High speed rail

[justabubba]

I contend that there are plenty of corridors in the US that could support and benefit from HSR.

Atlanta-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami
Washington-Philadelphia-New York-Boston (Acela had a $100M profit in 2010)
Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis
Vancouver-Seattle-Portland
New York-Buffalo-Toronto
San Diego-Los Angeles-Fresno-San Francisco-Sacramento
Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles-Las Vegas

Los Angeles in particular could use alleviation for LAX. 7 of the 35 busiest air corridors by aircraft movements are US domestic routes, and 5 of those have a terminus in LA. (to San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix, New York.) 4 of these routes could be largely supplanted with HSR operations, opening up room for routes to many new destinations and allowing increased frequency for existing ones.

i can certainly agree with the first
possibly the second, but probably not, because there is a whole lot of nothing between LA and SF

on the other hand i could see the legitimacy of one between RTP and atlanta, since it would have a variety of population centers along that route

 

[TitusAndronicus]

there is a whole lot of nothing between LA and SF

There is a whole lot of nothing between LA and SF when you fly. Yet LAX-SFO is the busiest airport to airport corridor in the US by seats. On HSR, you would have San Jose (2M), Fresno (1.1M) and Bakersfield (.8M) along the way, for the local trains that is.

As for some of the others, by passenger, LA-Las Vegas was the 9th busiest air corridor in the US in 2009, LA-Phoenix was the 10th, LA-SF was 2nd, and Atlanta to Miami was 3rd.

 

[Matt Foley]

No one is proposing a nationwide system

Then it won't work

because no one would take the train from NYC to LA. It makes more sense to fly. HSR makes sense for distances of 100-500 miles, which are less than ideally served by either driving or flying. HSR make sense only as regional systems. Taiwan's system makes a profit and is only 214 miles long. Italy's does not connect to France's or Germany's and is about the size of the CA proposal.

The US doesn't have the population density, and it's not a tiny island where a few miles makes it "comprehensive", of Taiwan.

 

[Matt Foley]

Actually I would think long haul trucking exists because of flexibility,
and they are not overburdened with more than 100 years of union and pension obligations.

All that aside, trains are slower from getting stuff from point A to point B, but awesome for bulk no perishable materials.

It's possible a comprehensive high speed rail system would incorporate both freight and passengers, or passengers + their CARS (like a ferry), or fantasy electric cars that don't exist yet.

 

[TitusAndronicus]

Then it won't work

Then explain to me how a nationwide HSR system would work. How you would encourage people in Phoenix to travel to Philadelphia by rail?

How does Acela work if it isn't a nationwide system? It only runs from Boston to Washington.

Would the interstate highway system have gone unused if it was only built East of the Mississippi River?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Typically it's trucking companies with fixed schedules and routes that will drive slower to save money. In fact, a lot of them are now monitoring their trucks with GPS to make sure they go the proscribed speeds. Trucks make money per mile driven (unless you have that fixed route/schedule). Obviously, the faster you drive the more money you make. For independent truckers it's a no-brainer and many smaller and/or specialty trucking companies work the same way an Independent does.

Time is money.
and the fuel saved is not enough to make up for time lost.

Which was my point: Transportation companies are about making money, not about saving fuel.

but, we need to be honest and say that the effective speed limit for trucks is 65, and for cars 80 or so. As it is, every vehicle on the road is speeding.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Time is money.
and the fuel saved is not enough to make up for time lost.

Which was my point: Transportation companies are about making money, not about saving fuel.

but, we need to be honest and say that the effective speed limit for trucks is 65, and for cars 80 or so. As it is, every vehicle on the road is speeding.

I agree, companies of any kind are all about making money. But time isn't always money when it comes to scheduled routes. Drivers usually don't get paid by time, they get paid by miles, so a driver (not an Independent) that has to go 660 miles in a day makes the same money whether it's done in 10 hours or 12 hours - but it costs the company more money if he does it in 10 because the gas bill will be higher. Sure, the driver would get another 2 hours to goof off but the company isn't going to pay the extra money in gas for him to do that. That's why a lot of the bigger companies use GPS units to monitor the trucks (and drivers) for compliance.

I agree about the last part - except as noted. Independent truckers and smaller companies tend to drive faster because for them, yes, time is money.
I drive 75-80 between cities. Don't know if I would in CA, it's been decades since I was out there, but I sure do around here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I agree, companies of any kind are all about making money. But time isn't always money when it comes to scheduled routes. Drivers usually don't get paid by time, they get paid by miles, so a driver (not an Independent) that has to go 660 miles in a day makes the same money whether it's done in 10 hours or 12 hours - but it costs the company more money if he does it in 10 because the gas bill will be higher. Sure, the driver would get another 2 hours to goof off but the company isn't going to pay the extra money in gas for him to do that. That's why a lot of the bigger companies use GPS units to monitor the trucks (and drivers) for compliance.

I agree about the last part - except as noted. Independent truckers and smaller companies tend to drive faster because for them, yes, time is money.
I drive 75-80 between cities. Don't know if I would in CA, it's been decades since I was out there, but I sure do around here.

If you don't, you're likely to get run over.

 

[Matt Foley]

Then explain to me how a nationwide HSR system would work. How you would encourage people in Phoenix to travel to Philadelphia by rail?

How does Acela work if it isn't a nationwide system? It only runs from Boston to Washington.

deedeedeedeet doo

Would the interstate highway system have gone unused if it was only built East of the Mississippi River?

Yes. It wouldn't have served it's intended purpose of strategic redeployment for the military, and annihilating regionalism. You do not want to bring regionalism, or state loyalty mentality, back. Nothing says Civil War faster than regionalism or state loyalty.

 

[TitusAndronicus]

You do not want to bring regionalism, or state loyalty mentality, back. Nothing says Civil War faster than regionalism or state loyalty.

State loyalty? Since when do states get things evenly? We live in a system where rural states take in considerably more money than they put in to the federal system. Mississippi and Montana don't have a leg to stand on if they want to complain they won't get HSR. They have more than their share of interstate miles and Amtrak stations. Let them contribute real money if they want to see 220 mph service. Like California has.

Which reminds me. My state, and 22 others have been allotted no national parks. We must put an end to this beastly tyranny. Down with King's Canyon. Civil War, I say!

 

[Matt Foley]

State loyalty? Since when do states get things evenly? We live in a system where rural states take in considerably more money than they put in to the federal system. Mississippi and Montana don't have a leg to stand on if they want to complain they won't get HSR. They have more than their share of interstate miles and Amtrak stations. Let them contribute real money if they want to see 220 mph service. Like California has.

Which reminds me. My state, and 22 others have been allotted no national parks. We must put an end to this beastly tyranny. Down with King's Canyon. Civil War, I say!

You have no idea what state loyalty is or regionalism is.

 

[MoSurveyor]

If you don't, you're likely to get run over.

Then things are about as they were then. Either you speed, which only means keeping up with traffic most of the time, or you're in a parking lot.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Then things are about as they were then. Either you speed, which only means keeping up with traffic most of the time, or you're in a parking lot.

Yes, and then there are the drivers who speed through the parking lots as well.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yes, and then there are the drivers who speed through the parking lots as well.

I'm good with people speeding on freeways - no driveways, no pedestrians, and no on-coming traffic - but speeding through a parking lot or buzzing down a side-street is dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm good with people speeding on freeways - no driveways, no pedestrians, and no on-coming traffic - but speeding through a parking lot or buzzing down a side-street is dangerous and irresponsible.

On the upside, it is a potential source of organs for transplant.