7 ms·

A couple of points the author misses IMO: 1. High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways. The cost effectiveness of the ma

A couple of points the author misses IMO: 1. High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways. The cost effectiveness of the mass moving people via train vs. via highways (buses, carpool lanes included) is still an active debate. 2. The author cites that many folks use interstate highways daily. That may be true but that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? It's a small subset of the population (and skewed towards wealthier citizens). Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car. 3. While his argument about traffic is correct... where is most of the traffic on interstate highways? Answer: around major cities. The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve.

enjo 12y ago
Well put. In live in Denver, high-speed rail doesn't mean much to me. Plane travel is simply faster for almost any trip I'd want to make.
- alwaysdoit 12y ago
  Planes are going to become very expensive in the next 30-40 years, unless we come up with a cheap alternative to the energy density of petroleum. One advantage of trains is that they don't have to carry their fuel.
- melling 12y ago
  I live in the middle of Nebraska. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of Nevada. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of North Dakota . I don't need it either. I'm just messing with you. Do people ever stop and think before adding noise to the conversation? You seriously don't have a point.
- mahyarm 12y ago
  It's for medium range trips, where avoiding all the airport & airplane BS will make it a shorter trip. For example, SF to LA in 2.5hrs / 350 miles
  - ac29 12y ago
    As someone who has flown from northern california to southern california a number of times, it in no way takes 2.5+ hours, including all of the "airport & airplane BS". Proposed HSR times from SF->LA are about 2.5 hours. If there is no security and you are comfortable arriving a few minutes before the train leaves, thats that. Realistically, I'd think you'd need to arrive 15 mins ahead of time or more. Flights from SF->LA take about an hour. In my experience 30-40 minutes is plenty of time for "airport BS", but even if you give it an hour, you're at 2 hours, not over 2.5. I am all for HSR, but saying that it is faster than air travel is a baseless argument.
    - bydo 12y ago
      That's all well and good, if you live in one airport and are traveling to another one. Realistically, it's going to take you another hour or two just getting from your point of departure to the first airport, and from the second to your actual destination. Rail tends to have stations actually in the actual cities, which is an awful lot more convenient.
      - cafard 12y ago
        Yes and no. It is a very few more minutes for me to get from work to the airport than to the train station. It takes less time for me to drive from home to the airport than to drive to the train station.
      - smackfu 12y ago
        If you live in the city or are going to the city, it's more convenient. If you live in the suburbs, or are visiting someone in the suburbs, maybe not so much.
dethstar 12y ago
>that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? Maybe the distance of those commutes are related to the times it takes? Would the average commute grow in distance if the time decreased?
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Can't find the references now, but yes it does - the tolerance of commute times is pretty static; in historical cases where you improve traffic infrastructure, then after a few years the result is not faster commutes but people living further away; presumably in better or more affordable housing than was previously within their acceptable-commuting-time range.
- rhino369 12y ago
  These high speed rails wouldn't really be for commuters because they aren't going to make frequent stops.
- rob_lh 12y ago
  Exactly Jevon's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox It has all sorts of implications for life/work, where it could open up options for smaller towns; however, the problem becomes one of efficiency for the rail, as it can't slow down at every small town with a minor population unless it really was a feeder to the big city. I think it just reinforces travel between hubs (metropolitan areas, which still might have last-mile problems that Google, Uber, Lyft, etc. focus on). I think it also increases the viability of what a "local ecosystem" entails. Suddenly, a manufacturing town that's normally an airplane away is a couple hours, so it's easier to establish a relationship and coordinate between two currently disconnected sectors.
lutusp 12y ago
> High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways. Only when being installed. When operating, the true cost per passenger mile is much lower than for interstate highways and cars. It's best to avoid misleading economic comparisons. A bus is more expensive than a car, but the cost per passenger mile is much lower. A commercial airliner is hugely more expensive than a car, but an airplane ride from A to B is cheaper than an equivalent car journey for most trips. > The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve. False choice. Cities have sophisticated, multi-level rail and surface mass transit systems for a reason -- they make economic sense. > Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car. I have to ask -- who are you working for? Your arguments are all paper-thin, easily torn to pieces. Roads and cars are democratic? More democratic than a seat in mass transit?
- cwyers 12y ago
  > Only when being installed. When operating, the true cost per passenger mile is much lower than for interstate highways and cars. It's best to avoid misleading economic comparisons. Well, the interstate highways are already installed.
- timmaah 12y ago
  Actually bus is more expensive at cost per passenger mile. Math has been done numerous times lately.
  - bydo 12y ago
    Than rail: Sometimes. Than single-passenger automobile (the point above): Only if the bus is empty.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Any sources? On the first look that doesn't seem even remotely possible.
    - timmaah 12y ago
      http://www.debunkingportland.com/cost_of_transit_&_cars.html http://www.debunkingportland.com/cost_of_transit_&_cars.html http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp107.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp107.pdf
icebraining 12y ago
Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? How many people needed cellphones in the 1950s? You can't measure how many people travel to cities greater than 50 miles away today and extrapolate that to a future with high-speed rail, because it may be that the reason they don't do it is: they don't have an affordable way to do it.
- holograham 12y ago
  this is a point I can agree with/ponder especially as a techie the problem is hard though...you could pay for long bureaucratic studies on whether this would pan out or not or you just do it problem is that building the cell phone was several orders of magnitude cheaper than plopping down $100B for high speed rail infrastructure. Definitely not the business model of "launch fast and iterate". Which is probably why its hard for this forum to debate it.

enjo 12y ago

Well put. In live in Denver, high-speed rail doesn't mean much to me. Plane travel is simply faster for almost any trip I'd want to make.

alwaysdoit 12y ago
Planes are going to become very expensive in the next 30-40 years, unless we come up with a cheap alternative to the energy density of petroleum. One advantage of trains is that they don't have to carry their fuel.
melling 12y ago
I live in the middle of Nebraska. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of Nevada. I don't need it either. I live in the middle of North Dakota . I don't need it either. I'm just messing with you. Do people ever stop and think before adding noise to the conversation? You seriously don't have a point.
mahyarm 12y ago
It's for medium range trips, where avoiding all the airport & airplane BS will make it a shorter trip. For example, SF to LA in 2.5hrs / 350 miles
- ac29 12y ago
  As someone who has flown from northern california to southern california a number of times, it in no way takes 2.5+ hours, including all of the "airport & airplane BS". Proposed HSR times from SF->LA are about 2.5 hours. If there is no security and you are comfortable arriving a few minutes before the train leaves, thats that. Realistically, I'd think you'd need to arrive 15 mins ahead of time or more. Flights from SF->LA take about an hour. In my experience 30-40 minutes is plenty of time for "airport BS", but even if you give it an hour, you're at 2 hours, not over 2.5. I am all for HSR, but saying that it is faster than air travel is a baseless argument.
  - bydo 12y ago
    That's all well and good, if you live in one airport and are traveling to another one. Realistically, it's going to take you another hour or two just getting from your point of departure to the first airport, and from the second to your actual destination. Rail tends to have stations actually in the actual cities, which is an awful lot more convenient.
    - cafard 12y ago
      Yes and no. It is a very few more minutes for me to get from work to the airport than to the train station. It takes less time for me to drive from home to the airport than to drive to the train station.
    - smackfu 12y ago
      If you live in the city or are going to the city, it's more convenient. If you live in the suburbs, or are visiting someone in the suburbs, maybe not so much.

dethstar 12y ago

>that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? Maybe the distance of those commutes are related to the times it takes? Would the average commute grow in distance if the time decreased?

PeterisP 12y ago
Can't find the references now, but yes it does - the tolerance of commute times is pretty static; in historical cases where you improve traffic infrastructure, then after a few years the result is not faster commutes but people living further away; presumably in better or more affordable housing than was previously within their acceptable-commuting-time range.
rhino369 12y ago
These high speed rails wouldn't really be for commuters because they aren't going to make frequent stops.
rob_lh 12y ago
Exactly Jevon's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox It has all sorts of implications for life/work, where it could open up options for smaller towns; however, the problem becomes one of efficiency for the rail, as it can't slow down at every small town with a minor population unless it really was a feeder to the big city. I think it just reinforces travel between hubs (metropolitan areas, which still might have last-mile problems that Google, Uber, Lyft, etc. focus on). I think it also increases the viability of what a "local ecosystem" entails. Suddenly, a manufacturing town that's normally an airplane away is a couple hours, so it's easier to establish a relationship and coordinate between two currently disconnected sectors.

lutusp 12y ago

> High speed rail is an order of magnitude more expensive than interstate highways. Only when being installed. When operating, the true cost per passenger mile is much lower than for interstate highways and cars. It's best to avoid misleading economic comparisons. A bus is more expensive than a car, but the cost per passenger mile is much lower. A commercial airliner is hugely more expensive than a car, but an airplane ride from A to B is cheaper than an equivalent car journey for most trips. > The traffic is mostly local commuter traffic that high speed rail would not solve. False choice. Cities have sophisticated, multi-level rail and surface mass transit systems for a reason -- they make economic sense. > Roads are much more democratic -- they are available to anyone with a car. I have to ask -- who are you working for? Your arguments are all paper-thin, easily torn to pieces. Roads and cars are democratic? More democratic than a seat in mass transit?

cwyers 12y ago
> Only when being installed. When operating, the true cost per passenger mile is much lower than for interstate highways and cars. It's best to avoid misleading economic comparisons. Well, the interstate highways are already installed.
timmaah 12y ago
Actually bus is more expensive at cost per passenger mile. Math has been done numerous times lately.
- bydo 12y ago
  Than rail: Sometimes. Than single-passenger automobile (the point above): Only if the bus is empty.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Any sources? On the first look that doesn't seem even remotely possible.
  - timmaah 12y ago
    http://www.debunkingportland.com/cost_of_transit_&_cars.html http://www.debunkingportland.com/cost_of_transit_&_cars.html http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp107.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp107.pdf

icebraining 12y ago

Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away? How many people needed cellphones in the 1950s? You can't measure how many people travel to cities greater than 50 miles away today and extrapolate that to a future with high-speed rail, because it may be that the reason they don't do it is: they don't have an affordable way to do it.

holograham 12y ago
this is a point I can agree with/ponder especially as a techie the problem is hard though...you could pay for long bureaucratic studies on whether this would pan out or not or you just do it problem is that building the cell phone was several orders of magnitude cheaper than plopping down $100B for high speed rail infrastructure. Definitely not the business model of "launch fast and iterate". Which is probably why its hard for this forum to debate it.