5 ms·

High-speed trains are coming to America

22 points by kqr2 18y ago

thepanister 18y ago
This is very interesting... I hope it will be much faster than Amtrak. If you take Amtrak from NYC to San Francisco for example, it would take around 50 hours with stops! I know some people who don't really like to fly, and still prefer train or car in travelling.
ojbyrne 18y ago
Seems like the big advantage of "no waiting in line for check-in, security, or boarding." can't last.
- jrockway 18y ago
  It has lasted everywhere where there are high-speed trains. Check-in, security checkpoints, and boarding 300 people through one tiny door are all exclusive to air travel. When you take the train, you buy your ticket from a machine, put it in a turnstile to access the platform, and then wait until your train pulls in. Then you board through one of the 20-or-so doors that is closest to your seat. It's really that simple, and it has been that way for years. Remember, America is almost 45 years behind the rest of the world here. The first Shinkansen in Japan went 130mph and started carrying passengers in 1964. We still don't have anything like that (except Acella), in 2009.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Actually, in Spain, we had to go through a metal detector to get on train from Sevilla to Madrid. Security wasn't as tight as for airplane boarding, and was very quick, but I was very surprised to find it there at all.
    - ews 18y ago
      mmm, AFAIK , there are no metal detectors in AVE (Alta Velocidad - High Speed) trains in any of the 5 or so routes we have in Spain (just took a couple of them a week ago). They do we have a small x ray machine for carry on baggage, but the process is ridiculously fast (about 5 - 10 seconds total). This is really important if you think that we do have an in active terrorist (or political liberation, according to some) group in Spain, which targeted those trains in the past.
      - ojbyrne 18y ago
        Interesting point, especially since trains (or at least train stations) have been targets in Spain.
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    The Eurostar and TGV trains do some basic security (metal detectors) now. I'm not sure if the TGV does it on all routes all the time, but I definitely remember it from Geneva to Paris in 2005 and Marseilles to somewhere in 2007.
    - jrockway 18y ago
      Interesting. I have only ever ridden the Shinkansen, and I guess I just assumed it would be the same everywhere. (I think metal detectors are pointless, since there is no intrinsic value in blowing up a high-speed train. A terrorist will just go for the subway instead, where security measures will be too intrusive. Oh well, everyone loves their security theater.)
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  You're correct in the sense that eventually train security will approach airline security and take just as long, but trains still have the advantage of being able to load and unload faster (there are more doors and they are generally more spacious) and baggage doesn't have to be handled by a crew... each passenger can carry on his own bags and stow them. Also, once you are on a train, the crew doesn't have to spend as much time doing pre-departure stuff like checking seatbacks/belts/tray tables and running through the safety instructions that no one listens to. Lastly, they have a slight advantage (when run well) of being pretty darn consistent on departure and arrival times, meaning riders don't have to leave as much fudge time. In my experience, if you only have a carry-on, you can catch a plane by showing up an hour early, but you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early (I'm thinking of the Eurostar, where security is similar to an airport). Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. There is more space, you can stand/sit/walk at will, and there is actually something to look at besides a white ocean of clouds. Not to mention the bathrooms aren't the size of high school lockers.
  - jrockway 18y ago
    you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early In the US and Japan, I have done even better than this -- you can show up right at the scheduled departure time, and as long as you make it through the doors, everything is fine. (The train in the US wasn't high-speed, FWIW.) This works nicely in Japan, especially, as the train frequencies on the Shinkansen are almost the same as commuter trains. If you don't have a reservation, you can just get on whatever train you like. This convenience would obviously never work for airlines. Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. I think the convenience is that trains can go to the city-center. Everywhere I go, it always adds an extra hour on each end to get from the city center to the airport. (Chicago Midway and NY LaGuardia are a bit different in this respect.) Even with not-that-high-speed trains, this seems to make it convenient enough to consider using. I know the Boston/Washington DC corridor benefits from this. (They are all short flights, but it is a pain to go from the city center to the airport, wait a while, spend 30 minutes on the plane, and then go from the airport to the destination city center. If you take the train, you cut out all the waiting and needless travel, you arrive at your actual destination.)
- furyg3 18y ago
  Why not? You don't have to go through these checks when getting on BART, Muni, or Greyhound. I regularly board high speed trains here in Europe with only random security checks (usually dogs roaming the stations). Airplane security for all passengers came about primarily because of hijackings, and was later adapted (badly) to bombs and suicide tactics. Planes are a more suitable target for these types of attacks because of many reasons, including the virtually unlimited amount of possible destinations (unfortunately also including the ground or buildings). Even a small explosion on a plane can bring it down, and there is already an existing factor of fear when flying. The current level of airline security is still ridiculous, given all of this, but it would be doubly so on a train system. Hijacking a train is borderline pointless, crashing one into something is next to impossible, and derailing from on-board would be a pretty large challenge. Trains are also at ground-level, which is less than ideal for hostage scenarios. Trains are only a sexy target because they have a large number of people on them, and even then people are relatively spaced out along a long line. In my opinion this makes them even less attractive to a terrorist than any other crowded space.
anamax 18y ago
Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies.... I like trains, but as passenger transport, they're not competitive. Yes, I know about the energy efficiency of a full train. However, you can't have both decent utilization (reasonably full trains) and reasonable ridership. And, if you don't shoot for reasonable ridership, the fixed and labor costs will kill you. At reasonable ridership, lower utilization kills the realized efficiency and you're still having trouble with fixed and labor costs. Note that govt involvement makes things worse. If a congress critter comes from a particular town, that town will get a stop, regardless of whether that makes sense. (Stops have a huge impact on average speed.)
- jbert 18y ago
  > Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies.... This rings true, but I'm not sure. Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded? And with larger ventures, which require significant investment in infrastructure, this calculation is skewed against new players (and new approaches - where rail counts as a 'new approach' for these purposes)? Subsidy can tip the balance by reducing the initial risk, effectively lowering barriers to entry and thus encouraging more competition? [Your other comments about viability are presumably dependent on passenger volumes/density etc. e.g. Local light rail works well in some cities. It may well be that all intercity services would come under your characterisation tho.]
  - anamax 18y ago
    > Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded? That's an interesting, but different and irrelevant question because there's no reason to believe that high speed rail in the US won't require on-going subsidies. The only argument is over how big they'll be. Run the numbers on every proposal you see. Compare the total salaries for the "jobs created" to the projected revenue (ridership * average fare). Look at the estimates for other on-going costs. Look at the startup costs.
coconutrandom 18y ago
Wow! I'm all for trains. This made me sad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scanda...
chasingsparks 18y ago
Taggart Transcontinental...?

22 points by kqr2 18y ago

This is very interesting... I hope it will be much faster than Amtrak. If you take Amtrak from NYC to San Francisco for example, it would take around 50 hours with stops! I know some people who don't really like to fly, and still prefer train or car in travelling.

ojbyrne 18y ago

Seems like the big advantage of "no waiting in line for check-in, security, or boarding." can't last.

jrockway 18y ago
It has lasted everywhere where there are high-speed trains. Check-in, security checkpoints, and boarding 300 people through one tiny door are all exclusive to air travel. When you take the train, you buy your ticket from a machine, put it in a turnstile to access the platform, and then wait until your train pulls in. Then you board through one of the 20-or-so doors that is closest to your seat. It's really that simple, and it has been that way for years. Remember, America is almost 45 years behind the rest of the world here. The first Shinkansen in Japan went 130mph and started carrying passengers in 1964. We still don't have anything like that (except Acella), in 2009.
- davidw 18y ago
  Actually, in Spain, we had to go through a metal detector to get on train from Sevilla to Madrid. Security wasn't as tight as for airplane boarding, and was very quick, but I was very surprised to find it there at all.
  - ews 18y ago
    mmm, AFAIK , there are no metal detectors in AVE (Alta Velocidad - High Speed) trains in any of the 5 or so routes we have in Spain (just took a couple of them a week ago). They do we have a small x ray machine for carry on baggage, but the process is ridiculously fast (about 5 - 10 seconds total). This is really important if you think that we do have an in active terrorist (or political liberation, according to some) group in Spain, which targeted those trains in the past.
    - ojbyrne 18y ago
      Interesting point, especially since trains (or at least train stations) have been targets in Spain.
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  The Eurostar and TGV trains do some basic security (metal detectors) now. I'm not sure if the TGV does it on all routes all the time, but I definitely remember it from Geneva to Paris in 2005 and Marseilles to somewhere in 2007.
  - jrockway 18y ago
    Interesting. I have only ever ridden the Shinkansen, and I guess I just assumed it would be the same everywhere. (I think metal detectors are pointless, since there is no intrinsic value in blowing up a high-speed train. A terrorist will just go for the subway instead, where security measures will be too intrusive. Oh well, everyone loves their security theater.)
Xichekolas 18y ago
You're correct in the sense that eventually train security will approach airline security and take just as long, but trains still have the advantage of being able to load and unload faster (there are more doors and they are generally more spacious) and baggage doesn't have to be handled by a crew... each passenger can carry on his own bags and stow them. Also, once you are on a train, the crew doesn't have to spend as much time doing pre-departure stuff like checking seatbacks/belts/tray tables and running through the safety instructions that no one listens to. Lastly, they have a slight advantage (when run well) of being pretty darn consistent on departure and arrival times, meaning riders don't have to leave as much fudge time. In my experience, if you only have a carry-on, you can catch a plane by showing up an hour early, but you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early (I'm thinking of the Eurostar, where security is similar to an airport). Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. There is more space, you can stand/sit/walk at will, and there is actually something to look at besides a white ocean of clouds. Not to mention the bathrooms aren't the size of high school lockers.
- jrockway 18y ago
  you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early In the US and Japan, I have done even better than this -- you can show up right at the scheduled departure time, and as long as you make it through the doors, everything is fine. (The train in the US wasn't high-speed, FWIW.) This works nicely in Japan, especially, as the train frequencies on the Shinkansen are almost the same as commuter trains. If you don't have a reservation, you can just get on whatever train you like. This convenience would obviously never work for airlines. Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. I think the convenience is that trains can go to the city-center. Everywhere I go, it always adds an extra hour on each end to get from the city center to the airport. (Chicago Midway and NY LaGuardia are a bit different in this respect.) Even with not-that-high-speed trains, this seems to make it convenient enough to consider using. I know the Boston/Washington DC corridor benefits from this. (They are all short flights, but it is a pain to go from the city center to the airport, wait a while, spend 30 minutes on the plane, and then go from the airport to the destination city center. If you take the train, you cut out all the waiting and needless travel, you arrive at your actual destination.)
furyg3 18y ago
Why not? You don't have to go through these checks when getting on BART, Muni, or Greyhound. I regularly board high speed trains here in Europe with only random security checks (usually dogs roaming the stations). Airplane security for all passengers came about primarily because of hijackings, and was later adapted (badly) to bombs and suicide tactics. Planes are a more suitable target for these types of attacks because of many reasons, including the virtually unlimited amount of possible destinations (unfortunately also including the ground or buildings). Even a small explosion on a plane can bring it down, and there is already an existing factor of fear when flying. The current level of airline security is still ridiculous, given all of this, but it would be doubly so on a train system. Hijacking a train is borderline pointless, crashing one into something is next to impossible, and derailing from on-board would be a pretty large challenge. Trains are also at ground-level, which is less than ideal for hostage scenarios. Trains are only a sexy target because they have a large number of people on them, and even then people are relatively spaced out along a long line. In my opinion this makes them even less attractive to a terrorist than any other crowded space.

anamax 18y ago

Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies.... I like trains, but as passenger transport, they're not competitive. Yes, I know about the energy efficiency of a full train. However, you can't have both decent utilization (reasonably full trains) and reasonable ridership. And, if you don't shoot for reasonable ridership, the fixed and labor costs will kill you. At reasonable ridership, lower utilization kills the realized efficiency and you're still having trouble with fixed and labor costs. Note that govt involvement makes things worse. If a congress critter comes from a particular town, that town will get a stop, regardless of whether that makes sense. (Stops have a huge impact on average speed.)

jbert 18y ago
> Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies.... This rings true, but I'm not sure. Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded? And with larger ventures, which require significant investment in infrastructure, this calculation is skewed against new players (and new approaches - where rail counts as a 'new approach' for these purposes)? Subsidy can tip the balance by reducing the initial risk, effectively lowering barriers to entry and thus encouraging more competition? [Your other comments about viability are presumably dependent on passenger volumes/density etc. e.g. Local light rail works well in some cities. It may well be that all intercity services would come under your characterisation tho.]
- anamax 18y ago
  > Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded? That's an interesting, but different and irrelevant question because there's no reason to believe that high speed rail in the US won't require on-going subsidies. The only argument is over how big they'll be. Run the numbers on every proposal you see. Compare the total salaries for the "jobs created" to the projected revenue (ridership * average fare). Look at the estimates for other on-going costs. Look at the startup costs.

coconutrandom 18y ago

Wow! I'm all for trains. This made me sad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scanda...

chasingsparks 18y ago

Taggart Transcontinental...?