't as easy - or practical - as you think. Who is claiming that it is easy? However, it is practical! It takes 6 hours to drive Tokyo to Osaka; it's 2hr by train. Trains leave every 5 minutes. A west coast HSR network is just obviously practical! Beijing-Shanghai HSR is 1300km; SF to Seattle would be the same. It'd be 4-5h on a train. Right now it's 2.5 hours on a plane plus a recommended 1.5 hours for security and boarding plus transfers on each side--I'd rather take a high speed train If I could! SF to LA could be ~3h. 90 minutes on a plane plus lead time and transfer times and it's competitive. Again. > There are US states similar in size to EU countries with comparable rail networks. Oh, which ones?
    • ajmurmann 2y ago
      I think it's relevant that Shanghai and Beijing are 5x the size of SF and Seattle while construction cost are a significant upfront barrier and don't go down much by needing to service fewer travelers.
    • monkeywork 2y ago
      >A west coast HSR network is just obviously practical! Beijing-Shanghai HSR is 1300km; SF to Seattle would be the same. It'd be 4-5h on a train. Right now it's 2.5 hours on a plane plus a recommended 1.5 hours for security and boarding plus transfers on each side--I'd rather take a high speed train If I could! SF to LA could be ~3h. 90 minutes on a plane plus lead time and transfer times and it's competitive. Again. So just to be clear you are saying at best the time difference between flight and HSR would be minimal - so where is the payoff for the billions the infrastructure would take to build. If it's purely capacity couldn't you spend a fraction of the billions you'd spend on the new infrastructure to bolster the existing system?
      • saagarjha 2y ago
• lotsoweiners 2y ago
  I’m not sure about that. I’d imagine that trains are going to have the worst of both worlds. They will take a long time (closer to amount of time to drive to destination). They also will have costs approaching that of a flight. To me a train trip makes sense if you enjoy trains and feel that the travel itself is part of the reward.
  • thatcat 2y ago
    Maintenance cost and fuel costs are considerably lower for trains, why would they cost the same amount?
    • bpye 2y ago
      Lower emissions as well, which, I would hope we all care about.
      • jenadine 2y ago
        Why should we? The difference is a drop on the ocean for the climate. While choosing convenience/price has a immediate impact on yourself. The rational choice at the individual level is not to care for such things. Actions has to be taken at the political level.
    • vineyardmike 2y ago
      I'm a 100% supporter of getting nice trains throughout America, but trains are relatively expensive for long distances. I don't know why, but if you compare ticket prices (globally!) its often not cheaper to take a train. In my experience, trains are a superior experience, and worth spending more on, but generally not cheaper. The ultra-low cost airlines (especially outside the US) are really hard to compete with on price. For example, the Shinkansen in Japan (which I totally recommend!) is usually over $100 USD. Which is pretty similar to a flight price. This pattern repeats in Europe as well. My friend just traveled London -> Edinburgh in the last few weeks, and found the train 2x the cost compared to RyanAir or EasyJet. Even in the US, this pattern holds. Seattle -> LA costs $50-150 by plane, depending on the airline (3hrs). By train, it's 35hrs and $150. Its a lovely train ride, if you have a weekend to dedicate.
• pembrook 2y ago
  This is a false conspiracy narrative that belongs on Reddit in the r/fuckcars filter bubble. Sure, the automotive industry stood to benefit from the decline of rail travel in the US. But they didn’t really need to do anything for that to happen on its own. Reality is far less interesting than that. Turns out when you have tons of fertile land, even pre-industrialization your population tends to spread out a bit (the vast majority of Americans used to be farmers). Today the US has 3-5X less population density than any country with high speed rail. Autos saw massive success in the US due to this fact, and their prevalence reduced the demand for rail travel as a side effect, it wasn’t some top down evil conspiracy. It’s fun to blame everything on evil big business or evil big government, but it’s also important to look at the first principles and base properties of the issue at hand first.
  • rebolek 2y ago
    While you're right about average density, there are some spots with much higher density population that could certainly benefit from high speed train.
  • sdenton4 2y ago
    Here's the source. There were actual-court cases which found that oil and car manufacturers conspired to monopolize and convert local public transit to buses from rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... "Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[a] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland. NCL often converted streetcars to bus operations in that period, although electric traction was preserved or expanded in some locations. Other systems, such as San Diego's, were converted by outgrowths of the City Lines. Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies to NCL subsidiaries, but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the transit industry." This history also plays a large role in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," as a bit of fun bonus lore...
• PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > if we had a decedent high-speed rail system A decent high-speed rail system would be cool! But a decadent high speed rail system would be awesome!