DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: PraXis on November 02, 2011, 09:06:49 AM

Title: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: PraXis on November 02, 2011, 09:06:49 AM
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/01/BAMK1LP9SQ.DTL

Planned cost: $43 BILLION
Actual cost: $98.1 BILLION

..to connect SF to LA!?  :rollin

Fail.

These rails are money pits. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 09:47:26 AM
They're not money pits.  It's just the cost of infrastructure. 

The system will make money.  Other types of infrastructure won't.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 02, 2011, 09:57:37 AM
ITT: Somebody who's never experienced a high-speed rail system judges it through his dogmatic set of beliefs.

I've taken high-speed rails many times in Germanyt and Japan, and they are the backbones of personal transportation and thus commerce. The US is hell-bent for disaster with its car-driving culture that makes it suck  at the teets of foreign (read: OPEC) countries.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: XJDenton on November 02, 2011, 10:24:30 AM
Breaking news: large scale building project overuns and is over budget.
Thank god that never happens in the private sector.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Cool Chris on November 02, 2011, 10:29:22 AM
That isn't a sign of a money pit, that is a sign of poor budgeting and planning.

I've taken high-speed rails many times in Germanyt and Japan, and they are the backbones of personal transportation and thus commerce.

rumborak (and other people from Europe/Japan/etc...): would this include normal daily commuting, or what type(s) of travel would this high speed rail be used for?

The system will make money. 

 ???
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 02, 2011, 10:35:41 AM
Yeah, they are predominantly used for work commuting. And the amount of people they can transport, plus the emissions per capita, are unmatched by anything else.
Obviously you need a certain population density for them to work.  But the coasts definitely have that.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 10:44:04 AM

The system will make money. 

 ???

High-speed rail is profitable throughout the world.  It's incredibly fast, easy, and comfortable, and it absolutely dominates the air market in terms of travel less than 500-600 km.  It attracts a rich clientele, and absolutely gobs of passengers.  To boot, it also minimizes personnel costs because quicker travel times means less time you're paying engineers and attendants.  Plus, factor in fuel savings due to electric power and regenerative braking.

Major national rail companies like SNCF and Deutschbahn frequently make enough money just off of their high-speed rail services to offset losses in all their other sectors, and post profits.  That's pretty much unheard of in any other public transit system.

EDIT: For example, SNCF, the French state-owned railway company that runs all the regional, inter-city, and TGV services (high-speed) in France, posted a revenue of 30.5 billion euros last year, with a gross profit of 2.2 billion euros.

Hell, even Amtrak's very slow by "high-speed" standards, the Acela, posts a profit.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Cool Chris on November 02, 2011, 10:53:38 AM
rumborak/GP, thank you for clarifying and sharing your thoughts. It is an ongoing topic where I live so I was curious to know how it worked in other areas.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 02, 2011, 10:57:23 AM
On top of all the above, there's something dignified about train travel that planes and cars just don't possess. I love seeing the scenery zoom by.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: PraXis on November 02, 2011, 11:06:16 AM
We have tolls, taxes, and fees to fund infrastructure. Where does the money go? As for OPEC... we get ~80% of our oil from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela...

If the citizens of that state want high speed rail, then they can support it, but it must not be forced... but the state is already broke from their collectivist model...hell look at BART. Most people prefer driving or flying anyway. I'll never give up my luxury SUV. :D
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Ħ on November 02, 2011, 11:21:09 AM
This looks great.  Public transport is pretty weak in CA if you want to travel between cities (unless you have a lot of money).
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 11:49:05 AM
Fun fact: in terms of capacity, it's cheaper to build high-speed rail than it is to build a highway.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Fiery Winds on November 02, 2011, 12:48:05 PM
We have tolls, taxes, and fees to fund infrastructure. Where does the money go? As for OPEC... we get ~80% of our oil from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela...

If the citizens of that state want high speed rail, then they can support it, but it must not be forced... but the state is already broke from their collectivist model...hell look at BART. Most people prefer driving or flying anyway. I'll never give up my luxury SUV. :D

The voters approved a $10 billion bond in '08 for the high speed rail.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: PraXis on November 02, 2011, 01:01:55 PM
$10 billion <<<< $43 billion <<<<<<<<< $98 billion!
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 02, 2011, 01:12:42 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Sigz on November 02, 2011, 01:15:08 PM
nevermind.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 02, 2011, 01:27:04 PM
My personal experience with this particular issue is right-wingers don't like it and consistently line up against it and I'll tell you why - these points are a summary of this piece. (https://www.alternet.org/story/151748/why_do_conservatives_hate_high-speed_rail_5_reasons_right-wingers_are_sabotaging_public_transportation_projects/?page=1)

1. Big Infrastructure projects leave a BIG legacy and right-wingers want to refuse Obama any successful legislation.
2. Most of the work on these projects would be done by union labor.  Right-wingers hate unions.
3. Collectivism!  Socialism!  They have trains like this in Europe!
4. Urban vs. Rural - High speed rail will only really work efficiently on the densely populated coasts (read: liberal areas)
5. Conservatives, generally, don't like change, and high speed rail will, in fact, result in a fundamental change in how we use transportation.


Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Fiery Winds on November 02, 2011, 01:28:01 PM
$10 billion <<<< $43 billion <<<<<<<<< $98 billion!

The bond was never supposed to cover the entire cost.  Up to $7 billion would have been private investment, another $10 billion from local governments, and about $12-$16 billion from the federal government.  Once it was built, the plan was to use the profit to expand the line to Sacramento and San Diego.  The problem I see is that none of this additional funding was secured (and still isn't) prior to being approved by the voters. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 02, 2011, 01:57:35 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 02:13:47 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

I also don't see how anyone can actually think this is a bad thing.  You're being small-minded and not embracing a change for good if you think this is detrimental.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 02:24:45 PM
My personal experience with this particular issue is right-wingers don't like it and consistently line up against it and I'll tell you why

I'm not writing off what you say, but I'll just chime in as a conservative who has a different opinion on the subject.  I'm not against projects like this per se.  However, this particular one seems to have drawbacks that lead me to oppose it.  My primary objections are:  (1) Our stupid government in this state is corrupt and inefficient.  And while I do not completely side with PraXis, he is right about it not being budgeted and planned properly, leading to massive cost overruns.  (2) I'm not sure the demand for high speed rail between S.F. and L.A. is significant enough to justify the cost.  Great idea to connect cities, but I'm just not sure this particular idea has a lot of utility.  But I'd love to be proven wrong on that point.

As to the five reasons in your post:


1. Big Infrastructure projects leave a BIG legacy and right-wingers want to refuse Obama any successful legislation.

I may think Obama is a lousy president, but if he has good ideas that will leave a positive legacy for him, that doesn't bother me one bit.  But that being said, this is entirely a state project, so I'm not sure how it would be attributed to him if it were successful.

2. Most of the work on these projects would be done by union labor.  Right-wingers hate unions.

Yes, I hate unions, and would prefer that this project be done by non-unionized labor if possible.  But if this is a good project that is justified by the cost, and costs could be kept under control, it wouldn't bother me that union labor works on it.  Honestly, I don't know anyone in my conservative circles who would be bothered by that.

3. Collectivism!  Socialism!  They have trains like this in Europe!

:lol  Not sure how to respond to this one.

4. Urban vs. Rural - High speed rail will only really work efficiently on the densely populated coasts (read: liberal areas)

Wait, what?  I don't understand this one.  It wouldn't make sense to connect rural areas by high speed rail because there isn't enough population to use it.  Of course it would be to connect urban areas that are more densely populated.  What's the problem with that?  I'm not following.  ???

5. Conservatives, generally, don't like change, and high speed rail will, in fact, result in a fundamental change in how we use transportation.

For me, it simply depends on the change at issue.  Some change is good.  Some isn't.  I don't see high speed rail as a per se negative.  If it ends up being useful and cost efficient, it sounds like a good thing to me.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 02:27:33 PM
For No.4 he's saying that liberals want it because it will connect them, where as rurarl area's aka conservative areas, it wouldn't be effective to do this in the eyes of a republican political member.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: the Catfishman on November 02, 2011, 02:33:35 PM
Yeah, they are predominantly used for work commuting. And the amount of people they can transport, plus the emissions per capita, are unmatched by anything else.
Obviously you need a certain population density for them to work.  But the coasts definitely have that.

rumborak

to add to this, here every student get's to use public transportation for free which means most people here don't get a car until they actually need one for work. I'm 25 and have never owned a car which is quite a normal thing for people my age... I use my bike to get around the city here and use the train/bus to go everywhere else... although with all this it helps that the Netherlands has a very high population density.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 02:35:25 PM
My personal experience with this particular issue is right-wingers don't like it and consistently line up against it and I'll tell you why

I'm not writing off what you say, but I'll just chime in as a conservative who has a different opinion on the subject.  I'm not against projects like this per se.  However, this particular one seems to have drawbacks that lead me to oppose it.  My primary objections are:  (1) Our stupid government in this state is corrupt and inefficient.  And while I do not completely side with PraXis, he is right about it not being budgeted and planned properly, leading to massive cost overruns.  (2) I'm not sure the demand for high speed rail between S.F. and L.A. is significant enough to justify the cost.  Great idea to connect cities, but I'm just not sure this particular idea has a lot of utility.  But I'd love to be proven wrong on that point.


Just as a measuring stick, the first (and immensely succesful) French LGV was between Paris and Lyon.  Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego... there's more than enough of a passenger base to make this viable.  It's shocking that it's taken this long.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 02:43:25 PM
Oh, I know there's a big enough population base to justify it.  I just don't know if enough of that population would use it. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 02:47:03 PM
People used rail before.  They used it when it was the most convenient mode of transportation.  People will again.

High-speed rail (between LA and SF, for example) would be faster, cheaper, and more easy than air travel.  It would be a lot faster and much less painful than driving.  There's no reason to think people wouldn't flock to it.  People have done so on the much slower Acela.  In Europe, rail travel was declining for longer trips before HSR was implemented. 

There are just so many advantages for it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 02:51:11 PM
You might be right.  I'm just saying I don't know.  Not saying it's a bad idea--just that I'm hesitant. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 02, 2011, 02:56:00 PM
Oh, I know there's a big enough population base to justify it.  I just don't know if enough of that population would use it.

I think if you make it convenient and cost effective for people to use, they will use it.  As to your comments about cost overruns, every large infrastructure project ever undertaken has had cost overruns.  That goes for public and private stuff.  Believe me, I am intimately involved -right now- in several massive infrastructure public works projects here in MA, and every single one of them is millions of dollars over budget.  That's just the nature of construction projects.

One place where I have a lot of overlapping agreement with conservatives, though, is on union labor.

A fucking broom operator should not cost $47.75 an hour - nor should I, as a network engineer, be required to have TWO union electricians (one Journeyman, one apprentice) accompany me all day on the job and do absolutely NO work at all.  Those are basically mafia tactics. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 02:57:50 PM
It's worked on the East Coast.  And that's even where the actual speeds (~130 km/h south of New York, ~180 km/h north of New York) are far lower than your typical HSR systems (average speeds ~230-270 km/h).  Also, less congestion and overcrowded roads.

A faster train (max speed 350km/h) in California would just dominate the ridership share over 200-500 km distances.  Would completely marginalize local air travel.  Incredible environmental benefits, not to mention the economic benefits of less wasted time and more rapid business transportation.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: yeshaberto on November 02, 2011, 03:02:31 PM
been traveling this week on the metro in paris and it is great!  a little confusing because I don't know french, but other than that it is great.  LA would work so much better with something like this
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2011, 03:08:42 PM
A few points.

I agree with Rumbo.  Train travel rocks.  So much more dignified than flying.  I'd love it here.

The fact that Cali's idea is over budget means precisely dick.  Hardly a reason to disapprove of HSR.

I agree with Bosk.  I don't see how the LA-SF route will be all that usful.  That seems longer than a commute to me.

I personally don't think Americans will us HSR.  For one thing,  flying will always be cheaper and that seems to be the biggest factor with Americans.  For another,  we'll fuck it all up.  The advantage Europeans have is that you can walk into a train depot and be sitting in your seat in 5 minutes.  TSA will stick it's filthy nose into the  whole thing and we'll be showing them our licenses, retinas and dicks just to get aboard.  There won't be any convenience.  You'll pay more,  get the same monumental amount of inconvenience,  and spend longer getting there than if you just flew SWA.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 03:10:43 PM
I don't know why Rumbo said it's mostly used for commutes.  Unless I'm misinterpreting what he means by commuter rail, HSR is not used for that.  HSR intentionally limits the number of stations along it's route in order to allow for less stops, and more time spent at the highest possible speed. 

EDIT: Just as an example, the LGV Sud-Est and Toronto's GO Transit are similar lengths; 409 km and 391 km respectively.  The former has 4 stations; the latter 59.  They serve two very different purposes.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 03:11:03 PM
Oh, I know there's a big enough population base to justify it.  I just don't know if enough of that population would use it.

I think if you make it convenient and cost effective for people to use, they will use it. 

I'd like to think so.  It's just that the population here is odd about things like that.  That's my hesitation.  For example, we have a great capitol corridor lightrail system connecting S.F. to Sacramento.  But a significantly smaller segment of the population than projected actually use the thing.  It is cheaper, faster, and more comfortable than driving that same stretch, but people would still rather sit in their cars in bumper-to-bumper traffic than use it. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2011, 03:46:39 PM
I don't know why Rumbo said it's mostly used for commutes.  Unless I'm misinterpreting what he means by commuter rail, HSR is not used for that.  HSR intentionally limits the number of stations along it's route in order to allow for less stops, and more time spent at the highest possible speed. 

EDIT: Just as an example, the LGV Sud-Est and Toronto's GO Transit are similar lengths; 409 km and 391 km respectively.  The former has 4 stations; the latter 59.  They serve two very different purposes.
Commuting isn't just getting to and from work each day.  There are plenty of people who have to travel that sort of distance 2 or 3 times a week.  There are plenty of people who have to take the same flight multiple times a week, though not necessarily at 9 and 5.  Still,  I don't see enough of those people here to justify the infrastructure.  Part of Acela's success was reusing existing tracks and modifying the stock.


I'd like to think so.  It's just that the population here is odd about things like that.  That's my hesitation.  For example, we have a great capitol corridor lightrail system connecting S.F. to Sacramento.  But a significantly smaller segment of the population than projected actually use the thing.  It is cheaper, faster, and more comfortable than driving that same stretch, but people would still rather sit in their cars in bumper-to-bumper traffic than use it. 
Yeah,  that's another reason why it won't work well with Americans.  Urban sprawl makes centralized transportation a real PITA.  I might well be able to take a HSR from here to Houston in half the time,  but without my car it'd suck horrendously on both ends.  Trains are very enjoyable,  but DART buses are terrible,  and I don't have any reason to expect [whatever Houston's rapid transit system is called] is any better.  In Europe you're mostly dealing with small towns or larger ones with effective commuter train networks.  Big difference there. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: j on November 02, 2011, 03:58:13 PM
Barto, you ever take the light rail to get around in Dallas?  Not that it's "high speed rail," just curious.

-J
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 02, 2011, 04:00:24 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius
No shit, you obviously missed what he's saying, nice one being a sarcastic jerk without actually understanding what he was saying.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 04:12:49 PM
The three of you need to knock off the insults now.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 02, 2011, 04:22:10 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius

And why is the US exceptional? If it works in Europe, it could work here. Maybe some tweaks to the system need to be instituted, but it's wrong to say that high speed rails don't give a return on their investment. Private enterprises face a different issue, namely land rights, so you're not going to see them get involved in infrastructure like this without the government.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 05:21:19 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius

And why is the US exceptional? If it works in Europe, it could work here. Maybe some tweaks to the system need to be instituted, but it's wrong to say that high speed rails don't give a return on their investment. Private enterprises face a different issue, namely land rights, so you're not going to see them get involved in infrastructure like this without the government.
This, and Bosk, I was just telling him he was being a jerk :L
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 02, 2011, 05:36:22 PM
Somewhat off-topic: anyone ever been on the bullet-train in Japan? That thing is fucking awesome. I would totally be down for us building something like that here.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 05:40:53 PM
Somewhat off-topic: anyone ever been on the bullet-train in Japan? That thing is fucking awesome. I would totally be down for us building something like that here.

The proposed Cali HSR would go faster than any of the current generation Shinkansens.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 02, 2011, 05:43:19 PM
Holy mother of God, let's do this. How is it in terms of energy/carbon efficiency?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
Very.  It depends on what the electricity used is generated from, but it's about 5 times as efficient in terms of energy expended per passenger per km as automobiles.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 02, 2011, 06:02:44 PM
Basically meaning that in the end, it pays for itself. ;)
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 06:23:38 PM
Basically meaning that in the end, it pays for itself. ;)

It pays for itself simply by the profit it generates.

But it also delivers massive economic, social, and environmental positives as well.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
IF enough people use it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 06:25:29 PM
No reason why not.  It's been profitable everywhere else.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 06:30:01 PM
No reason why not. 

Yes, there are plenty of reasons why not.  Go back and read my and El Barto's posts.  Do you have any hard facts about the coastal population of California significant numbers of them would use it?  No, of course you don't. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 06:34:21 PM
No reason why not. 

Yes, there are plenty of reasons why not.  Go back and read my and El Barto's posts.  Do you have any hard facts about the coastal population of California significant numbers of them would use it?  No, of course you don't.
But you have none that say it won't, and if it was originally voted upon, surely people must want it?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 06:42:08 PM
But you have none that say it won't

I never said it won't.  I'm repeating for probably the third or fourth time now:  I'm hesitant about whether it will work.  That's not the same thing as saying it won't work.  It might.  But there are reasons why it might not, so it is really dumb to just blindly assume that it will. 

...and if it was originally voted upon, surely people must want it?

Whether people thought it was a cool enough idea to vote "yes" on really has little bearing on whether enough people will use it on a regular enough basis to justify the cost and make it successful.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 06:45:03 PM
The fact that people voted for it shows there is a general interest, and like others have said who use them, if they're big in the rest of the world, there's no reason to think the U.S.A. won't jump on them, in a time of high gas prices, endless highway projects, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd rather have this alternative.  That's all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 06:49:42 PM
The fact that people voted for it shows there is a general interest

No it doesn't.  It could merely mean that loads of people who have no use for such a thing whatsoever who showed up for the polls to vote on other items ran down their ballot cards, arrived at that issue, and said to themselves something along the lines of, "well, gee, trains are pretty cool.  I don't want to be the guy to hold this up if people want it, so I guess I should put 'yes.'"

...high gas prices, endless highway projects

Are you familiar with California at all?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 02, 2011, 06:56:06 PM
In any case, Dark Castle's comment does bring to mind the issue that USA has been the Johnny-come-lately on a good number of things, particularly in recent years. I can see no reason why having a high-speed rail would be a *bad* thing. Maybe not an unambiguously good thing, but never a bad thing.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 06:56:44 PM
The fact that people voted for it shows there is a general interest

No it doesn't.  It could merely mean that loads of people who have no use for such a thing whatsoever who showed up for the polls to vote on other items ran down their ballot cards, arrived at that issue, and said to themselves something along the lines of, "well, gee, trains are pretty cool.  I don't want to be the guy to hold this up if people want it, so I guess I should put 'yes.'"

...high gas prices, endless highway projects

Are you familiar with California at all?
Yeah, I've been through there often with my biological dad as he used to be a trucker, gas prices were much higher than anywhere else we'd drive, and yeah it's already congested traffic-wise. Also that was me generalizing I think it would be cool if the entire nation had rails eventually  ;)
Also you're generalizing a shit ton of people as idiots who don't care which is highly unfair to generalize people as, especially when it comes to voting.  People usually research stuff to be voting on before just blindly voting on something.  Sioux Falls, where I live is voting on a new arena center so we can attract bigger clientele and sports, and the amount's of caring in the entire town is unbelievable, and it's being voted on Nov. 8.  Mostly everyone voting's going to know the whole situation and facts because it's been covered, and the public has been very involved.  Something as big as a rail such as this is going to be a subject people will want to know about and not just blindly vote.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 07:00:48 PM
In any case, Dark Castle's comment does bring to mind the issue that USA has been the Johnny-come-lately on a good number of things, particularly in recent years. I can see no reason why having a high-speed rail would be a *bad* thing. Maybe not an unambiguously good thing, but never a bad thing.

It's a bad thing IF (and I'm not saying this necessarily is the case, but just hypothetically IF) it costs a lot of money and resources to create and doesn't get used, in which case it is a waste of money and other resources, and would unjustifiably scar more otherwise usable Central Valley farmland and hillsides with unusable railroad tracks.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Implode on November 02, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
The only downsides to HSR I could imagine are the things El Barto posted. However, if HSR ends up being as easy to use as current trains, they will be extremely successful.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 07:05:04 PM
Regardless of urban sprawl, the populations of the areas connected are so large, there would still be lots of ridership.  Particularly among those traveling for business.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 02, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
Yeah, I've been through there often with my biological dad as he used to be a trucker, gas prices were much higher than anywhere else we'd drive, and yeah it's already congested traffic-wise.

Yes, but you are failing to realize a few really important facts.  (1) The endpoints of this railway line are going to be in S.F. and L.A.  Both are very congested areas that are hard to quickly get in and out of.  (2) The two main routes between the S.F. and L.A. areas are relatively congestion free once you are not in the S.F. and L.A. areas.  What this means when you put those two facts together:  If you are not VERY close to a station, it is much more efficient and less hassle to drive the S.F.-L.A. drive than to drive into one of those two cities to take a train.  And as Barto pointed out, the public transportation infrastructure that you would need to link to those stations so that you could easily access them from farther away without driving and having to deal with parking is severely lacking.

Also you're generalizing a shit ton of people as idiots who don't care which is highly unfair to generalize people as, especially when it comes to voting.  People usually research stuff to be voting on before just blindly voting on something.  Sioux Falls, where I live is voting on a new arena center so we can attract bigger clientele and sports, and the amount's of caring in the entire town is unbelievable, and it's being voted on Nov. 8.  Mostly everyone voting's going to know the whole situation and facts because it's been covered, and the public has been very involved.  Something as big as a rail such as this is going to be a subject people will want to know about and not just blindly vote.

Awesome for Sioux Falls.  This isn't Sioux Falls.  The vast majority of the electorate here is not in touch at all with the vast majority of ballot issues that come up in a given election.  Every single election, the ballots are flooded with all kinds of issues for the voters to vote on.  The vast majority of people don't even know what most of the issues are before going to the polls.  They go to vote for their local guy or their presidential candidate and that's it, but then end up voting on anything else on the ballot that looks cool.  That's just a fact of life here.  The rail was on the general ballot, and most people here had no idea what it would entail or what it would cost before voting.  Sounds unbelievable, but that's exactly how it played out.  So, yet again, let me repeat that I am not necessarily against this.  But I am merely pointing out that the fact that a majority of California voters, many of whom live so far from where this railway line would be located that they will NEVER use it, voted for this does NOT necessarily mean they researched it and would be willing to use it on a regular basis.  In fact, do you even realize that not all that many people actually travel between S.F. and L.A. on a regular basis?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 02, 2011, 07:13:26 PM
MBTA seems to work just fine. Hell, for what it takes me to fill up my car in a week, I can commute by rail for a little over a month.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Let's compare the 10 largest cities connected by the French TGV to the 10 largest cities connected to the future Cali HSR.

France:
Paris (2.18 milion)
Marseille (839,000)
Lyon (472,000)    
Nice    (347,000)*
Strasbourg (273,000)*
Montpellier (252,000)*
Bordeaux (232,000)*
Lille (226,000)
Rennes (210,000)
Dijon (152,000)

*LGV under construction

California:

Los Angeles (3.79 million)
San Diego (1.31 million)
San Jose (946,000)
San Francisco (805,000)
Fresno (510,000)
Sacramento (489,000)
Bakersfield (347,000)
Anaheim (336,000)
Riverside (304,000)
Stockton (292,000)

That's city populations.  Not accounting for the metro areas.

In 2009, the TGV carried 122 million passengers.  California is expecting the Cali HSR to reach 100 million per year by 2030.  Seems very doable.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: zxlkho on November 02, 2011, 07:19:44 PM
In fact, do you even realize that not all that many people actually travel between S.F. and L.A. on a regular basis?


I know you do live in California, but how exactly do you know this?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Riceball on November 02, 2011, 07:28:39 PM
For any kind of project costing that kind of public dosh, a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done to establish whether there will be a benefit from the piece of infrastructure. There is no point saying "well its going to cost 25 centillion dollars, that sounds like a lot, so lets not do it".

In my view, I like the notion of High Speed Rail as a mass transit system for a number of reasons:
 - Its faster, more direct, more efficient and cleaner than x number of people using a car each or each person having a seat on an air plane.
 - Its safe.
 - Its easy to maintain (from what I have read)
 - Once scale economies build, the marginal cost of additional capacity is negligable.

But, you need to be mindful of:
 - What impact will this have on air travel demand?
 - Is the population density in and around the stations or rail-line high enough to warrant the high investment cost?
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)
 - Do people need to travel sufficiently often between the proposed destinations?

You also need to take into account the implicit opportunity cost of spending that kind of money (which is where the CBA comes in) and also the impacts on broader markets (air travel, used cars, petrol, radio stations, newspapers, personal technology). Its a game changer, no doubt about that, and it can greatly enhance the productivity of the local economy. But a thorough, rigerous cost benefit analysis is absolutely vital.

Based on the densities highlighted in the previous post, it sounds like California would be a fine place for rail - on the user side anyway.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2011, 07:31:12 PM
Barto, you ever take the light rail to get around in Dallas?  Not that it's "high speed rail," just curious.

-J
Yeah, a couple of times.  I live half a mile from MB station,  so if I'm going to Fair Park or Victory it makes sense.  They'll run special trains for AAC events,  so that's convenient as well.  Really,  it's only for specific trips to one specific place and back.  On two separate occasions I looked into riding it somewhere and discovered it was a terrible solution.  The station closest to Starplex is a mile away on MLK,  and I'm not fast enough, big enough, or well armed enough to take that challenge.  Looked into riding it to the zoo and discovered that it was going to take 45 minutes and decided I'd rather pay $10 to park.

This is exactly why I think HSR is a poor fit for most of America.  European cities were either walkable or had great light rail.  You ride a train into SF and your first stop will be the Avis counter.  That's the case landing at SFO as well,  but when it's actually a drivable distance,  like LA-SF,  then  the train doesn't look quite as good as driving, IMO.


edit:  GP:  those are interesting numbers.  It raises the point that it's hard to tell what things will look like 20 years from now.  100m/year seems absurd,  but it's certainly likely that if the thing existed,  there might be a steady increase in people using it.  I still think that it won't be convenient enough for the projected ridership to even come close, though.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 02, 2011, 07:39:03 PM
Just to throw in another comparison, the Canadian government recently got the results of a study looking into high-speed rail in Québec/Ontario.  The report estimated a $20 billion cost for ~1200 km of rail; roughly 3/4 electrified, 300 km/h+, the other 1/4 diesel at 200 km/h.  Predicted that the system would start generating a yearly profit of about a billion instantly.  For comparison's sake, here's the list of cities it would hypothetically connect:

Québec/Ontario:
Toronto (2.50 million)
Montréal (1.62 million)
Ottawa (812,000)
Hamilton (505,000)
Québec City (491,000)
Laval (369,000)
London (352,000)
Windsor (216,000)
Oshawa (142,000)
Trois-Rivières (126,000)
Kingston (117,000)
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Sigz on November 02, 2011, 07:40:18 PM
In fact, do you even realize that not all that many people actually travel between S.F. and L.A. on a regular basis?


I know you do live in California, but how exactly do you know this?

I doubt there's much in the way of statistics, but I'm inclined to agree with bosk here.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2011, 07:56:37 PM
Something that occurs to me is that SWA operates 25 flights a day between DAL/HOU.  Roughly the same distance as LA/SF.  That leads me to believe that plenty of people are making that trip.  LAX to SFO is 11 flights,  plus you've got BUR, ONT and SNA/OAK and SJC running flights as well.  Clearly there is some commuter traffic going on over those distances.  More than I initially thought.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 02, 2011, 08:03:45 PM
I don't get why American's are supposed to be so exceptional, and not do what every other country does. Quicker, cheaper, less stressful traveling is going to be used. People do not like traffic, they do not like being stuck in traffic, and if you gave people a quicker option, Americans are going to use it. It's human nature.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 02, 2011, 08:53:38 PM
Yeah, I've been through there often with my biological dad as he used to be a trucker, gas prices were much higher than anywhere else we'd drive, and yeah it's already congested traffic-wise.

Yes, but you are failing to realize a few really important facts.  (1) The endpoints of this railway line are going to be in S.F. and L.A.  Both are very congested areas that are hard to quickly get in and out of.  (2) The two main routes between the S.F. and L.A. areas are relatively congestion free once you are not in the S.F. and L.A. areas.  What this means when you put those two facts together:  If you are not VERY close to a station, it is much more efficient and less hassle to drive the S.F.-L.A. drive than to drive into one of those two cities to take a train.  And as Barto pointed out, the public transportation infrastructure that you would need to link to those stations so that you could easily access them from farther away without driving and having to deal with parking is severely lacking.

Also you're generalizing a shit ton of people as idiots who don't care which is highly unfair to generalize people as, especially when it comes to voting.  People usually research stuff to be voting on before just blindly voting on something.  Sioux Falls, where I live is voting on a new arena center so we can attract bigger clientele and sports, and the amount's of caring in the entire town is unbelievable, and it's being voted on Nov. 8.  Mostly everyone voting's going to know the whole situation and facts because it's been covered, and the public has been very involved.  Something as big as a rail such as this is going to be a subject people will want to know about and not just blindly vote.

Awesome for Sioux Falls.  This isn't Sioux Falls.  The vast majority of the electorate here is not in touch at all with the vast majority of ballot issues that come up in a given election.  Every single election, the ballots are flooded with all kinds of issues for the voters to vote on.  The vast majority of people don't even know what most of the issues are before going to the polls.  They go to vote for their local guy or their presidential candidate and that's it, but then end up voting on anything else on the ballot that looks cool.  That's just a fact of life here.  The rail was on the general ballot, and most people here had no idea what it would entail or what it would cost before voting.  Sounds unbelievable, but that's exactly how it played out.  So, yet again, let me repeat that I am not necessarily against this.  But I am merely pointing out that the fact that a majority of California voters, many of whom live so far from where this railway line would be located that they will NEVER use it, voted for this does NOT necessarily mean they researched it and would be willing to use it on a regular basis.  In fact, do you even realize that not all that many people actually travel between S.F. and L.A. on a regular basis?
What you're failing to understand here is that if this does get built, it's pretty much guaranteed to drastically expand.  Also, why is it okay to say my point isn't valid because I used a personal example, in which the biggest city of South Dakota.   stuff like expansion or big projects, people like to know what the fuck they're voting for, that's why I brought up that example.  It's not an invalid statement just because it's not the same location.  And as Scheavo said just before I posted this.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Cool Chris on November 02, 2011, 09:04:18 PM
Ok, so I know it isn't high speed rail, but this is what I have to deal with in my local area, and since I don't travel ever, all I really know.

https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009229227_stpreview17m.html

Quote
Voters first said yes to light rail 13 years ago, and now, $2.6 billion later, the success of this megaproject depends on individual choices of thousands of ordinary travelers like Frost.

The initial line from downtown to Tukwila opens this summer, followed by service to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport around the end of the year, for a total 16 miles.

Sound Transit predicts an average of 26,600 riders a day in 2010. Early studies said population growth would help the corridor carry 45,000 by 2020, if no extensions were built. Rail would reduce freeway congestion in the South End about 1 percent.

2.6 billion dollars for a project that will reduce congestion by 1%?

Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 02, 2011, 09:10:05 PM
The ones arguing that the population density isn't high enough to merit those HSRs, I think those low, sprawled-out populations are a thing of the past anyway and will have to change sooner or later. They were a function of super-cheap gas, and that super-cheap gas will never return again. The insanity of "commuting in car for 2 hours each way" was never really maintainable.

Europe is ahead 50 years in terms of gas prices to the US, and that's one of the big reasons trains work there. As part of a viable energy policy in this country, a HSR is essentially a no-brainer.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 02, 2011, 09:58:45 PM
We have tolls, taxes, and fees to fund infrastructure. Where does the money go? As for OPEC... we get ~80% of our oil from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela...

Who says those things don't go towards infrastructure? Just becuase we have those taxes, doesn't mean that those taxes are enough.

Isn't Venezuela part of OPEC?

Also, we can only get our oil from those places because of OPEC, without which there's be less available for us to buy, becuase those countries which do get a lot of their oil from the Middle East, would have to go to Mexico and Canada.

The ones arguing that the population density isn't high enough to merit those HSRs, I think those low, sprawled-out populations are a thing of the past anyway and will have to change sooner or later.

rumborak


Not only that, but the presence of HSR could allow for those needed changes to happen sooner.

Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 03, 2011, 01:12:37 AM
We have tolls, taxes, and fees to fund infrastructure. Where does the money go? As for OPEC... we get ~80% of our oil from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela...

Isn't Venezuela part of OPEC?

It's totally meaningless whether it is or not, I used OPEC as convenient acronym instead of writing out "oil-producing countries". It still is an untenable situation to have your economy's infrastructure being modulated by second-world countries with questionable leaders. Anybody with half a brain has noticed that the oil market isn't a free market; those countries collude massively and there's jack shit one can do about it.

Quote
The ones arguing that the population density isn't high enough to merit those HSRs, I think those low, sprawled-out populations are a thing of the past anyway and will have to change sooner or later.

rumborak


Not only that, but the presence of HSR could allow for those needed changes to happen sooner.

That's sort of what I was driving at. Transportation infrastructure often drives change, and the US is in dire need of reshaping its infrastructure. Sticking to the same-ol' will just mean the US is doing another war in a few years in some oil-producing country for dubious reasons.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 07:04:18 AM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius
No shit, you obviously missed what he's saying, nice one being a sarcastic jerk without actually understanding what he was saying.

No... he said that Europe is showing they can do it.  I was saying that the economics are different in the US, and that you cant achieve a rate of return to justify the spending.

People who misunderstood what I was saying:
Scheavo
DarkKnight
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 07:09:13 AM
Well, then the Acela proves you wrong.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: AcidLameLTE on November 03, 2011, 07:34:10 AM
Scotland is a REALLY sparsely populated country and we have small towns + villages every where (London by itself has 2.5 million more people than all of Scotland).

We have trains that take you to pretty much all of these places.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 03, 2011, 07:56:46 AM
But, you need to be mindful of:
...
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)

Exactly.  And that's what GP fails to realize.  The population density numbers mean nothing at all if people aren't willing to use the thing in the first place.  I don't care if the population is ten times what it is in any of those European cities.  If nobody actually would use the train, it doesn't matter how many people actually live there. 

What you're failing to understand here is that if this does get built, it's pretty much guaranteed to drastically expand.     

No, it isn't guarantees to expand.  What makes you think it is?  How exactly would it expand, and where does this guarantee come from, other than your own "think so"?

Also, why is it okay to say my point isn't valid because I used a personal example, in which the biggest city of South Dakota.   

I never said it wasn't valid.  I'm just saying it doesn't reflect the voter mindset here in California. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 08:11:27 AM
But, you need to be mindful of:
...
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)

Exactly.  And that's what GP fails to realize.  The population density numbers mean nothing at all if people aren't willing to use the thing in the first place.  I don't care if the population is ten times what it is in any of those European cities.  If nobody actually would use the train, it doesn't matter how many people actually live there. 

HSR wouldn't be built if people weren't willing to use it.  Before these big infrastructure projects are made, they don't just make up numbers.  They do in-depth surveys of consumer preferences, use cameras to monitor highway traffic, tally the daily trips between cities, look at case studies, simulate future traffic conditions, etc.  There's a reason it's being made in California, and not in South Dakota.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: AndyDT on November 03, 2011, 08:31:08 AM
The ones arguing that the population density isn't high enough to merit those HSRs, I think those low, sprawled-out populations are a thing of the past anyway and will have to change sooner or later. They were a function of super-cheap gas, and that super-cheap gas will never return again. The insanity of "commuting in car for 2 hours each way" was never really maintainable.

Europe is ahead 50 years in terms of gas prices to the US, and that's one of the big reasons trains work there.
In contrast to currency!  ;)
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 03, 2011, 08:41:11 AM
The vast majority of the electorate here is not in touch at all with the vast majority of ballot issues that come up in a given election.

I don't understand how you can possibly make such an assertion?  ???   I mean, you just basically cast practically every person in CA as an unthinking partisan automaton when it comes to voting.  Sure, there is some level of apathy with respect to ballot initiatives in every voting constituency, but do you really think everyone in CA is that unplugged from what's going on around them?  It sure didn't seem that way when I lived there.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 03, 2011, 08:47:49 AM
The vast majority of the electorate here is not in touch at all with the vast majority of ballot issues that come up in a given election.

I don't understand how you can possibly make such an assertion?  ???   I mean, you just basically cast practically every person in CA as an unthinking partisan automaton when it comes to voting.  Sure, there is some level of apathy with respect to ballot initiatives in every voting constituency, but do you really think everyone in CA is that unplugged from what's going on around them?  It sure didn't seem that way when I lived there.

Yes, I think most people are unplugged from most of the issues.  Keep in mind that most of the issues that are put to the electorate show up on a ballot that, in addition to the candidates themselves, will have anywhere from a dozen or three dozen ballot measures, each on a separate issue.  Sure, there is a significant segment of the population that is into politics and follows a lot of the issues.  But in relative numbers, it is unfortunately a small portion of the overall population.  But again, that isn't necessarily to cast aspersion on the electorate as a whole either.  Part of it is simply the fact that so many issues in this state end up on the ballot in the first place.  There are too many issues to follow in any kind of depth.

EDIT:  And not sure when you lived here, but it seems to be a problem that has gotten worse in relatively recent years.  I dunno, maybe I just didn't pay attention to a lot of those issues when I was younger, but I don't remember there being nearly as many ballot measures before.  They seem to have increased dramatically in the past 10-15 years or so. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 09:59:56 AM
But, you need to be mindful of:
...
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)

Exactly.  And that's what GP fails to realize.  The population density numbers mean nothing at all if people aren't willing to use the thing in the first place.  I don't care if the population is ten times what it is in any of those European cities.  If nobody actually would use the train, it doesn't matter how many people actually live there. 

It too low cost to drive/fly places here in US... The trains cant compete.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 03, 2011, 10:04:43 AM
But, you need to be mindful of:
...
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)

Exactly.  And that's what GP fails to realize.  The population density numbers mean nothing at all if people aren't willing to use the thing in the first place.  I don't care if the population is ten times what it is in any of those European cities.  If nobody actually would use the train, it doesn't matter how many people actually live there. 

It too low cost to drive/fly places here in US... The trains cant compete.
Flight is ridiculously expensive!  And $130+ a month for my car that's supposed to be good on gas mileage isn't really what I'd call cheap either.  Do you even know what pricing is for trains in Europe, why don't we ask the members who actually know and don't just assume that it's going to be more expensive than Americans can handle..  I'll go research it right now matter of fact.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 10:08:57 AM
I just did a quick ticket check on ACELA for Boston to New York and that was around $70. On Delta, the same trip is $300.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 03, 2011, 10:14:28 AM
I did some checking in Europe, for a 3 day 1 month pass in 1st class, $314.  Hm, 3 days anywhere in Germany, or probably more for a flight, one time.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: AcidLameLTE on November 03, 2011, 10:17:15 AM
https://www.interrailnet.com/interrail-passes/interrail-global-pass

This is cheap travel now.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 10:18:38 AM
Once high-speed rail is implemented, governments can stop subsidizing local air travel. 

Air travel doesn't make any money.  Governments are more than willing to pay out the nose for expensive terminals and runways.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 11:36:32 AM
But, you need to be mindful of:
...
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)

Exactly.  And that's what GP fails to realize.  The population density numbers mean nothing at all if people aren't willing to use the thing in the first place.  I don't care if the population is ten times what it is in any of those European cities.  If nobody actually would use the train, it doesn't matter how many people actually live there. 

It too low cost to drive/fly places here in US... The trains cant compete.
Flight is ridiculously expensive!  And $130+ a month for my car that's supposed to be good on gas mileage isn't really what I'd call cheap either.  Do you even know what pricing is for trains in Europe, why don't we ask the members who actually know and don't just assume that it's going to be more expensive than Americans can handle..  I'll go research it right now matter of fact.

I actually do know what trains cost in Europe.  I have taken then a whole mess of times.   Often times its the best option, sometimes there's a cheap flight which is better, but thats the economics.  But the point is, if there was a demand, they would get the rate of return necissary to build it. There's really no need for the govt to debate whether it would be useful or not, let the market decide.  So people have voted with the pocketbooks "no" to a high speed rail.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 11:41:58 AM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 11:42:58 AM
Because socialism.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 03, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
 :lol   Super Dude
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 11:57:48 AM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Well two wrongs dont make a right.  Just because roads were subsadized isnt reasonable excuse to subsidize rail.  Moreover, Airline industry is pretty heavily plagued by costs of regulation... I dont know the economics (which method would be most heavily invested) of it if govt stayed out of it.  None of us do.  But as of now, I dont see investors jumping into the business, so, I dont see a reason to do it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 03, 2011, 12:04:42 PM
So you're saying "Just because the Government put the roads we drive on out, they have no right to further improve transportation and fight pollution with rails."  You make no sense.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 12:09:04 PM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Well two wrongs dont make a right.  Just because roads were subsadized isnt reasonable excuse to subsidize rail.  Moreover, Airline industry is pretty heavily plagued by costs of regulation... I dont know the economics (which method would be most heavily invested) of it if govt stayed out of it.  None of us do.  But as of now, I dont see investors jumping into the business, so, I dont see a reason to do it.

Air travel would implode is governments stopped subsidizing it.  Ticket prices would quadruple or quintuple if they needed to fund their own infrastructure and attempt to *gasp* make a profit.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 12:16:18 PM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Well two wrongs dont make a right.  Just because roads were subsadized isnt reasonable excuse to subsidize rail.  Moreover, Airline industry is pretty heavily plagued by costs of regulation... I dont know the economics (which method would be most heavily invested) of it if govt stayed out of it.  None of us do.  But as of now, I dont see investors jumping into the business, so, I dont see a reason to do it.

Air travel would implode is governments stopped subsidizing it.  Ticket prices would quadruple or quintuple if they needed to fund their own infrastructure and attempt to *gasp* make a profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 12:35:18 PM
But, you need to be mindful of:
...
 - Are people going to want to use it as oppose to their car? (this to me is an issue which is glossed over quite often)

Exactly.  And that's what GP fails to realize.  The population density numbers mean nothing at all if people aren't willing to use the thing in the first place.  I don't care if the population is ten times what it is in any of those European cities.  If nobody actually would use the train, it doesn't matter how many people actually live there. 

It too low cost to drive/fly places here in US... The trains cant compete.
Flight is ridiculously expensive!  And $130+ a month for my car that's supposed to be good on gas mileage isn't really what I'd call cheap either.  Do you even know what pricing is for trains in Europe, why don't we ask the members who actually know and don't just assume that it's going to be more expensive than Americans can handle..  I'll go research it right now matter of fact.
To be fair,  flying the distances we're talking about is quite a bit cheaper than the train.  Fifteen flights a day from LA to SF,  and that's just the major airports and SWA.  Those run $59 if you buy a week in advance (which I suspect most business commuters could).  In this one instance,  Livehard is correct.  Trains can't compete financially because of the enormous infrastructure cost.  They can compete in other areas,  comfort is certainly a huge area,  but not necessarily enough to make a huge impact.

Again,  Acela is using existing rails,  so they don't have the enormous start up costs to recoup.  They do well,  but there are also a ton of flights between those cities (quite a bit cheaper, BTW),  so we can infer that plenty of people prefer that option.  Probably a function of how close to the airport or train station you are. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 12:48:28 PM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Well two wrongs dont make a right.  Just because roads were subsadized isnt reasonable excuse to subsidize rail.  Moreover, Airline industry is pretty heavily plagued by costs of regulation... I dont know the economics (which method would be most heavily invested) of it if govt stayed out of it.  None of us do.  But as of now, I dont see investors jumping into the business, so, I dont see a reason to do it.

Air travel would implode is governments stopped subsidizing it.  Ticket prices would quadruple or quintuple if they needed to fund their own infrastructure and attempt to *gasp* make a profit.

I dont think that you have any basis for making such a quantitiative assumption of what would happen if govt got out of air travel
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 03, 2011, 12:51:41 PM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Well two wrongs dont make a right.  Just because roads were subsadized isnt reasonable excuse to subsidize rail.  Moreover, Airline industry is pretty heavily plagued by costs of regulation... I dont know the economics (which method would be most heavily invested) of it if govt stayed out of it.  None of us do.  But as of now, I dont see investors jumping into the business, so, I dont see a reason to do it.

Air travel would implode is governments stopped subsidizing it.  Ticket prices would quadruple or quintuple if they needed to fund their own infrastructure and attempt to *gasp* make a profit.

I dont think that you have any basis for making such a quantitiative assumption of what would happen if govt got out of air travel
It's likewise you have no basis for saying the government has no right implementing rails.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 12:59:40 PM
There's no "free market" in transportation.  Air travel is subsidized, using government-built infrastructure.  Roads are built by the government, and many forms of the transportation using them are subsidized.  Subways, light-rail, bus transit, commuter rail, all run by government companies.  High-speed rail, unlike air travel or roads, is profitable.  Why shouldn't it get government-backing to builds its required infrastructure?
Well two wrongs dont make a right.  Just because roads were subsadized isnt reasonable excuse to subsidize rail.  Moreover, Airline industry is pretty heavily plagued by costs of regulation... I dont know the economics (which method would be most heavily invested) of it if govt stayed out of it.  None of us do.  But as of now, I dont see investors jumping into the business, so, I dont see a reason to do it.

Air travel would implode is governments stopped subsidizing it.  Ticket prices would quadruple or quintuple if they needed to fund their own infrastructure and attempt to *gasp* make a profit.

I dont think that you have any basis for making such a quantitiative assumption of what would happen if govt got out of air travel
It's likewise you have no basis for saying the government has no right implementing rails.

Non sequitor.  My basis is my libertarian belifs, which I have knowledge of.  I dont think you (or anyone here) has the knowledge to give a definitive answer as to the price of tickets if government were to get out of the industry.  I believe that one could argue costs would go down.  They are regulated to the bone.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: zxlkho on November 03, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Where is LeTrains when you need him...
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 01:17:52 PM
Banned, I think.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 03, 2011, 01:32:15 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius
No shit, you obviously missed what he's saying, nice one being a sarcastic jerk without actually understanding what he was saying.

No... he said that Europe is showing they can do it.  I was saying that the economics are different in the US, and that you cant achieve a rate of return to justify the spending.

People who misunderstood what I was saying:
Scheavo
DarkKnight

The efficiency and economics of HSR wouldn't change just because we're in America.

You admit later that you aren't aware of what it costs in Europe, so as far as I can tell, you just disqualified your statement. You're just assuming something is true because it hasn't happened yet, or something.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 01:42:12 PM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius
No shit, you obviously missed what he's saying, nice one being a sarcastic jerk without actually understanding what he was saying.

No... he said that Europe is showing they can do it.  I was saying that the economics are different in the US, and that you cant achieve a rate of return to justify the spending.

People who misunderstood what I was saying:
Scheavo
DarkKnight

The efficiency and economics of HSR wouldn't change just because we're in America.

You admit later that you aren't aware of what it costs in Europe, so as far as I can tell, you just disqualified your statement. You're just assuming something is true because it hasn't happened yet, or something.

No you misunderstood.  I do know the costs (sort of). Ive taken the Eurorail a lot.

 Say factoring all costs (time, convinience, dollars spent), it costs $10 to go from Paris to Madrid either in car or plane. But to do go from NYC to DC costs only $5.

Lets say the rail to either costs $7.  Where you are effects whether or not its viable.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dr. DTVT on November 03, 2011, 02:09:04 PM
I'm not an engineer, but I'm sure something like this could be done and it would have mass appeal across the board.

As a country, we could use a way to get from point A to point B faster.  HSR is a maturing field, so lets implement it, but at a more personal level.  Basically, have stations where you could have your car attached to a HS rail car and you and your car are whisked away to your destination.  You could travel from NYC to Chicago in a reasonable amount of time, be able to take your car and pack it, etc.  Use RFID tags or something to designate origin and destination.  Charge a toll for it, even a hefty one to justify the cost of building and maintaining it.  In addition, design it for a mass transportation HSR use as well.

I don't like driving long distances, so if I could drive to Roanoke, put my car on a HSR system, and end up in Pittsburgh in 2 hours (I don't know how fast HSR is, so I made up a reasonable time for 160 mph), saving me 3 hours of driving and the stress of driving, I'd gladly pay good money for the service.  Have stops outside of mid-sized cities and larger and run it nearly parallel to the current interstate system, which would still see heavy use.

I know its a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never see the light of day, but if we are going to upgrade infrastructure, might as well do it accomidating American's love affairs with their cars and giving them choices.  I'm sure there are some issues with my idea, but I doubt it would be anything from an engineering stand point.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 03, 2011, 02:12:32 PM
That would actually be pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 03, 2011, 02:12:53 PM
No you misunderstood.  I do know the costs (sort of). Ive taken the Eurorail a lot.

 Say factoring all costs (time, convinience, dollars spent), it costs $10 to go from Paris to Madrid either in car or plane. But to do go from NYC to DC costs only $5.

Lets say the rail to either costs $7.  Where you are effects whether or not its viable.

I could make up numbers too.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 03, 2011, 02:13:59 PM
No you misunderstood.  I do know the costs (sort of). Ive taken the Eurorail a lot.

 Say factoring all costs (time, convinience, dollars spent), it costs $10 to go from Paris to Madrid either in car or plane. But to do go from NYC to DC costs only $5.

Lets say the rail to either costs $7.  Where you are effects whether or not its viable.

I could make up numbers too.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: AcidLameLTE on November 03, 2011, 02:15:37 PM
$10 to go from Paris to Madrid via car or plane? :rollin
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 02:17:46 PM
Edit: This, boys and girls, is why you should read a post entirely before responding. Derp.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 02:28:18 PM
Sounds like a dandy idea.

The problem is,  as my old man used to say,  the problem with planning for transportation 20 years from now is, who the hell knows what transportation will be like in 20 years!  (and he really did say that)

Simply put,  by the time we had the ability to build such a thing and make it effective,  we'd probably have the ability to do more useful things that we can't currently imagine.  It's entirely possible that in the time it takes to get there,  we've started a love affair with something that kicks the bejeezus out of automobiles.  Frankly,  that love affair is ending quite quickly before our eyes. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 02:35:30 PM
Sounds like a dandy idea.

The problem is,  as my old man used to say,  the problem with planning for transportation 20 years from now is, who the hell knows what transportation will be like in 20 years!  (and he really did say that)

Simply put,  by the time we had the ability to build such a thing and make it effective,  we'd probably have the ability to do more useful things that we can't currently imagine.  It's entirely possible that in the time it takes to get there,  we've started a love affair with something that kicks the bejeezus out of automobiles.  Frankly,  that love affair is ending quite quickly before our eyes.

Not likely. The car's been around now, for what? Almost 130 years? Even so, I don't see this as a reason not to get crackin' on the HSR. I see it as a reason to start that and the next thing already.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 02:40:51 PM
High-speed rail has been around since the 1960s.  It's only increasing in popularity, and is being implemented around the world.  It uses renewable energy, is energy efficient, is fast and affordable, is the safest mode of travel ever put into service, and makes money.

It's not going to go away any time soon.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 03, 2011, 02:41:58 PM
Sounds like a dandy idea.

The problem is,  as my old man used to say,  the problem with planning for transportation 20 years from now is, who the hell knows what transportation will be like in 20 years!  (and he really did say that)

Simply put,  by the time we had the ability to build such a thing and make it effective,  we'd probably have the ability to do more useful things that we can't currently imagine.  It's entirely possible that in the time it takes to get there,  we've started a love affair with something that kicks the bejeezus out of automobiles.  Frankly,  that love affair is ending quite quickly before our eyes.

Well if cars go out, then HSR seems like it would have to replace it. Plus, I can't imagine the basic tracks or infrastructure being all that different; the difference would be in the cars or trains that run on the tracks, having some accommodate cars like a ferry, and other's be purely passenger.

Ya know, we also still do a lot of transporting of goods in this country via train; HSR doesn't need to solely be for passengers, it could accommodate freight luggage as well. Upping the speed of commerce only helps an economy grow.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 02:43:28 PM
High-speed rail has been around since the 1960s.  It's only increasing in popularity, and is being implemented around the world.  It uses renewable energy, is energy efficient, is fast and affordable, is the safest mode of travel ever put into service, and makes money.

It's not going to go away any time soon.

Renewable energy meaning electric?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 03, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
Yeah.  I suppose I should say "potential for renewable energy." 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 03:15:18 PM
Sounds like a dandy idea.

The problem is,  as my old man used to say,  the problem with planning for transportation 20 years from now is, who the hell knows what transportation will be like in 20 years!  (and he really did say that)

Simply put,  by the time we had the ability to build such a thing and make it effective,  we'd probably have the ability to do more useful things that we can't currently imagine.  It's entirely possible that in the time it takes to get there,  we've started a love affair with something that kicks the bejeezus out of automobiles.  Frankly,  that love affair is ending quite quickly before our eyes.

Not likely. The car's been around now, for what? Almost 130 years? Even so, I don't see this as a reason not to get crackin' on the HSR. I see it as a reason to start that and the next thing already.
I was actually referring specifically to DTVT's idea.  I got quadruple ninja'd and it didn't warn me when I posted.  I don't see any reason to design HSR around existing automobile traffic is my point.

And yes,  cars have been around in one way or another for a very long time.  The world is a very different place now than it was, though.  I really think that the nature of driving will be fundamentally different in a few years and all of this talk about revamping transportation in this country is probably a bit misguided. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 03:40:48 PM
Alright, but so in that case I refer you to GP's second-to-most-recent post.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 03:47:29 PM
Alright, but so in that case I refer you to GP's second-to-most-recent post.
Everything in it is absolutely true.  It also has nothing whatsoever to do with America.  Perhaps HSR will catch on here,  but I think it probably won't.  We really are a completely different animal with regards to transpo.  Just because something is wildly successful somewhere doesn't mean it won't go down in flames elsewhere.  My hunch is that's the case here.

And it's really not a bad thing.  Personally,  I'd like for a better option to develop, and I think it will.  HSR is nifty, and when it works it's a lovely thing.  I just don't see it working well here.  Whereas just like we took the components of the car from Dhaimler, Boch,  Watt,  etc, and used it to revolutionize our society,  I think we'll do the same with a different idea. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 03:49:58 PM
Alright, but so in that case I refer you to GP's second-to-most-recent post.
Everything in it is absolutely true.  It also has nothing whatsoever to do with America.  Perhaps HSR will catch on here,  but I think it probably won't. We really are a completely different animal with regards to transpo.  Just because something is wildly successful somewhere doesn't mean it won't go down in flames elsewhere.  My hunch is that's the case here.

And it's really not a bad thing.  Personally,  I'd like for a better option to develop, and I think it will.  HSR is nifty, and when it works it's a lovely thing.  I just don't see it working well here.  Whereas just like we took the components of the car from Dhaimler, Boch,  Watt,  etc, and used it to revolutionize our society,  I think we'll do the same with a different idea.

How, and why? Other than being 'merica.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 03, 2011, 03:51:50 PM
Sounds like a dandy idea.

The problem is,  as my old man used to say,  the problem with planning for transportation 20 years from now is, who the hell knows what transportation will be like in 20 years!  (and he really did say that)

Simply put,  by the time we had the ability to build such a thing and make it effective,  we'd probably have the ability to do more useful things that we can't currently imagine.  It's entirely possible that in the time it takes to get there,  we've started a love affair with something that kicks the bejeezus out of automobiles.  Frankly,  that love affair is ending quite quickly before our eyes.

Not likely. The car's been around now, for what? Almost 130 years? Even so, I don't see this as a reason not to get crackin' on the HSR. I see it as a reason to start that and the next thing already.
I was actually referring specifically to DTVT's idea.  I got quadruple ninja'd and it didn't warn me when I posted.  I don't see any reason to design HSR around existing automobile traffic is my point.

Building along highways would be intelligent for many other reasons, not just due to accommodate our car society. Easier to get the materials there, easier to get there to do repairs, and large populations are found closer to highways.


Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 03:53:44 PM
No you misunderstood.  I do know the costs (sort of). Ive taken the Eurorail a lot.

 Say factoring all costs (time, convinience, dollars spent), it costs $10 to go from Paris to Madrid either in car or plane. But to do go from NYC to DC costs only $5.

Lets say the rail to either costs $7.  Where you are effects whether or not its viable.

I could make up numbers too.

ARE YOU TWO SERIOUS?  Of course I am making up numbers.  Its to not reflect the actual situation but how costs can change based on geography! oh my God...
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 03, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
No you misunderstood.  I do know the costs (sort of). Ive taken the Eurorail a lot.

 Say factoring all costs (time, convinience, dollars spent), it costs $10 to go from Paris to Madrid either in car or plane. But to do go from NYC to DC costs only $5.

Lets say the rail to either costs $7.  Where you are effects whether or not its viable.

I could make up numbers too.

ARE YOU TWO SERIOUS?  Of course I am making up numbers.  Its to not reflect the actual situation but how costs can change based on geography! oh my God...
Oh no, we get that you made up the numbers for that purpose, but it has no point, as you didn't prove anything by making up numbers.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 03, 2011, 04:00:49 PM
No you misunderstood.  I do know the costs (sort of). Ive taken the Eurorail a lot.

 Say factoring all costs (time, convinience, dollars spent), it costs $10 to go from Paris to Madrid either in car or plane. But to do go from NYC to DC costs only $5.

Lets say the rail to either costs $7.  Where you are effects whether or not its viable.

I could make up numbers too.

ARE YOU TWO SERIOUS?  Of course I am making up numbers.  Its to not reflect the actual situation but how costs can change based on geography! oh my God...
Oh no, we get that you made up the numbers for that purpose, but it has no point, as you didn't prove anything by making up numbers.

Many things CAN happen, what we should be interested in is what is most likely going to happen.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 03, 2011, 04:02:10 PM
Many things CAN happen, what we should be interested in is what is most likely going to happen.

Funny, that's exactly what I was saying for about two whole pages, and the only answers I got were "But Europe/Nebraska!"
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 03, 2011, 04:22:03 PM
Here's the point, whether you or I understand the previous posts or not:

Its not an accident that it hasnt been built yet.  For most people in America, dirivng or flying are relatively cheap options in US.  Roads go basically everywhere.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Implode on November 03, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
flying [is] relatively cheap

Maybe I'm just poor, but is it really considered cheap?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 04:32:38 PM
flying [is] relatively cheap

Maybe I'm just poor, but is it really considered cheap?
As I pointed out above,  for the distances we're talking about absolutely.  LA-SF,  DC-NYC,  DAL-HOU,  all $59 for a one way ticket.  You won't be buying a train ticket for that cheap.  Plus,  you won't be seeing competition.  Part of the reason for those cheap fares is SWA doing so well on the short runs.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 04:40:25 PM
Oh, I thought we were talking round trips. See my earlier numbers for reference.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 05:10:35 PM
Doesn't matter how you split it up.  Flying is still ridiculously cheap compared to rail, and particularly Acela which is our best frame of reference at the moment.  Right now,  I can book a flight for 8am tomorrow morning from Washington to NYC for $148.  If I'm purchasing a few days ahead,  I can fly all day for $59.  A one way ticket on Acela will run me $188 for an 8am trip.   A single ticket on Acela for that leg starts at $142 for a red-eye and runs to $213 for a convenient travel hour. 

Once again,  I prefer train travel.  As a tourist I'd pay the extra money for a pleasant 2.5 hour train ride.  As a business traveler,  I'm taking the dirt cheap 55 minute flight. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 05:13:47 PM
I did Delta from Boston to JFK and it was over $300. The same ACELA trip was less than $70.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2011, 05:27:43 PM
I did Delta from Boston to JFK and it was over $300. The same ACELA trip was less than $70.
$101 for the red-eye Acela out of Boston.  $151 for the non-miserable trip.  You looking at weekends, perhaps?  As for flying,  $240 round trip for tomorrow morning on Jet Blue.  A few days in advance will get you one of those $59 flights. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Implode on November 03, 2011, 05:55:53 PM
Huh. I guess the prices are just that much better around those areas. Flying round trip between Chicago, Des Moines, and St. Louis usually costs around $120 at the cheapest. If I chose to take a train, it'd only cost around $60.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 03, 2011, 06:31:34 PM
I did Delta from Boston to JFK and it was over $300. The same ACELA trip was less than $70.
$101 for the red-eye Acela out of Boston.  $151 for the non-miserable trip.  You looking at weekends, perhaps?  As for flying,  $240 round trip for tomorrow morning on Jet Blue.  A few days in advance will get you one of those $59 flights.

I did it for today and tomorrow.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 03, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
Many things CAN happen, what we should be interested in is what is most likely going to happen.

Funny, that's exactly what I was saying for about two whole pages, and the only answers I got were "But Europe/Nebraska!"

There's a difference between making a possible point without pointing to examples, and making a possible point and pointing to actual examples.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 05:02:23 AM
Once again,  I prefer train travel.  As a tourist I'd pay the extra money for a pleasant 2.5 hour train ride.  As a business traveler,  I'm taking the dirt cheap 55 minute flight.

Those 55 minutes are pure flight time though. Actual travel time is probably more than 3 hours, with check-in, baggage grab, travel to/from airport etc.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: eric42434224 on November 04, 2011, 05:52:16 AM
Also, as you will be on the train longer for the same trip, it gives you more time to get things done (reading, work, sleep, etc)
The time spent driving, security, check in, baggage, etc are not times where such activities can be done.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 06:05:32 AM
Not to mention you have more space, wi-fi, and a very smooth ride.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 06:13:29 AM
While I'm always open to hearing counter-arguments to something like this, I more often than not get the impression that the opposition to it is based on "that's how they do it elsewhere, but not here", which is a rather annoying aspect of American culture I must say.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 06:27:34 AM
At one point, the Pennsylvania Railroad (namer of all those Penn Stations around the East Coast) had a larger budget than the US government.  It was the largest publicly traded country in the world.  It still holds the record for longest continuous dividend payments in world history.


Americans used railroads before.  They'll use them again.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 04, 2011, 06:47:32 AM
While I'm always open to hearing counter-arguments to something like this, I more often than not get the impression that the opposition to it is based on "that's how they do it elsewhere, but not here", which is a rather annoying aspect of American culture I must say.

rumborak

Absolutely. I hate the concept of American exceptionalism with a passion.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 07:00:54 AM
Which is so foolish, because it robs America of using foreign countries as a free test bed to see what works and what doesn't, and then take the stuff that works. Instead, a lot of it gets rejected categorically as "foreign" and thus American *must* do it differently.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 08:45:29 AM
I dont get how this is a debate.  Its obvious that people have been voting with their pocketbooks to take planes and cars in US.  They find the costs of these methods less than that of the train... Like barto said, going from NYC to anywhere beyond a 100 mile radius is rediculously cheaper than train...
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 04, 2011, 08:47:05 AM
First off,  I trust we can all agree that my position here isn't based on any sort of American exceptionalism.

Once again,  I prefer train travel.  As a tourist I'd pay the extra money for a pleasant 2.5 hour train ride.  As a business traveler,  I'm taking the dirt cheap 55 minute flight.

Those 55 minutes are pure flight time though. Actual travel time is probably more than 3 hours, with check-in, baggage grab, travel to/from airport etc.

rumborak
Yes and no.  From where I sit now I could be on a SWA 737 in half an hour or so.  If I checked a bag (and I rarely do),  it'd be an extra 20 minutes after the flight.  Plus,  travel time to and from the airport is equally applicable with rail.  It'd take me a lot longer to get to Union Station than DAL.  I think a huge part of the decision making process with people will be proximity to the start/end points. 

Let's also keep in mind that we're almost certainly going to face the same TSA bullshit with HSR pretty soon.  Security is now a very lucrative cottage industry.  There's too much money to be made employing goons and buying backscatter x-ray machines.

Again,  I'm not trying to say that flying is better than rail travel.  I don't think it is.  I'm pointing out that all of these bonuses are highly variable.  Some will apply and some won't as every case is different.  Flying will be cheaper.  It'll probably take the same amount of time or be slightly faster, overall.  Convenience will be hit or miss depending on the from and to.  It'll sometimes be much more pleasant,  but then I've also been packed into overcrowded trains Japan style, and that's only entertaining when you're standing next to a hot frauline in a low-cut dress. 

While I can see some American exceptionalism taking place,  I can also see a lot of people taking pie in the sky attitudes towards this.  Not all of the niceties are going to exist in every situation.  Sometimes it'll be a decent option, and sometimes it'll suck balls.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 08:57:23 AM
I wonder how much quicker checking in and everything would be is the TSA didnt suck.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 09:04:31 AM
Yes and no.  From where I sit now I could be on a SWA 737 in half an hour or so.  If I checked a bag (and I rarely do),  it'd be an extra 20 minutes after the flight.  Plus,  travel time to and from the airport is equally applicable with rail.  It'd take me a lot longer to get to Union Station than DAL.  I think a huge part of the decision making process with people will be proximity to the start/end points. 

It is indeed, but as pointed out before, HSR is primarily for business commute, and the places people commute to are predominantly inside big cities. Trains drop you off straight into the heart of a city, an airport necessarily lies outside the city and needs an additional commute.

Quote
Let's also keep in mind that we're almost certainly going to face the same TSA bullshit with HSR pretty soon.  Security is now a very lucrative cottage industry.  There's too much money to be made employing goons and buying backscatter x-ray machines.

I don't subscribe to that kind of cynicism. I've traveled over the last 3 months and have taken many a train, but other than Barcelona (which had massive issues with terrorism, far beyond what the US has) none had flight-style security checks. If all this stuff was really driven by monetary interests as you suggest, all those countries with HSRs would have those checks, but they don't.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 09:11:42 AM
I dont get how this is a debate.  Its obvious that people have been voting with their pocketbooks to take planes and cars in US.  They find the costs of these methods less than that of the train... Like barto said, going from NYC to anywhere beyond a 100 mile radius is rediculously cheaper than train...

Current American rail service, even with the Acela, is nothing compared to what a modern high speed rail service would bring.  New York to Boston travels at an average speed of 101 km/h.  With HSR running on dedicated track, it would travel at ~260-280 km/h.

Currently, San Francisco to Los Angeles takes about 12 hours via train.  About 6 and a half hours to drive.  HSR would cut that to two and a half hours. 

People would definitely take HSR.  It would also allow the phasing out of local air travel (like in Europe), because the cost and speed advantage with HSR is simply too great.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 09:12:28 AM
Rail for business is fine if your client is near your but I've never travelled more than 60 miles for a client by train...  Backpacking is a totally different monster, the cost of the time it takes is usually much less than it is in other situations...
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 09:18:23 AM
livehard, if you look at Europe and its HSRs, they're full of businessmen who do work while traveling to a client. I think if these kinds of people were offered the same option in the US they would immediately take it. Because plane travel only permits small time windows in which you can do actual work.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 04, 2011, 09:22:34 AM
Yes and no.  From where I sit now I could be on a SWA 737 in half an hour or so.  If I checked a bag (and I rarely do),  it'd be an extra 20 minutes after the flight.  Plus,  travel time to and from the airport is equally applicable with rail.  It'd take me a lot longer to get to Union Station than DAL.  I think a huge part of the decision making process with people will be proximity to the start/end points. 

It is indeed, but as pointed out before, HSR is primarily for business commute, and the places people commute to are predominantly inside big cities. Trains drop you off straight into the heart of a city, an airport necessarily lies outside the city and needs an additional commute.
That's just not true.  There are plenty of inner city airports.  I'm right next the middle marker of Dal 31L.  Also consider that in a city like Dallas,  much of the business and industry is conducted outside of downtown.  Corporate campuses tend to be suburban nowadays.  AA, Pepsico, ExxonMobile--all much closer to DFW than Downtown where the train station is. 

Again,  every situation is different.

livehard, if you look at Europe and its HSRs, they're full of businessmen who do work while traveling to a client. I think if these kinds of people were offered the same option in the US they would immediately take it. Because plane travel only permits small time windows in which you can do actual work.

rumborak

Some would.  Some would find it much better to fly.  My position isn't that HSR would be a failure.  It's that you guys assume all the best qualities about it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 04, 2011, 09:29:47 AM
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 04, 2011, 10:03:50 AM
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).
Who are you addressing?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 04, 2011, 10:10:13 AM
livehard

Edit: Sorry barto, I can't quote on my phone so I should've made that clearer.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 10:14:44 AM
Some would.  Some would find it much better to fly.  My position isn't that HSR would be a failure.  It's that you guys assume all the best qualities about it.

I'm not, and it's not gonna work everywhere in the US, that's for sure. But I would think they wouldn't dump millions of dollars into a project that is bound to have no customers. Unless a side objective is to influence the locations of people, and thus *create* the demand.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 10:43:28 AM
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high.  plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 10:47:17 AM
With that argument the Interstate system would never exist.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 04, 2011, 10:49:27 AM
Some would.  Some would find it much better to fly.  My position isn't that HSR would be a failure.  It's that you guys assume all the best qualities about it.

I'm not, and it's not gonna work everywhere in the US, that's for sure. But I would think they wouldn't dump millions of dollars into a project that is bound to have no customers. Unless a side objective is to influence the locations of people, and thus *create* the demand.

rumborak
Unfortunately,  they often do.  People inflate numbers to sell projects all the time.  DART is running into a similar problem here.  Every year they inflated ridership projections.  Turned out to be somewhat like a Ponzi scheme.  I'm not saying that's what's happening in Cali.  I'm suggesting that they might well be using pie-in-the-sky estimates to justify a nifty project. 

edit:  wait a minute, is this a federal plan?  That actually would change everything.  If the state is saying it's a good thing,  then perhaps they're right,  but it's very hard to tell.  If this is just a handout to a swing state,  I'd consider it to be guaranteed worthless. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 11:00:33 AM
With that argument the Interstate system would never exist.

rumborak

You mean if the government used my argument?  Well thats not necissarily true.  There are private roadways.  The government building of the interstate system affected whether the private market did so.  I think if there was sufficient demand for such a thing (which I believe there was), it would have been built.  And more importantly the costs would have been distributed to those who use it, isntead of the current inefficient system.

Actually the fact that such highways exist disproves your certanty.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 04, 2011, 11:06:14 AM
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high. plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Like I said, many of us HSR proponents have now demonstrated to death that this is not true.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high. plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Like I said, many of us HSR proponents have now demonstrated to death that this is not true.

Neither the investors or the consumers agree...
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: yorost on November 04, 2011, 11:19:34 AM
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius

And why is the US exceptional? If it works in Europe, it could work here. Maybe some tweaks to the system need to be instituted, but it's wrong to say that high speed rails don't give a return on their investment. Private enterprises face a different issue, namely land rights, so you're not going to see them get involved in infrastructure like this without the government.
There are examples of it working here, now.  Last I knew there were three profitable Amtrak lines, all connecting the downtowns of fairly close major cities by high speed rail.  There was one each in the East Coast, West Coast, and Midwest.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 04, 2011, 11:20:52 AM
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high. plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Like I said, many of us HSR proponents have now demonstrated to death that this is not true.

Neither the investors or the consumers agree...
You can't even possibly know that.  You're just spitting out more nonsense now.  Pretty sure they have to agree to some degree if they voted for it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: TempusVox on November 04, 2011, 11:58:15 AM
There was intial talk here in Ohio about a HSR line called the 3-C Line, that would connect Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Initially, nearly everyone I knew (including myself) was very excited about the potential prospect. Then once everyone (including myself) understood the costs to build and operate it, and then  were told that due to the number of stops along the way that the average speed on a trip from Cincinnati to Cleveland would be 39 miles per hour; it quickly lost momentum, and is basically now dead in the water. So much so that the feds pulled Ohios grant dollars for an HSR project and gave them to California. Good luck California.

It takes me basically four hours and twenty minutes to go from my driveway to Cleveland. I don't have to even ever get out of my car, and I can drive from my garage to the garage of an office building. I dont have to get out, stand in any lines, go through any security, rent a car or wait for a bus to take me to my final destination once I arrive in Cleveland. None of that. I can drive very nicely from point A to point B in roughly 4.5 hours.

If I took the proposed HSR line, I have to leave my car either at home and rely on other mode of transportation to take me to the station, or leave my car somewhere nearby the station. I have to wait in line, I have to wait for the train, I have to go through security, THEN I will have to endure a train ride that will take me to some part of Cleveland (not my final destination mind you), and drop me off SIX HOURS AND 38 MINUTES later (and thats ONLY the train ride portion of the trip; not the waiting in line, or the drive to the station, or getting to point B once I arrive in Cleveland). In fact, due to safety concerns there would be ONLY 38 miles of track where the train can actually TRAVEL AT high speed. And it's gonna cost how much? 3.5 billion dollars? Then another 20 million each year from the state to operate it? Well if it's good for the environment...what? The environmental impact to build it would be another 800 milllion dollars? And it will take me twice as long to get there?

No thanks.

I can see a WHOLE bunch of Americans saying the same thing.

As Bosk and others havce pointed out numerous times in this thread. If people don't use it, it's a waste of money. I don't care how much it costs, for me personally, I'm not riding on anything that takes me nearly 8 hours to get to Cleveland from my front door.

The convenience and low cost of our highway systems will never allow the U.S. to be like Europe as far as rail travel is concerned.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
39 mph?  That's not a HSR line.  I don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this (https://trn.trains.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/04/Ohio%20may%20turn%20down%20federal%20money%20scrap%20rail%20project.aspx)?

That's not high-speed rail.  The standard definition for HSR is 200 km/h+ top speeds.  The type of HSR we've been discussing in this topic is another level: dedicated tracks, containing trains traveling at top speeds of 300-350 km/h, at average speeds of 240-270 km/h.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 12:02:03 PM
I don't care how much it costs, for me personally, I'm not riding on anything that takes me nearly 8 hours to get to Cleveland from my front door.

Well explained.  But to address above: those are part of the costs for you, you value your time so that you aren't willing to spend the time, along with the ticket amount and the inconvinience.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: TempusVox on November 04, 2011, 12:10:01 PM
39 mph?  That's not a HSR line.  I don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this (https://trn.trains.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/04/Ohio%20may%20turn%20down%20federal%20money%20scrap%20rail%20project.aspx)?

That's not high-speed rail.  The standard definition for HSR is 200 km/h+ top speeds.  The type of HSR we've been discussing in this topic is another level: dedicated tracks, containing trains traveling at top speeds of 300-350 km/h, at average speeds of 240-270 km/h.

Umm... That's kind of the point. What was originally dubbed a high speed rail line (there was even talk at one time of it being a maglev train) the HIGH SPEED train would ONLY be able to travel an average speed of 39 MPH. I'm not talking about what the damn thing is capable of traveling. But what it would be able to average in speed. I know what is being discusssed and what I'm talking about is the same thing.  The train would make 9 stops between Cincy and Cleveland, and due to safety issues couldn't operate at high speeds for nearly the entire trip. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dr. DTVT on November 04, 2011, 12:13:07 PM
Tempus, what do you think about the idea I posted which got last at the bottom of page 3?  Sounds like it's perfectly suited for what you want, and I can't imagine that you and I are the only two people who use it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 12:15:25 PM
39 mph?  That's not a HSR line.  I don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this (https://trn.trains.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/04/Ohio%20may%20turn%20down%20federal%20money%20scrap%20rail%20project.aspx)?

That's not high-speed rail.  The standard definition for HSR is 200 km/h+ top speeds.  The type of HSR we've been discussing in this topic is another level: dedicated tracks, containing trains traveling at top speeds of 300-350 km/h, at average speeds of 240-270 km/h.

Umm... That's kind of the point. What was originally dubbed a high speed rail line (there was even talk at one time of it being a maglev train) the HIGH SPEED train would ONLY be able to travel an average speed of 39 MPH. I'm not talking about what the damn thing is capable of traveling. But what it would be able to average in speed. I know what is being discusssed and what I'm talking about is the same thing.  The train would make 9 stops between Cincy and Columbus, and due to safety issues couldn't operate at high speeds for nearly the entire trip.

Ah, then whoever was doing the dubbing was doing it wrong.  39 MPH is slow even by American standards, and American standards are slow as hell.

The proposal would probably take place along existing freight lines owned by other companies.  Freight companies don't maintain the quality of their track or other components (signalling, for example) because it's not worth it for them to achieve higher speeds.  So the track would probably have a limit of 100-120 km/h.

So it wouldn't be "high-speed."  Not by a long shot.  What we're talking about is a system with dedicated track (i.e., no other passenger or freight traffic), advanced, computerized in-cab signalling, with no grade crossings and an operating speed of 350 km/h.  Under such a system, Cincinatti to Columbus would take less than an hour.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: TempusVox on November 04, 2011, 12:18:42 PM
@ DTVT Depending on the cost involved, I'd say that would be a great idea. Another idea I've heard is a rail system built above the highway using the same corridor, which to me would be really cool as well. Imagine one or the other being used for commerce, and the other for people perhaps. Again, I'd love a high speed rail system in this country, but only if it was cost effective and people actually need to use it for that. Americans love our cars and our ability to travel so easily, cheaply and freely.

@GP. They were proposing just such a track, but then was pointed out due to the number of stops, and the safety concerns involved the thing would average 39 mph. So then the question was asked "Then why build and buy a HSR if you can't basically take it out of first gear? Why don't we just redo existing lines to accomodate better passenger service?" And the powers that be came back with "But THAT wouldn't be a HSR line then. Maybe we can squeeze out 46 MPH out of the HSR line Hows that sound?" And everyone said basically, "THATS NOT HIGH SPEED EITHER?"  :lol The whole thing was very Spinal Tap-Esque..."But it goes to 11!"  So in the end it basically boiled down to buying and maintaining a McLaren F-1 and only driving it in a school zone during restricted hours. Why?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 12:22:35 PM
In terms of capacity, it's cheaper to build a high-speed rail line than a highway (assuming of course, typical geography: things get pricey real quick once lots of tunnels and bridges get involved).  And they turn a profit.  It would be a fast, environmentally friendly and sustainable, and safe way to bring American cities closer together. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 04, 2011, 01:23:42 PM
In terms of capacity, it's cheaper to build a high-speed rail line than a highway (assuming of course, typical geography: things get pricey real quick once lots of tunnels and bridges get involved).  And they turn a profit.  It would be a fast, environmentally friendly and sustainable, and safe way to bring American cities closer together.

Your efforts are wasted with him there, dude.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 01:29:47 PM
They aren't wasted! What everyone is saying is that you have to look at all the costs and benifits.  You simply cant say oh it goes really fast and is green therefore we should build it.  You have to consider absolutely everything!  If someone decides that the beinifits outweigh the costs, and that enough people will choose this as opposed to the alternatives (car,plane) than I say go 4 it and build it.  But the problem is that these politicans simply have a qualitative discussion concerning it, and then decide to try to use taxpayer money to do.

I say if you believe in it so much go out and raise the funds to do it.  Otherwise leave my wallet alone.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 04, 2011, 01:30:57 PM
I dont get how this is a debate.  Its obvious that people have been voting with their pocketbooks to take planes and cars in US.  They find the costs of these methods less than that of the train... Like barto said, going from NYC to anywhere beyond a 100 mile radius is rediculously cheaper than train...

How can peole make a market decision when that option isn't available? It's impossible for someone to purchase an HSR ticket, and make that market decision, when there is no HSR. Because of necessity and the status quo, people will use cars and travel. That does not mean they don't desire something different, and wouldn't use it if it were available.
They aren't wasted! What everyone is saying is that you have to look at all the costs and benifits.  You simply cant say oh it goes really fast and is green therefore we should build it.  You have to consider absolutely everything!  If someone decides that the beinifits outweigh the costs, and that enough people will choose this as opposed to the alternatives (car,plane) than I say go 4 it and build it.  But the problem is that these politicans simply have a qualitative discussion concerning it, and then decide to try to use taxpayer money to do.

I say if you believe in it so much go out and raise the funds to do it.  Otherwise leave my wallet alone.

You're just wrong. They do massive studies which look at the issue, as TV's example shows you.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 04, 2011, 01:31:12 PM
They aren't wasted! What everyone is saying is that you have to look at all the costs and benifits.  You simply cant say oh it goes really fast and is green therefore we should build it.  You have to consider absolutely everything!  If someone decides that the beinifits outweigh the costs, and that enough people will choose this as opposed to the alternatives (car,plane) than I say go 4 it and build it.  But the problem is that these politicans simply have a qualitative discussion concerning it, and then decide to try to use taxpayer money to do.

I say if you believe in it so much go out and raise the funds to do it.  Otherwise leave my wallet alone.
Uh dude, we've given costs, which most are okay with.  Also there's nothing wrong with the government improving quality of transportation, I've said this so many times.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 01:39:41 PM
How can peole make a market decision when that option isn't available? It's impossible for someone to purchase an HSR ticket, and make that market decision, when there is no HSR. Because of necessity and the status quo, people will use cars and travel. That does not mean they don't desire something different, and wouldn't use it if it were available.
How did they try to calculate how many ipods would be sold before it came out? they forcasted.  They tried their best to predict, they use comps, reasearch etc...  Trust me if the demand is there, if there is money to be made, than people will invest.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 04, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
How can peole make a market decision when that option isn't available? It's impossible for someone to purchase an HSR ticket, and make that market decision, when there is no HSR. Because of necessity and the status quo, people will use cars and travel. That does not mean they don't desire something different, and wouldn't use it if it were available.
How did they try to calculate how many ipods would be sold before it came out? they forcasted.  They tried their best to predict, they use comps, reasearch etc...  Trust me if the demand is there, if there is money to be made, than people will invest.

You mean... like they're doing and like they've done?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 04, 2011, 02:01:17 PM
yes but not on the taxpayers dime.  Let the market decide whether its worth it.  Besides the collective intellegence of a compatetive market is far greater than that of a commisioned study by a beurocrat.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 04, 2011, 02:04:52 PM
...If people don't use it, it's a waste of money.

Exactly, which is (as I've been saying) why I am skeptical.  Again, I'm excited about the prospect of something like this too.  I'm just extremely skeptical about whether it could work here, and I've heard little (inside this thread and in the real world) to lead me to believe it would.  "People would use it because Europe!" is a stupid argument that completely overlooks the fact that there is little evidence sufficient people here would use it to justify the cost. 

Going back to the OP yet again, no, high speed rail is definitely NOT dumb.  It's an awesome idea.  But that is not the same thing as it being an economically viable, useful means of transportation in every area.  In some places, it just isn't because people wouldn't use it, whether it be the cost, the logistics, or whatever.  And my fear is that the present S.F.-L.A. line is one of those instances where it just won't end up working and will be yet another project our financially-ruined state threw money away on.  But I really hope I'm proven wrong on that.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 04, 2011, 02:11:12 PM
In terms of capacity, it's cheaper to build a high-speed rail line than a highway (assuming of course, typical geography: things get pricey real quick once lots of tunnels and bridges get involved).  And they turn a profit.  It would be a fast, environmentally friendly and sustainable, and safe way to bring American cities closer together.

Your efforts are wasted with him there, dude.

You know, normally, I wouldn't jump in since Tempus is a grownup who can defend his own posts.  But since he isn't there, I will get involved this time.

S.D., I am giving you one and only one warning on this subject:  Argue by the rules, or go argue somewhere else.  You are deliberately twisting Tempus' views on environmental issues to take an indirect shot at him rather than making an argument.  He has been very clear about his stance on environmental issues, and it should be clear to anyone who has given half an effort to reading any of his posts on the subject that he has singlehandedly done more for the environment than you or I, or most (if not all) of the people on this board.  Just because his idea of government environmental policy may not be your idea of government environmental policy doesn't give you an excuse to deliberately twist what he has said on the subject.  We've already had a couple of P/R bans in the last 24 hours, and your name already came up as someone who is likely to get one if you keep taking shots at people you disagree with.  Knock it off and stay on topic.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 04, 2011, 02:27:17 PM
yes but not on the taxpayers dime.  Let the market decide whether its worth it. 

What about for those of us who don't agree that the market is going to answer every desire? If a project won't make a significant profit, sometimes investors won't be interested. It's not that the project will not make a profit, it just may not make enough for them to be interested in. We had to give rural area's in this country electricity and phone lines because electrical and phone companies didn't see it in their profit interests to build the relevant infrastructure.

All the private roads in this country are back east (least, I've never ran into any back in the west), meaning they came about when the country was young, and land was still very open. A private investor is going to have a LOT of people to deal with in getting the land rights, and that right there is going to stop a lot of people from moving forward. The government has eminent domain.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 04, 2011, 02:33:03 PM
All the private roads in this country are back east (least, I've never ran into any back in the west), meaning they came about when the country was young, and land was still very open.

No, there are plenty out here in CA.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 04, 2011, 03:02:36 PM
All the private roads in this country are back east (least, I've never ran into any back in the west), meaning they came about when the country was young, and land was still very open.

No, there are plenty out here in CA.

Really? Guess I've never ran into them.

Statement retracted.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 04, 2011, 03:11:32 PM
At least here in CA, they tend to be more in rural areas.  Not sure how it is back east.  And I'm assuming you didn't mean private highways.  If we have any out here, they are few and far between.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 04, 2011, 03:23:49 PM
At least here in CA, they tend to be more in rural areas.  Not sure how it is back east.  And I'm assuming you didn't mean private highways.  If we have any out here, they are few and far between.

Ah, and not just like a private road up to their ranch, or whatnot?

Ya, I guess I wasn't thinking of something like that. I meant in terms of actual transportation, highways, etc. There are some private toll roads back east, are there not? Or am I thinking way back to the early 1800's?

Either way, I would still imagine that eminent domain plays a role in preventing a purely private enterprise into HSR.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 04, 2011, 03:35:55 PM
There have been a number of proposed privately-run HSR lines (outside of Japan), but to my knowledge, none have come to fruition.

In Japan, all the Shinkansen lines are run by various companies, that were broken up into pieces and sold off in 1987 for chump change due to Japan's economic crisis.  Further investment there (including what's sure to be the most costly HSR line built for the next 50 years, the Chuo Shinkansen) has been mostly by corporate dollars.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 04, 2011, 03:41:33 PM
At least here in CA, they tend to be more in rural areas.  Not sure how it is back east.  And I'm assuming you didn't mean private highways.  If we have any out here, they are few and far between.

Ah, and not just like a private road up to their ranch, or whatnot? 

Depends.  There are all kinds.  For example, there are several communities near where I live where even the paved main roads in and around those communities are private and the residents pay for the construction, upkeep and maintenance of those roads.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 04, 2011, 03:46:08 PM
At least here in CA, they tend to be more in rural areas.  Not sure how it is back east.  And I'm assuming you didn't mean private highways.  If we have any out here, they are few and far between.

Ah, and not just like a private road up to their ranch, or whatnot? 

Depends.  There are all kinds.  For example, there are several communities near where I live where even the paved main roads in and around those communities are private and the residents pay for the construction, upkeep and maintenance of those roads.

Interesting. I wonder what the cost comparison is, and if the roads are in better condition, as well as what other kind of agreements are in place (as in, if the owners have the ability to say deny access to certain individual).
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 04, 2011, 03:54:59 PM
Interesting. I wonder what the cost comparison is, and if the roads are in better condition, as well as what other kind of agreements are in place (as in, if the owners have the ability to say deny access to certain individual).

Not really sure, but I imagine it varies considerably.  As far as the right to restrict access, I'm sure that varies considerably as well.  For roads that lead only to a residence/farm or a small group, the landowners can probably deny access to anyone they choose except law enforcement and other governmental authorities.  For bigger roads, if they aren't gated communities, I would imagine they have probably granted easements to the municipality, county, and state to allow anyone to drive on those roads.  But, again, I'm not 100% sure.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Fiery Winds on November 04, 2011, 04:35:08 PM
Regarding predictions of profit and ridership numbers, I'm hesitant to believe them based on the "success" of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).  While BART is a great service in principle (and I've used it countless times to save money and time) it simply is not as successful as it was made out to be. 

Take a look at this map of the routes and see how great it looks on paper. 

(https://www.bart.gov/images/global/system-map29.gif)

Their last addition to the rail was connecting Daly City to SFO.  They said the increased revenue would pay for itself AND pay for the extension from Fremont down to San Jose (not shown).  That was in 2003 and the SFO section hasn't even been paid off yet, let alone the Fremont-San Jose extension which has recently started construction.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 04, 2011, 09:10:44 PM
I have to wait in line, I have to wait for the train, I have to go through security

As I said, other than Barcelona I've never had to go through security for an HSR. If that's what the 3C line was suggesting, they were doing it wrong. One of the big allures of HSRs is that you show up 5 minutes before the train leaves and you're on it.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 05, 2011, 04:22:29 AM
With that argument the Interstate system would never exist.

rumborak

You mean if the government used my argument?  Well thats not necissarily true.  There are private roadways.  The government building of the interstate system affected whether the private market did so.  I think if there was sufficient demand for such a thing (which I believe there was), it would have been built.  And more importantly the costs would have been distributed to those who use it, isntead of the current inefficient system.

Actually the fact that such highways exist disproves your certanty.
Not really.  You said that if there was sufficient demand for such a thing, which you believe there was, it would have been built, with costs distributed to those who use it.  But that wasn't done, the government had to do it.  Sure there is demand NOW, because everyone uses Interstates.  But there wasn't THEN.  The government built it, and now it gets used.

Your last line there makes no sense.

One big difference to point out to the proponents of this plan is that, from what I know of Europe, with most of the cities connected by HSR, it is relatively easy to get around without a car once you step off the rail.  It isn't that way with cities in America.  Travelling within a large city without a car here in America is either a pain in the ass, expensive, or both.  For that reason alone, many people in America will continue to drive those particular journeys rather than take the rail.  Even if the travel time between cities is quicker and more comfortable on the HSR, travel within the cities is easier with your car.  Where the difference would lie is with people who travel by plane, because they would face the same difficulties WITHIN the cities as the rail riders.  So if the HSR would be cheaper, faster, and more convenient than a plane ride, then it would be successful.

My two cents, from someone who lives in a small NC town which will never, ever have to deal with this particular issue.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 05, 2011, 07:25:55 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if later in the HSR development they add suburban stations to LA, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, etc. and make them with plenty of parking space.  The fastest HSR services would skip those stations, but then slower services that make every stop could still serve those commuters/travelers. 

Japan (unlike France, or Germany, or other HSR services) has lots of suburban stops because of their population density, and an absolute ton of commuters (because of how expensive downtown Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka are).  So they roll out these suckers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E4_Series_Shinkansen); 1,600 seats per train, about the equivalent of 1000 cars worth of commuters.  I can see a service like that being desirable. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 05, 2011, 07:41:57 AM
The Chunnel is awesome. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 05, 2011, 10:59:47 AM
Not really.  You said that if there was sufficient demand for such a thing, which you believe there was, it would have been built, with costs distributed to those who use it.  But that wasn't done, the government had to do it.  Sure there is demand NOW, because everyone uses Interstates.  But there wasn't THEN.  The government built it, and now it gets used.

Your last line there makes no sense.

No, the existance for interstates doesn't create demand for people to travel great distances...  It allows people to do so... but it doesn't create demand.  You can't possibly think that there wouldnt have been demand for highways when people started to get cars...?

My last sentance makes perfect sense.  He said the interstate system would not exist if we were to only have private enterprise build highways.  I said the existance that there are private highways shows that it is most definitely possible that a private interstate system could exist...

Quote
One big difference to point out to the proponents of this plan is that, from what I know of Europe, with most of the cities connected by HSR, it is relatively easy to get around without a car once you step off the rail.  It isn't that way with cities in America.  Travelling within a large city without a car here in America is either a pain in the ass, expensive, or both.

Not really... If youre talking about the capitals, but take a look at NYC- everybody uses the subways.ng a car pretty much inhibits your ability to get around... 

Quote
So if the HSR would be cheaper, faster, and more convenient than a plane ride, then it would be successful.

Ya ive been saying this all along.  If the costs (Dollar cost, time, convenience) are lower people will take it...

But take a look at the monorail Miami built.  They thought that was a great idea, they touted is convenience, how many jobs it'll create/bring, basically all that crap you hear politicians say about these projects.  However, it was almost an immediate failure. NOBODY uses it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 05, 2011, 11:13:39 AM
Wow, Miami has pathetic public transport.


I just looked this up, and it's sort of sad: Montréal (3.6 million metro population, 854/km^2 density) has the third highest gross public transit usage in North America, after New York City (19 million, 1085/km^2) and Mexico City (20.5 million, 2784/km^2).  Miami's metropolitan population is 2 million more than Montréal, but their single day record for metro ridership is one-tenth of Montréal's daily average.  That's pathetic.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 05, 2011, 02:50:59 PM
No, the existance for interstates doesn't create demand for people to travel great distances...  It allows people to do so... but it doesn't create demand.  You can't possibly think that there wouldnt have been demand for highways when people started to get cars...?
Well, yes that's what I think.  Because that is what history bears witness to.  There was no interstate system for over 50 years after the invention of the automobile, and even then it wasn't because demand caused an entrepeneur to produce it, it's because the government built it.

My last sentance makes perfect sense.  He said the interstate system would not exist if we were to only have private enterprise build highways.  I said the existance that there are private highways shows that it is most definitely possible that a private interstate system could exist...
Yeah, you said that, but it doesn't make any sense, because there is no evidence for it.  If a private interstate system could exist, it would.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: eric42434224 on November 05, 2011, 04:39:22 PM
(https://jaymckinnon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/field_of_dreams.jpg)
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: rumborak on November 05, 2011, 09:22:27 PM
No, the existance for interstates doesn't create demand for people to travel great distances...  It allows people to do so... but it doesn't create demand.  You can't possibly think that there wouldnt have been demand for highways when people started to get cars...?
Well, yes that's what I think.  Because that is what history bears witness to.  There was no interstate system for over 50 years after the invention of the automobile, and even then it wasn't because demand caused an entrepeneur to produce it, it's because the government built it.

My last sentance makes perfect sense.  He said the interstate system would not exist if we were to only have private enterprise build highways.  I said the existance that there are private highways shows that it is most definitely possible that a private interstate system could exist...
Yeah, you said that, but it doesn't make any sense, because there is no evidence for it.  If a private interstate system could exist, it would.

This, yeah. The German Autobahn system (after which the Interstate system is modeled) had existed for over 20 years, with no private entity doing a similar road system in the US. Eisenhower then started a federal program that inaugurated the Interstate system.
Livehard, there is something in markets called "barrier of entry". You can't wish that away.

rumborak
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 06, 2011, 08:20:50 AM
My last sentance makes perfect sense.  He said the interstate system would not exist if we were to only have private enterprise build highways.  I said the existance that there are private highways shows that it is most definitely possible that a private interstate system could exist...
Yeah, you said that, but it doesn't make any sense, because there is no evidence for it.  If a private interstate system could exist, it would.
There private highways!
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 06, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
My last sentance makes perfect sense.  He said the interstate system would not exist if we were to only have private enterprise build highways.  I said the existance that there are private highways shows that it is most definitely possible that a private interstate system could exist...
Yeah, you said that, but it doesn't make any sense, because there is no evidence for it.  If a private interstate system could exist, it would.
There private highways!
Which are grossly outnumbered by non-private highways.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 06, 2011, 11:22:48 AM
I thought we just established the interstate is government-created?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Dark Castle on November 06, 2011, 11:25:57 AM
I thought we just established the interstate is government-created?
I know right?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 06, 2011, 03:45:07 PM
My last sentance makes perfect sense.  He said the interstate system would not exist if we were to only have private enterprise build highways.  I said the existance that there are private highways shows that it is most definitely possible that a private interstate system could exist...
Yeah, you said that, but it doesn't make any sense, because there is no evidence for it.  If a private interstate system could exist, it would.
There private highways!
Which is not a private interstate system.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 06, 2011, 04:23:08 PM
In a free maket the fact that it would cross state lines doest mean anything a road is a road.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 06, 2011, 05:08:32 PM
 :facepalm:


The free market didn't create an interstate system, and it showed no signs that it would create an interstate system. In the real world, it DOES matter if roads cross state lines, because it's extremely relevant to our economy, and the interstate highway system.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: livehard on November 06, 2011, 06:13:02 PM
:facepalm:


The free market didn't create an interstate system, and it showed no signs that it would create an interstate system. In the real world, it DOES matter if roads cross state lines, because it's extremely relevant to our economy, and the interstate highway system.

Why do you think i said it created an interstate system?  The fact that the private market hasnt created a competing i-95 doesnt mean that if there was no i-95 the private market wouldnt create an alternative
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 06, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
I never said that you said it created an interstate system... I said that the free-market didn't create an interstate system, which is why we had to create one. There was no i-95, and the market did not create an alternative.

Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 23, 2011, 08:11:54 AM
Just doing a little research, and I found a very good reason why governments should invest more in rail lines than highways:

The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for commuter purposes (1,300 capacity/train, 30 trains/hour) is 39,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for high-speed purposes (1,600 capacity/train, 15 trains/hour) is 24,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of an eighteen-lane highway (nine lanes each way, 1.2 people per car) is 20,000 people/hour/direction.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 23, 2011, 08:25:24 AM
Just doing a little research, and I found a very good reason why governments should invest more in rail lines than highways:

The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for commuter purposes (1,300 capacity/train, 30 trains/hour) is 39,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for high-speed purposes (1,600 capacity/train, 15 trains/hour) is 24,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of an eighteen-lane highway (nine lanes each way, 1.2 people per car) is 20,000 people/hour/direction.
That doesn't take into consideration the greatly improved capacity of the highway system around the same time the rail lines are completed. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2011, 08:30:11 AM
Just doing a little research, and I found a very good reason why governments should invest more in rail lines than highways:

The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for commuter purposes (1,300 capacity/train, 30 trains/hour) is 39,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for high-speed purposes (1,600 capacity/train, 15 trains/hour) is 24,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of an eighteen-lane highway (nine lanes each way, 1.2 people per car) is 20,000 people/hour/direction.

Again, all well and good, but still does nothing to prove that people would actually use it anywhere near capacity.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 23, 2011, 08:55:54 AM
I mean, I don't know anything about California and its populations, but if the MBTA is any indication, it can over time become a convenience that eventually no one will imagine they lived without it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 23, 2011, 09:47:26 AM
Just doing a little research, and I found a very good reason why governments should invest more in rail lines than highways:

The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for commuter purposes (1,300 capacity/train, 30 trains/hour) is 39,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of a double-tracked segment of rail for high-speed purposes (1,600 capacity/train, 15 trains/hour) is 24,000 people/hour/direction.
The capacity of an eighteen-lane highway (nine lanes each way, 1.2 people per car) is 20,000 people/hour/direction.

Again, all well and good, but still does nothing to prove that people would actually use it anywhere near capacity.

The busiest stretch of highway in the world, the Highway 401 through Toronto, transports about 600,000 people per day.  It is 16 lanes wide.

The busiest stretch of railway in the world, the A line of the Paris RER, transports about 1.2 million people per day.  It is the width of one lane of highway.


People will use rapid transit if it's rapid, constant, and well integrated.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: yorost on November 23, 2011, 10:03:26 AM
I loathe 401 in Toronto.  It can't possibly transport that many people, because traffic doesn't move.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2011, 10:41:01 AM
People will use rapid transit if it's rapid, constant, and well integrated.

(1) This is not rapid transit.  (2) You keep making statements like, "if it's good and efficient, people will use it."  How do you know?  You keep saying that, but you have no idea whether or not it is true.  Show me proof that people in California will use a HSR between San Francisco and L.A. in sufficient numbers to justify the cost.  That is the only thing that matters.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 23, 2011, 10:44:16 AM
I mean, arguably speaking, don't we have to wait till it's there to really know? Sure you can do comparative studies of say the rails between Chicago and the ass-end of nowhere or a high-speed rail between two other major cities in the US, but there are so many factors that will be unique to the Cali high-speed rail that we really won't know until we try.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2011, 10:50:59 AM
I mean, arguably speaking, don't we have to wait till it's there to really know? Sure you can do comparative studies of say the rails between Chicago and the ass-end of nowhere or a high-speed rail between two other major cities in the US, but there are so many factors that will be unique to the Cali high-speed rail that we really won't know until we try.

Partially true, but that's not really what I'm saying.  Sorry if I wasn't being clear.  What I am saying is: I think you could at least gauge the interest and cost/benefit analysis by making a comparison between a similar line in the U.S. (by similar, I am talking about similar demographics and inter-city travel patterns) and by extensive surveys of actual potential users that provides the users' interest level.  Bottom line is, there is no data I am aware of that we can use to project to potential ridership of this line, so just saying "if it's good, people will like it," is not a valuable measuring stick in any way, shape, or form.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 23, 2011, 11:30:45 AM
Extensive feasibility studies are conducted on projects like this before any sort of government approval is given.  For example, there's a leaked study on HSR in Ontario/Québec at highspeedrail.ca.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2011, 11:46:58 AM
I'm not talking about what "are conducted."  I'm talking about what has been conducted that gives us reliable data to project sufficient usage.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 23, 2011, 11:50:11 AM
I think GP was implying that though, that they have been conducted here in California.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 23, 2011, 02:23:19 PM
Nothing in life is guaranteed Bosk, and there's no good reason to think American's are radically different than any other nationality of humans. Our suburban crawl is going to end, at some point, and the actual building of these highway speed rails could make investments around that rail more attractive. In the end, it's really not that costly per person; the numbers of billions get's misleading when there millions of people. 1
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2011, 02:27:16 PM
No offense, but that's crap.  What you're saying still just boils down to, "I don't really have any evidence it will work, but it seems like a good idea, so we should just go with it and not worry about the cost."  Again, I'm not even necessarily against the idea, but it is astounding to me that when you really drill down and ask for proof that it is actually a good idea, nobody has anything to offer.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 23, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
We're not really saying that, we're saying that all the research in the world won't tell you what actually going in and doing it will. We can study and deliberate this thing to death, but we won't really know if it's a success or a failure until it's been built and people use it or don't.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 23, 2011, 02:39:46 PM
No offense, but that's crap.  What you're saying still just boils down to, "I don't really have any evidence it will work, but it seems like a good idea, so we should just go with it and not worry about the cost."  Again, I'm not even necessarily against the idea, but it is astounding to me that when you really drill down and ask for proof that it is actually a good idea, nobody has anything to offer.

No, I said it may not turn out to be a good idea. Businesses take chances when they invest, why should government not do the same?

Besides, there is some evidence to make us believe it might work, as we see other countries successfully employing it. It doesn't mean it will work, but why the hell are other countries NOT examples and evidence? The biggest thing difference is our suburban crawl - which, combined with the housing market, gas prices, and the economy, is something we need to address anyways.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 23, 2011, 02:47:55 PM
We're not really saying that, we're saying that all the research in the world won't tell you what actually going in and doing it will. We can study and deliberate this thing to death, but we won't really know if it's a success or a failure until it's been built and people use it or don't.

Of course we won't really know.  But far short of studying and deliberating it "to death," we can actually do what should be the normal amount research and due diligence to gather data that should give a more accurate picture of whether it will be a success.  We can built a fleet of solar powered hovercraft with pink fairy wings welded on the side that can shuttle people back and forth between Miami and Jamaica too, but just because it sounds cool doesn't mean it's a good idea until we've figured out whether there is sufficient interest in using it to justify the cost of building, running, and maintaining the thing.

No, I said it may not turn out to be a good idea. Businesses take chances when they invest, why should government not do the same? 

Actually, no.  Businesses that stay in business for any length of time and don't go bankrupt don't take blind chances.  They take educated chances after they've done sufficient market research and due diligence before taking on large expenditures.  The government should do likewise.

Besides, there is some evidence to make us believe it might work, as we see other countries successfully employing it. It doesn't mean it will work, but why the hell are other countries NOT examples and evidence?

That data isn't completely meaningless.  But by itself, it doesn't help.  It is only a small part of the picture.  As has been addressed earlier in the thread, it doesn't matter if similar HSR's work in 100 other places if the people in SF and LA say, "huh, that's dumb.  I'm not using it."  Even if those people are just being stubborn and stupid and have the worst reasons for not using it, that doesn't change the fact that the trains are still empty at the end of the day.  Again, we just don't have a complete picture of the data yet to know whether this is a good idea or not.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 23, 2011, 03:20:57 PM
Gotta say,  doing a study or two to ascertain who exactly might ride the thing just seems like common sense.  Something that needs to be considered here is that the main impetus for this so far seems to be political grandstanding.  That should really give people pause.  At this point,  does anybody other than a few politicians actually think this is a useful thing?  It might be the greatest thing on Earth, and it might be a complete waste of money.  I'd like to hear what some people without a vested interest in it's construction predict. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 23, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
Gotta say,  doing a study or two to ascertain who exactly might ride the thing just seems like common sense.  Something that needs to be considered here is that the main impetus for this so far seems to be political grandstanding.  That should really give people pause.  At this point,  does anybody other than a few politicians actually think this is a useful thing?  It might be the greatest thing on Earth, and it might be a complete waste of money.  I'd like to hear what some people without a vested interest in it's construction predict.

Where is this coming from? What about all of the supporters you find here or on the ballot?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on November 23, 2011, 04:00:54 PM
Even less informed than the politicians.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 23, 2011, 11:53:32 PM
Actually, no.  Businesses that stay in business for any length of time and don't go bankrupt don't take blind chances.  They take educated chances after they've done sufficient market research and due diligence before taking on large expenditures.  The government should do likewise.

And they aren't doing that. There are reports on the issue, if you chose to read them, and you're ignoring of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

And a quick google search found me  this  (https://www.america2050.org/2011/01/high-speed-rail-in-america.html). It's funded by transportation companies, so I'm sure it's biased to some degree. But it's still a study, and just the first one I pulled out.

And also, how much would such systems cost? Hundreds of billions? So, a few hundred dollars a person. It's not some big expenditures that's going to cause us to go broke.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on November 24, 2011, 05:11:26 AM
Scheavo, could you possibly post a couple?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 24, 2011, 01:56:07 PM
https://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/Pages/101028_HSR_Survey.aspx

Quote
Convenience and saving money were key factors for whether travelers would choose high-speed rail service over other modes of transportation.  When asked how important various factors would be in choosing high-speed rail service, survey respondents ranked the top four as follows: (91%) shorter travel times compared to driving to my destination; (91%) less expensive than flying to my destination; (89%) less expensive than driving to my destination; and (85%) integration with local public transit so I can avoid use of rental cars, cabs and parking fees. 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a nonprofit international association of more than 1,500 public and private member organizations, engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne passenger services, and high-speed rail.

https://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-09/business/os-ridership-high-speed-20110309_1_ridership-study-high-speed-train-train-systems

And the actual government site for California, with more than enough studies:

https://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library.aspx

https://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Ridership_and_Revenue_Forecasting_Study.aspx

I mean, there's TONS of studies to go through there. You can't say they haven't been done. Who knows who accurate they are all, I'd be wary of some of them without knowing more of the specific details involved, but in the end, the studies go with the grain, and not against them. This is fully in line with what we should expect out of human nature,


And win.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 24, 2011, 02:28:33 PM
Traditionally high-speed rail lines have outperformed what they've been forecasted to do, with the notable exception of international services like Eurostar, and to a lesser extent, Thalys.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 26, 2011, 01:57:42 PM
I've been looking more into the way the proposals for HSR in California have changed, and I'm becoming increasingly concerned.  It looks like the majority of cost increases are due to pork-barrel demands from various municipalities, essentially seeking an influx of cash into local construction companies, and a refusal to cooperate between the agencies of the local rapid transit runners (like Caltrain and BART) and the High Speed Rail Authority.  The result is massively idiotic things like a 6.5 mile viaduct in San Jose (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2011/10/blended-like-oil-and-water.html).

What with proposed first service being pushed from 2020 to 2033, there's no reason not to cancel the project now with the idea of establishing a much cheaper, and saner, proposal.  I hadn't realized it was this bad.

I mean, for fuck's sake, just hand over the reigns of control to SNCF or DB, and have them run the project without listening to corrupt local governments, and have the state government force the hand of the local transit authorities.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2011, 08:50:23 AM
Exactly, GP.  That is a huge part of the cost issue and one of the main reasons why there are cost overruns on so many of these kinds of projects.  A reasonable amount of change orders due to legitimate construction-related issues that were not originally foreseen is to be expected.  Major cost run-ups for no good reason are an entirely different issue.


There are reports on the issue, if you chose to read them, and you're ignoring of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Okay, great that you finally (after 7 pages) found a few studies (very few of which relate to this project).  But honestly, the above quote shows just how little you attempt to read and understand the arguments that are being made.  If you are still that clueless about my position on the issue, I really don't have anything to discuss with you.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on November 28, 2011, 09:10:49 AM
Another reason why this project has devolved into insanity: a major part of the cost overruns is because they're now adding another 13 years to make this.  It would be much less expensive if they constructed it quicker, because it involves shorter-term construction (where costs have less of a chance of spiraling out of control) and the fact that assets won't have been depreciating for 20 years by the time it's up and running.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2011, 09:28:21 AM
That too.  I get Barry's point earlier in the thread about how there are always cost overruns.  But that doesn't mean cost overruns for bad reasons should just blindly be accepted.  Not to start a debate over "this country" vs. "that country," but here's an anecdotal example of the problem on a much smaller scale.  When I joined the military in 1988, after doing boot camp and school, I reported to my permanent base in the fall of 1988.  We lived in a barracks that had been condemned right about the time the Vietnam War ended, but right next door stood the steel framing for new barracks.  Not sure how long the construction had been going on by that time, but it was over 2 more years before they were done and we were able to move in (late Spring 1991).  All told, I think it took at least close to 4 years for those hourly contractors to complete a simple building project for the government.  Let's contrast that with a similar project I saw in Okinawa during the 6 months I was there in 1989.  When I arrived in Okinawa, they were getting ready to start construction on a new barracks that was, coincidentally, next door to the building we were in.  They had just started breaking ground when we arrived.  Six months later when we left, the building was done and there were people living in it.  There's just a different standard where contractors get paid by the project instead of by the hour, and in a government system that is much less tolerant to corruption and waste.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 28, 2011, 03:02:37 PM
There are reports on the issue, if you chose to read them, and you're ignoring of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Okay, great that you finally (after 7 pages) found a few studies (very few of which relate to this project).  But honestly, the above quote shows just how little you attempt to read and understand the arguments that are being made.  If you are still that clueless about my position on the issue, I really don't have anything to discuss with you.

I've answered your objections about American's using it, I've answered your objections about studies being needed before we start an investment like that, and your still continue to refuse to accept that they exist, that American's are human, and that high speed rail is something this country needs to implement.

You really don't think there are studies on the specific train line somewhat involved in this discussion? I'm sorry I don't feel like goin through pages of google searches to prove to you something as obvious as the sky being blue.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2011, 04:25:22 PM
Scheavo, do you have anything to say that even remotely relates to what my actual position on the issue is? 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on November 28, 2011, 07:03:21 PM
What exactly is your position? Because you seem to be changing it by the minute.

Quote
Actually, no.  Businesses that stay in business for any length of time and don't go bankrupt don't take blind chances.  They take educated chances after they've done sufficient market research and due diligence before taking on large expenditures.  The government should do likewise.

Quote
Again, I'm not even necessarily against the idea, but it is astounding to me that when you really drill down and ask for proof that it is actually a good idea, nobody has anything to offer.

I gave you those studies, that show they're as good of an idea as we can reasonable expect, so you're really just being confusing at this point. Maybe it's not I who is misunderstanding you, but you who are giving a very bad defense and explanation of your actual opinion.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on December 02, 2011, 11:28:52 AM
This is why I think blowing a gazillion dollars on HSR in Cali is a bad idea.   (https://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/12/autonomo-concept-is-half-car-all-driver/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher) It's not that I think this guys goofy looking cars are going to be common place in 5 years,  but I think that a lot of the technology in them will be.  I don't think we're too far away from the point where the four inside lanes of a highway can accomdate six lanes of vehicles driving 60mph bumper to bumper.  Perhaps it'll be something completely different,  but there will be significant advances in the way we drive long distances,  and spending a small fortune to plant tomorrow's generation with today's technology is incredibly short sighted. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: bosk1 on December 02, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
That is simultaneously awesome and frightening.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on December 02, 2011, 06:58:35 PM
This is why I think blowing a gazillion dollars on HSR in Cali is a bad idea.   (https://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/12/autonomo-concept-is-half-car-all-driver/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher) It's not that I think this guys goofy looking cars are going to be common place in 5 years,  but I think that a lot of the technology in them will be.  I don't think we're too far away from the point where the four inside lanes of a highway can accomdate six lanes of vehicles driving 60mph bumper to bumper.  Perhaps it'll be something completely different,  but there will be significant advances in the way we drive long distances,  and spending a small fortune to plant tomorrow's generation with today's technology is incredibly short sighted.

How do you prevent that from being hacked? One hacker could kill millions of people rather quickly.

Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on December 02, 2011, 10:31:59 PM
I'd be much more concerned about people hacking ATC networks,  power plant logic controllers,  GPS,  and dozens of other centralized systems that millions rely on.  The cars would be mostly decentralized. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on December 03, 2011, 01:53:37 PM
So individual computer/programs on each car that cooperate with each other? That might be interesting, but I'm not sure a lot of people are going to accept putting their lives in the hands of computer software - even though it'd probably be safer than we have now. Computer's aren't very good at handling novel situations, least not yet; whereas humans are quite good at this.

And people rely upon those systems, but they wouldn't cause instant death (in most cases).
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on December 03, 2011, 02:02:35 PM
I had this conversation with my brother a while back.  I like to drive.  I like the fact that my older model car has a direct link from the key to the starter,  from the gas pedal to the throttle body,  from the brake pedal to the master cylinder,  etc.  Cars nowadays have none of these things.  Pretty soon, even the steering wheel will be FBW.  Today's generation really doesn't seem to give a shit, though.  I suspect that half the drivers on the road today would be happy with a car that drove itself,  so they could spend their commute dicking around on facebook and texting each other.  I'm a bit of a relic in this regard.  In a few more years,  there won't be too many people like me left.

And I'm also adapting a bit, as well.  I was one of the old farts that insisted I'd never let some ABS bullshit stop my car.  I was pretty good at controlled braking,  and didn't trust the car to do it on it's own.  Of course now I realize that ABS does it much better than I do.  I'm glad my car has it and that there aren't too many cars on the road that predate it. 

Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: slycordinator on December 04, 2011, 07:30:34 PM
Maybe it was a different forum, but I recall a lawyer posting once that he commuted everywhere via taxi cab, because while he was being driven everywhere he would be able to do his work and still charge the client for that time at his regular hourly rate. And I know a few people who do the same with commuting on a bus as they can do work or studying while riding. So I imagine if people introduced cars that drove themselves, it wouldn't be exclusively people who do twitter/facebook that utilize it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on December 04, 2011, 07:36:55 PM
Or high-speed rail, which is actually viable at this current time, or even in the next 25 years.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Scheavo on December 04, 2011, 11:19:42 PM
I had this conversation with my brother a while back.  I like to drive.  I like the fact that my older model car has a direct link from the key to the starter,  from the gas pedal to the throttle body,  from the brake pedal to the master cylinder,  etc.  Cars nowadays have none of these things.  Pretty soon, even the steering wheel will be FBW.  Today's generation really doesn't seem to give a shit, though.  I suspect that half the drivers on the road today would be happy with a car that drove itself,  so they could spend their commute dicking around on facebook and texting each other.  I'm a bit of a relic in this regard.  In a few more years,  there won't be too many people like me left.

I think as Guinea Pig pints out, why not do that on a high speed rail? Those self-driving cars probably have a place in the future still, but I think it's premature to think that it's anything but at least a decade away.

Otherwise, you make great points. I still think there's something to the psychological belief is being in control of your car though, even if you don't actually have control, per say.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on December 05, 2011, 08:35:46 AM
Two reasons.  First,  cars are individual units, and would be phased in over time.  Rather than having to fork over a billion dollars now,  we'd just be gradually deploying more and more autonomous vehicles.  Second,  rather than the government squandering money with gross inefficiency,  the private sector would be doing this.   It'd be more efficient,  voluntary,  and quicker to deploy.  Seems to me like a solution that each citizen can jump into over time is much better than an enormous infrastructure investment. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on January 31, 2012, 07:24:32 PM
Are these the self-parking cars Barto and folks were talking about?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/hiriko-ev-car-space-saving_n_1244345.html?ref=green-technology
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on January 31, 2012, 09:32:38 PM
I can't see driverless cars being a thing anytime soon.  The most advanced railway signalling can give minimum headways of about 1 minute and half at 160 km/h, and that's on a simple two-track get-up with typically conflict-free movements.  Managing a road would be much more complex, and much more could go wrong.  A system like that would not be implemented until long after safety concerns went away.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2012, 09:48:14 PM
Railways have two distinct disadvantages.  For one thing,  there's no place to go.  Cars can get out of each others way.  The other problem is that a train at 160 kph is going to take miles to stop.  Cars have multiple lanes and very short stopping distances.  Furthermore,  I could see the management being decentralized.  There have already been examples of cars communicating with each other.  As for now,  it's a privacy issue.  People like me don't want their cars talking to each other.  As said before,  I'm a dinosaur,  so that'll change in good time.  I still don't see cars driving themselves to the store any time soon,  but a few lanes of highway designated for high speed,  autonomous driving doesn't seem all that far off. 


Are these the self-parking cars Barto and folks were talking about?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/hiriko-ev-car-space-saving_n_1244345.html?ref=green-technology
In a city like Dallas,  where half the drivers are women driving 5900 lb Escalades,  driving one of those things would be suicide.  From a speed and distance stand point,  my daily commute is exactly what that sort of thing is designed for.  From the self preservation standpoint,  I couldn't see surviving a month.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on January 31, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
Railways have two distinct disadvantages.  For one thing,  there's no place to go.  Cars can get out of each others way.  The other problem is that a train at 160 kph is going to take miles to stop.  Cars have multiple lanes and very short stopping distances.  Furthermore,  I could see the management being decentralized.  There have already been examples of cars communicating with each other.  As for now,  it's a privacy issue.  People like me don't want their cars talking to each other.  As said before,  I'm a dinosaur,  so that'll change in good time.  I still don't see cars driving themselves to the store any time soon,  but a few lanes of highway designated for high speed,  autonomous driving doesn't seem all that far off. 


Depends.  A 100-car freight train would.  But a light-weight EMU can go from 160 to 0 in about 15 seconds if need be.  Normal deceleration would be about 35 seconds or so.

However, I really don't think automated driving would actually bring greater capacity.  Right now, highway capacity is about 2,000 people per lane per hour (compared to about 60,000 per track per hour for some of the busier commuter railways).  Increasing the spacing between each car to three seconds (which is about what it takes to stop, and would probably be the minimum for any scheme) still only leaves a throughput of about 1200 cars / hour, which is actually a reduction assuming passenger trends remained the same.  Essentially, any automated system of driving that would guarantee a certain level of performance (let's say, 140 km/h as a benchmark) would have to price people out taking it, lest demand swamp it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on March 23, 2012, 08:41:39 AM
One incredibly stupid aspect of the HSR plan has been scrubbed in favour of a sane proposal. (https://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/03/deal-reached-to-combine-caltrain-electrification-and-hsr/)

And the FRA is even changing its safety regulations! (https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/quick-note-good-news-week/)
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on June 28, 2012, 01:16:51 PM
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/00501819503/rep-jackie-speier-puts-forth-bill-to-extend-tsa-to-mass-transit.shtml
Quote
Rep. Jackie Speier Puts Forth Bill To Extend TSA To Mass Transit
from the because-that's-exactly-what-we-need dept

Well this is very disappointing. My own Congressional Representative, has put forth a bill, HR 3140 to expand TSA info sharing capabilities to mass transit. Because that's just what we need. Even worse, in speaking about it, Speier doesn't seem to even recognize that there's a problem with the TSA at airports, and seems to assume that it's just obvious that everything's great with airport security:

    "We have put in place through TSA a very elaborate system [in airports]. We all go through those metal detectors and those secondary searches. And we've put a lot of focus on the airlines for good reason. But we have neglected the mass transit components, generally speaking," she said.

    Speier said 2 million people fly each day, compared with more than 5 million who ride the subway each day in New York City alone. She pointed out that the most recent terrorist attacks have been on mass transit. Also, when U.S. Special Forces raided Osama Bin Laden's compound last year, intelligence gathered revealed the next attack was intended for mass transit.

    "The writing is on the wall. We need to be better prepared than we are right now," Speier said.

I'm all for keeping trains safe from terrorists. I ride on trains all the time -- including a Caltrain that has been named after Jackie Speier (I'm not joking). But any approach that suggests the current TSA efforts are somehow reasonable and should be expanded -- without even offering any evidence that this is true -- is a serious mistake.

Damn, I've been fairly prescient lately. 

Five bucks says she's recently gotten a sizeable contribution from one of the companies that makes imaging scanners.  Anyhoo, if this passes, HSR will have absolutely nothing to offer except high prices, high costs and little ridership to show for it. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on June 28, 2012, 01:21:50 PM
What the fuck America. Or Rep. Speier I guess.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on June 28, 2012, 01:40:50 PM
It was inevitable.  If it wasn't Mrs. Speier, it would have been some other crooked (or retarded) politician.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on June 28, 2012, 01:48:52 PM
Fucking retarded.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: PraXis on July 09, 2012, 01:10:21 PM
Looks like Commiefornia is moving ahead with the train to nowhere after all... where are they getting that money again?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on July 09, 2012, 01:20:34 PM
LA to SF isn't what I'd call a train to nowhere.

Still, it's a bad idea.  My prediction is that it'll wind up like DART did.  They'll oversell the whole thing, and abort it half way through.  There's no way they complete the 68b dollar project.  If that's the case, then they shouldn't squander money beginning it.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 09, 2012, 01:30:24 PM
I fear it will be executed terribly and set back rail's implementation in the US.  High speed rail is an incredibly effective technology when deployed correctly and cost efficiently.  There still needs to be a ton of value engineering done.

Also, I worry about the public transit at either end which will be essential for feeding ridership.  LA's come a long way, but CA's major metropolises are still light years from European standards.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on July 09, 2012, 01:44:43 PM
Also, I worry about the public transit at either end which will be essential for feeding ridership.  LA's come a long way, but CA's major metropolises are still light years from European standards.
Yeah, I was thinking this as well.  It really is vital to be able to get around when you arrive somewhere.  When you can arrive at a central terminal and waltz right onto a subway to get to your final destination it's a great way to travel. 

And I wasn't aware that LA's improved in that regard.  Honestly, it's so sprawled out, I don't see how they could really pull of light rail. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 09, 2012, 02:19:27 PM
Also, I worry about the public transit at either end which will be essential for feeding ridership.  LA's come a long way, but CA's major metropolises are still light years from European standards.
Yeah, I was thinking this as well.  It really is vital to be able to get around when you arrive somewhere.  When you can arrive at a central terminal and waltz right onto a subway to get to your final destination it's a great way to travel. 

And I wasn't aware that LA's improved in that regard.  Honestly, it's so sprawled out, I don't see how they could really pull of light rail.

The tide has turned in LA: there have been massive pushes for public transit, which, while suffering from horrifically stupid NIMBYism (one group in LA has been claiming that THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WILL BLOW UP IF THEY BUILD A SUBWAY HERE) and some mediocre planning, has made huge strides already.  The current mayor is pushing his "30 in 10" plan, which proposes to complete 30 years worth in projects in ten years by borrowing against future earnings from an already passed transit tax (that passed via referendum with a large majority).

EDIT: Here's the NIMBY group's video I referred to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81tihdzaecc
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 12, 2012, 07:05:37 AM
There's been some interesting rumours floating around that SNCF had an extensive plan drawn up for California HSR with the backing of private investors, but that they bailed because of politics being played with the route and other aspects. 

This has been quite the clusterfuck. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on July 12, 2012, 07:54:48 AM
There's been some interesting rumours floating around that SNCF had an extensive plan drawn up for California HSR with the backing of private investors, but that they bailed because of politics being played with the route and other aspects. 

This has been quite the clusterfuck.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.  An outside group like that would be the best possible method to go with, and completely out of the question for the politicians who're more concerned about their own futures than the success of the project. 

To be fair, it'd also look really bad to be giving all that stimulus money to the French. 
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 12, 2012, 08:27:22 AM
There's been some interesting rumours floating around that SNCF had an extensive plan drawn up for California HSR with the backing of private investors, but that they bailed because of politics being played with the route and other aspects. 

This has been quite the clusterfuck.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.  An outside group like that would be the best possible method to go with, and completely out of the question for the politicians who're more concerned about their own futures than the success of the project. 

To be fair, it'd also look really bad to be giving all that stimulus money to the French.

The sense of "We don't do things the European way in AMERICA!" seems to be so pervasive.  Caltrain is currently tendering the contracts for re-signalling its line on the peninsula, that it will be in the future sharing with HSR.  The options are:

1. Choose the industry standard, which is used throughout the word, fully compatible with HSR, offers 100% crash avoidance, performance-tested on numerous different kinds of lines in numerous different climates, and installation is offered by dozens of different companies making competition very viable.

2. Choose to develop their own signalling system, which will not be compatible with HSR, has no performance record, only can be installed by one firm, and is about three to four times the per km cost of option #1.

I'll give a hint to which option they went with: signalling system 1 is European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on July 12, 2012, 08:38:53 AM
Yup.  This is actually one of the best selling points for libertarian style small government.  If they'd stick to examples like this, instead of looking to reinvent the wheel, they'd fair much better.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 12, 2012, 09:31:52 AM
Well, I don't think that it's an argument of big government vs. small government.  There seems to be as big an aversion to universal healthcare or public transit or other things because they're European amongst the Tea Party, who are the biggest "America is #1!" horn-tooters.  It's more an instance of nationalism amongst the voting public and in bureaucracies that has led to misguided and wasteful spending.

"Buy American" has been another boondoggle in this regard. (https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/buy-america-is-a-scam/)  And Canadians suffer from the same shit too. (https://www.cat-bus.com/2010/10/montreal-metro-cars-bombardier-wins-contract-taxpayers-loose/)
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on July 12, 2012, 09:47:27 AM
I'd certainly agree with your sentiment in dozens of instances.  I think Americans are stupidly arrogant in their ways.  But in this case it reeks of cronyism, corruption or pandering.  I'd bet money there was a financial or political gain to going with the home-grown solution.  The company was in somebody's district, the board members are supporters of somebody, or the decision makers have stock in the company.  This is a situation where there's too much money involved to let "buy American" interfere with your plans.   
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 12, 2012, 09:53:10 AM
I'd certainly agree with your sentiment in dozens of instances.  I think Americans are stupidly arrogant in their ways.  But in this case it reeks of cronyism, corruption or pandering.  I'd bet money there was a financial or political gain to going with the home-grown solution.  The company was in somebody's district, the board members are supporters of somebody, or the decision makers have stock in the company.  This is a situation where there's too much money involved to let "buy American" interfere with your plans.   

Yeah, probably.  More money gets spent if things are done twice instead of once right.

I'm fairly certain a large number of people and businesses supporting HSR in California don't care about the technology or the benefits or anything inherent to the project itself; it's just a marketable way to transfer money from taxpayers to the private sector.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: El Barto on July 12, 2012, 09:58:29 AM
And out of curiosity, why do you?  You seem to have put a good deal of thought and research into this.  Professional interest?
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: GuineaPig on July 12, 2012, 10:03:02 AM
My interest stems mostly from two things:

1. I love trains.  Always been fascinated by them.
2. I hate global warming.  Trains are by far the most efficient and most environmentally friendly form of intraregional, interregional, and intercity transit.  North America is light years behind Europe, but is going to have to catch up fast, and soon.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: Super Dude on July 12, 2012, 11:07:38 AM
Not least of all because we're becoming positively medieval in our way of life compared to nearly everyone else.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: snapple on July 12, 2012, 11:24:26 AM
Not least of all because we're becoming positively medieval in our way of life compared to nearly everyone else.

Explain.
Title: Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
Post by: tofee35 on July 17, 2012, 01:46:27 PM
Why doesn't Ca invest in commuter rails and subway systems instead of high speed rails? LA used to have the best public transportation system in the world at the beginning of the 20th century before the auto industry literally destroyed it. That place needs to think more about daily public transit and not long distance travel. Unless I'm missing something and this is part of what they're proposing.

Regardless, when Ca's taxpayer's money is going into constructing single-lane carpool lanes that soar 100 feet in the air and 7 lane highways, it's time to rethink the infrastructure a little bit.