The limits of high-speed rail
 

I thought the fellow engineers and technically-minded in PPOT would enjoy this article, which I found yesterday:

https://mappingignorance.org/2020/01/22/the-limits-of-high-speed-rail/

High speed rail is a pipe dream for the USA. It is great in high population areas and countries with a different way of doing things than allowed here. Japan and Germany can run trains at high speed and they are always on time. In the USA Amtrak brags that they are on time as much as 72% of the time. So 3 out of 4 ain't bad, but it is sure not good.

And they require billions of dollars in subsidies every single year to stay in business, and they serve only high population areas. And they manage to kill passengers every year. US airlines are at about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles from 2000 to 2010.

Interesting and technical article. It ain't easy to go fast in a train.

Right.... cars require no subsidies!!

Like we don't have any of those. :rolleyes:

It was an interesting article on the technical limits of ground transportation.

the real issue is getting land to run the trains on

rail is point to point, but you can drive on any road in a car (if it isn't badly grid-locked)

rail would clearly benefit N-S routes on E, W coasts & up the front range, maybe TX triangle but the initial cost is high

with cars you just keep paying incrementally

the ... uh... 3rd rail is that autonomous cars can really put a crimp in rail

I take the Acela all the time because it makes financial and time sense.

High Speed trains make sense where the market decides it makes financial and time critical sense...never going to happen in 92.5% 0f this country.

Let the market decide, not the Government.

I just read an article that the energy it would require to lay all the track, make the trains, the energy required to operate the trains, new Stations, etc. couldn't be paid back in efficiencies over current travel modes in one hundred years.

market distortions apply big time here

that is usually why a govt. gets involved

How so?

There are train tracks all over the USA and Canada, freight, mostly:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1581108484.jpg

So, the freight folks figured it out, the market, not the government.

Do you have a point? Build inefficiencies into the transportation system because you "think" it helps.

Please, be specific in your claims that High Speed Rail is worthy.

All the best.

I have posted here before about riding Japan's Shinkansen from Tokyo to far North of the island. It was a fun trip, ~ equal in cost to flying, but certainly a longer journey. I did it that time for the experience, no regrets, but elected to fly on the return leg.

As Seahawk correctly points out HS rail is not a good fit for most of the U.S. Lots of $$ and legal battles to get land and infrastructure in place. Case in point the HSR effort in California. Originally proposed to go up the coast between LA and SF. That would make sense but impossible to get land access. So now it goes inland where there is no demand. Not sure if it will ever get finished. I have some pretty strong opinions on the entire matter but hopefully I kept this politics free enough to keep this thread in PPOT. :)

Did a lot of travel by rail this past year in Italy and Switzerland. Majority high speed. After the first ride we were like omg why don’t we have this at home?

As my cousin would say, it’s the tits.

This is not about politics, it is about the travel market.

My Daughter works in NYC and worked the Acela Corridor for over a year...the price was too high. Guess who runs Acela?

She keeps her FJ in a nice part of Brooklyn and drives home (she is here this weekend) because anyone with a brain can pencil out the cost benefit analysis.

Market factors need air and vetting. People would invest if there was a market.

What's Greta's take on HSR vs air travel ?

That's what I wanna know.

existing railway easements are usually rather old, and acquired long before the land became covered with houses or even farms

AND they were heavily subsidized by the 1800s taxpayer

if you don't understand that Paul, I can post a title of a book you can read

Not the 1800's. And there was no income tax then that didn't fund the Civil War: 3% in 1863.

Show me your math. Or go here: Abolish Income Taxes - DeTaxUS

Quibble about taxes at your peril. The Robber Barons took land, little to do with taxes.

I have zero issues with trains, they just, like battery powered cars, need to stand on their own merits.

Why is this turning into an ideological argument about rail-as-transit? It's like people just read the subject line and hopped on their hobbyhorses

shrug

Besides people not understanding that subsidy .NE. income tax, there are some emo issues about rail

maybe a reset with your OP can help - it's about speed for those not reading the link

Maybe light rail is the way, or one way to go in urban environs.

I used Amtrak all the time when business took me to DC or Boston. The home leg was usually, no ALWAYS in the club car. :D

Our need for transportation is increasing. Instead of adding another 2 lanes to an interstate, use the land for a set of tracks.

That is where autonomous cars and the fact that cars are becoming more like appliances rather than cherished personal possessions or some kind of extension of who we are is making rail more viable. You could take a train to within a few tens of miles of your destination, swipe a credit card in a slot and drive away in some four wheeled appliance to get you to your final destination. You can bypass the gridlock and the expense of owning a car, and for increasing numbers of people that is an attractive alternative.

They are still subject to gridlock and will still require more lanes of pavement to accommodate late 21st century transportation loads.

I get it. But I don't know how to respond to the OP other than it was a very interesting read. Is that all you wanted to hear?