High-Speed Trains In The US?
 

I like trains (am on one right now, in fact). I particularly like high-speed trains, having enjoyed rides on the French TGV and the Japanese bullet. Acela is nice too, not exactly high-speed but when on the East Coast I take it when possible.

Flying (commercial) seems to get more unpleasant every year.

On the West Coast, there would seem a pretty natural route for a high-speed train - north-south connecting San Diego, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, and Sacramento. At 200 mph, LA to SF would be say 3-4 hours since you'd have to slow down in the urban areas. Flying it takes the same time, with all the check-in, security, and getting to/from the airport.

Do you think a high-speed train would work here?

Then, different question, do you think one will ever be built? Obviously the current AmTrak could never fund (or, perhaps, manage) one.

John,
I see a Los Angeles to Las Vegas route as a winner.
Up and down California is tough to sell because so many branch destinations.

i'm down :D

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZvm5H4F-aA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VZvm5H4F-aA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I won't hold my breath. Too much money to be made by too many people keeping everyone dependent on cars and oil.

I figure, stops could be San Diego city center, somewhere in Orange County, and downtown LA. There's existing rail corridors here, ownership issues of course. Then you either follow Hwy 5 or the coast to hit Santa Barbara and Monterey, then San Francisco, then Sacramento. Hwy 5 would be much easier, no existing rail corridor but wide open to build and could do some serious speed.

I found an official State of Calif website on this. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
Estimates cost $25BN, claims larger benefits.

A sketchy Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_high-speed_rail

An "anti" argument.
http://rational.ce.umn.edu/Projects/HSR/HSR.html

Another info page.
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htHighSpeedRail.htm

Apparently there is a bond measure set to be voted on in 2008, for $9BN to build the LA-SF segment (assumes equal Federal matching funds).

Haven't read all these, just linking, will do some reading.

A LA-Vegas line would certainly be cool, too.

Besides traveling by train being way more pleasant than being cattle in a flying tube, seems a train would be less polluting and more energy-efficient. But honestly it is the miserable experience of commercial air travel that is making me want this.

(Of course, I don't even live in CA now. But you never know.)

let's put it this way

If you guys don't start building it now
you'll be effed when the fuel prices really burn the Plane ticket prices...

Most of Western Europe is well connected with trains, huge network of regular trains, and ever expanding High Speed links...

We can get by without Aviation now.
Will you be able to, 10 years from now?

They have been trying for as long as I can remember to put put some high speed rails in Florida.

One route was from the the Port at Cape Canaveral to Orlando the other route was from Orlando to Tampa then another from Orlando to Miami.

Every time it comes up to vote the people vote it down. People do not want them.

I think not having them is a huge mistake.

The tracks in Europe are already laid. The cities are close together. In the US, planes make more sense. Maintaining the security of a small airport versus thousands of miles of track is a no brainer.

It makes more sense to keep the rails freight and airplanes for passenger travel.

Planes only make sense if the fuel is affordable
Trains can run on any energy , coal , gas, nuclear, sun...whatever
if you can make electricitiy , you can run your train
Planes, are limited, and not as efficient

off course, you could hold on to the "we love oil even if it means we have to fight and die for it, screw nature gimme my V8 guzzler!" way of thinking, but in the long run it's not sustainable


we have a plan B that works now, and can be upgraded to plan A with minimal effort

you guys... don't.

security wise... how many train bombings and hijacks vs how many plane bombings, hijacks??

few hijacks on a train are worth the effort, coz you can't run, you can't hide, you have no freedom to divert the train to your airport or airstrip of choice...and your hostages can escape, you need more hostage takers to control the crowd...making any operation a lot harder to pull off...

The country is too big and the density too low. Fuel per passenger mile is quite low in modern planes. Even with $200 per barrel oil people would fly. That being said - I usually travel to Baltimore or D.C. by train and take the subway every day.

I love travelling by rail. Done it three times in my life. That being said, right now it is more expensive than flying and it takes longer. High speed rail service would only be profitable on very densely travelled routes. Probably only on the east coast of this country. I'm all for it if it could be done profitably, but I don't think there is a huge market for it. Amtrak is enough of a taxpayer drain--I'd be very much against a high-speed money pit.

LA to SF is the second most traveled air route in the US, 2.8MM pax/yr. Number one is NY to LA, 3.0MM pax/yr.

http://www.laalmanac.com/transport/tr55.htm Don't know how dated this is. Don't know how compares to, say, WDC-NYC-BOS.

Edit: OK, I do. Acela ridership is about 2.5MM pax/yr and Northeast regional corridor ridership is about 6MM pax/yr, this is 2004 data.

Great idea. It'll never happen. America will never invest that much money on a large infrastructure project.

I just did a presentation at the local university about the pros and cons of high speed trains. Lee County is currently voting to widen I-75 to 8 lanes so I used this as an alternative method. I didn't even buy my Bulli*****. $58M to add tolls and widen 100 miles of exisitng road as oppose to $127M for a proposed bullet train. Not inculding operating costs. Its pretty hard to justify econmically.

I hate flying so I would love to jump on a train. But is always comes down to $.

I travelled by train extensively in western and eastern Europe and I sure was happy when I turned 25 and was able to rent cars. Trains in Europe are not cheap at all the fast ones are crazy expensive. It was always faster and cheaper for me to rent a car to get where I was going and I haven't been on a train, other than a subway, in Europe since I became old enough to rent cars. And if you have someone travelling with you, renting a car becomes even cheaper.

I also love train travel, took a trip from L.A. to Portland once and it was great but it was almost two days... not that I minded, it was a vacation trip and it was more about the experience than getting there quick. Also did L.A. to L.V. and it took around eight hours (compared to four or five hour drive)... they have been talking about a bullet train to Las Vegas for over a decade.

I would love to see a bullet train up the west coast but I don't think enough traffic to pay for it. He11 I would like to see a regularly scheduled luxury train up and down the coast.

What I would REALLY like to see is more light rail in Los Angeles :mad: Boston spoiled me... travel anywhere in town for seventy five cents.

Did you know that there was supposed to be train tracks running along PCH? S. Cal could have had light rail from Santa Monica to San Diego but noooooo the automobile was the wave of the future. :rolleyes:

I guess I'm not as interested in long drives. LA to SF is 8 hours (city center to city center), well 7 to 9 depending on how you drive). I used to do that drive a lot, probably 30 times, but I won't do it anymore. So car isn't really an option for me, for that trip. It is train or plane.

Even in Europe, distances can be long. Paris to Marseille is around 10-11 hours (center to center), I did that drive last year, not my idea of fun.

I think if they did do SF to LA they would have to go the I-5 route. Unless they could use existing tracks, wouldn't they have to upgrade old track for a bullet train?

If I do LA to SF I make it a two or three day trip with lots of stopovers... too much nice stuff to see on Hwy 1 or 101. Funny, like the guy who asked what to see on a three day trip from L.A. to Seattle... I said I-5!

I know you are probably talking about commuting LA to SF though.

TGV does that same thing in 3 hours


i'm sure you'll find a plane that does it in 2 hours probably one and a half..., but once you add up check-in, and getting to the actual airport from Paris center and then from the airport to Marseille , i doubt you'll be there quicker

It is 400 miles from LAX to SFO. You cannot run freight and Highspeed trains on the same rails. So, you need to buy 400 miles by 100 feet, plus bridges, etc to put this in. You get transportation from point A to point B. This will NEVER make economic sense. The talked about Air Taxi system makes much more sense.

I understand why you like the idea of Trains. Less security. Bigger setup with food bars, etc. But it will not work in the USA. It might work on the Eastern Seaboard between DC, Philly, NYC, Boston. It will not work in California.

There is a huge difference between creating a highspeed rail service between the densely populated, not too distant, cities in Europe. But again, how many of the Cities have TGV service?

Paris to Brussels, Paris to London. London to Brussels. That was about all I could find. And there is a lot of traffic between those cities.

Round trip from Paris to Brussels on the TGV cost me $79 Euro, about $110. It takes about 1.5 hours and 255 km (160 miles).

So, using the same avg speed and price, the trip from SFO to LAX will take over 3 hours. The cost would be $275.

American Airlines offers service for $93 round trip. Flight is under an hour.

If you are willing to go SNA to OAK, the cost is only $74 round trip!