Where is the actual demand for "high speed rail"

[shintao]

For proponents of federal funding of high speed rail, my question is where is the demand?

With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, what cities would benefit from having a bullet train running between them?

If the purpose of the rail line is to replace road and shuttle flights, what cities have the demand required to justify the expense of one of these systems?

The only place I see would be the Washington-New York- Boston Route, currently served by acela (not exactly high speed, but faster than normal trains). With the exception of upgrading this route to seperate track bullet trains where else would this work?

Virtually anywhere in the united states. Rail is cheaper than trucking. Seattle to San Diego. Sacramento to San Francisco.

 

[rdean]

For once, I actually agree with you. The only way that HSR could serve this country is if it were transcontinental and it could compete with air traffic both in time of travel and cost.

Unfortunately, the cost of creating such service at times like these is prohibitive. This country cannot afford to buy tissue to wipe its nose let alone the capital outlay this project would require.

Immie

Hilarious. Competing with transcontinental air traffic is the last thing on the list. It's not even being considered as far as I know.

Which is one of the big reasons it is not worth even five minutes of floor time.

If it is not going to compete with transcontinental air transportation, then it is not even worth considering. That doesn't mean that the idiots in Washington won't try to force it down our throats.

Immie

Such a limited view. Hi speed trains unclog airports for local flights. It connects communities in ways never before seen. It can compete with short distance movement of goods and produce. The cost is amazingly low. Imagine living a hundred miles from your job and being able to get there in a half hour or 45 minutes? This spreads money out through communities. It creates a more competitive and larger pool of workers.

I bet I could sit here an think up another 10 good reasons. I bet with research, I could find another 50. It's why other countries are making the investment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, the "science first" crowd now embraces a 19th century mode of transportartion... if it can go like, really, really fast?

 

[Political Junky]

So, the "science first" crowd now embraces a 19th century mode of transportartion... if it can go like, really, really fast?

Poor thing doesn't understand the difference in a steam engine and high speed rail.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, the "science first" crowd now embraces a 19th century mode of transportartion... if it can go like, really, really fast?

Poor thing doesn't understand the difference in a steam engine and high speed rail.

Poor thing understands that passenger rail is a LOSER and is heavily subsidized by the majority of Americans for the benefit of a few large population centers. hey, keep it... but if the true cost of a ticket from NY to Philly is $750, then that's what they should pay.

Same for the USPS, if the true cost to mail a letter is $4, then so be it.

 

[Political Junky]

So, the "science first" crowd now embraces a 19th century mode of transportartion... if it can go like, really, really fast?

Poor thing doesn't understand the difference in a steam engine and high speed rail.

Poor thing understands that passenger rail is a LOSER and is heavily subsidized by the majority of Americans for the benefit of a few large population centers. hey, keep it... but if the true cost of a ticket from NY to Philly is $750, then that's what they should pay.

Same for the USPS, if the true cost to mail a letter is $4, then so be it.

Link?

 

[rdean]

So, the "science first" crowd now embraces a 19th century mode of transportartion... if it can go like, really, really fast?

Poor thing doesn't understand the difference in a steam engine and high speed rail.

It's sad.

Maybe it's thinks a "hi speed train" uses "faster" water? Uh oh, what if it doesn't know steam comes from water?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Poor thing doesn't understand the difference in a steam engine and high speed rail.

Poor thing understands that passenger rail is a LOSER and is heavily subsidized by the majority of Americans for the benefit of a few large population centers. hey, keep it... but if the true cost of a ticket from NY to Philly is $750, then that's what they should pay.

Same for the USPS, if the true cost to mail a letter is $4, then so be it.

Link?

Both Amtrak and the USPS bleed money... if you need a link to that... well, 'nuff said.

 

[Political Junky]

Poor thing understands that passenger rail is a LOSER and is heavily subsidized by the majority of Americans for the benefit of a few large population centers. hey, keep it... but if the true cost of a ticket from NY to Philly is $750, then that's what they should pay.

Same for the USPS, if the true cost to mail a letter is $4, then so be it.

Link?

Both Amtrak and the USPS bleed money... if you need a link to that... well, 'nuff said.

Amtrak OK, but show us how much the USPS gets.

 

[KissMy]

Link?

Both Amtrak and the USPS bleed money... if you need a link to that... well, 'nuff said.

Amtrak OK, but show us how much the USPS gets.

The USPS is heavily subsidized. They lost $8.505 billion last year. They get 100% of government mail budget no mater if a competitor submits a lower bid or not. The USG pays full postal rates, not the volume business discount they deserve. The USPS pay no taxes that competitors must pay. The USPS enjoys de-facto monopoly over the delivery of mail.

Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads, which has been interpreted as a de-facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. Accordingly, no other system for delivering mail – public or private – can be established, absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has allowed an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.

FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) directly compete with USPS express mail and package delivery services, making nationwide deliveries of urgent letters and packages. Due to the postal monopoly, they are not allowed to deliver non-urgent letters and may not use U.S. Mail boxes at residential and commercial destinations. These services also deliver packages which are larger and heavier than USPS will accept.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

i think these are what are deemed "indirect subsidies".

 

[westwall]

not at all true. trains are the most efficient method of moving freight. the best commuter option. and they are making a comback

Freight efficiency is not the same for passengers. Trains are not the best door to door transportation method for passengers who vary time, place & frequency.

Explain that to Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans for starters.

There are two high speed rail lines that don't run in the red worldwide. Commuter rail can be made to work. It must obviously be in a highly metropolitan area. Train tavel (even high speed) is nowhere near as efficient and cheap as air travel over long distances.

One person recomended transcontinental but that person doesn't understand the immense outlay in cash to build a single line. You would squander well over 100 billion to build a single line and that doesn't include the rolling stock and maintenance which is extremely high.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody wants a high speed rail system. Amtrak has been a joke for decades.

 

[bripat9643]

I think that the demand can be indentified by the current pattern of domestic flights.

Certainly the NE between Boston and Washington is one market.

But one thing that we might consider is that good transportation actually creates its own market, too.

We've seen that happen when we build roads, plenty.

A backwater area suddenly becomes vibrant when we make it easier to get there.

build a road to the Yukon Territory and see how "vibrant" it becomes. Way points in-between destinations can benefit from the construction of throughfairs, but not if there's no reason for anyone to travel on them. Two bankrupt transcontinental railroads proved that.

 

[Annie]

Buid it and they will come.

That hasn't been the case. People aren't clamoring for train travel, not when they have their autos and planes. There is not justifiable demand for that kind of outlay. Indeed, that costs without delay would end up being a very expensive way to travel. Not doable, other than in Northeast as laid out in OP.

 

[Patrick2]

REPEAT: Trains are an obsolete route-inflexible schedule-inflexible nineteenth century transportation mode, that almost always ends up being highly subsidized by people who don't use them - the last thing this country needs.

not at all true. trains are the most efficient method of moving freight. the best commuter option. and they are making a comback

Come back when you are brave enough to take on the points I made.

 

[Immanuel]

REPEAT: Trains are an obsolete route-inflexible schedule-inflexible nineteenth century transportation mode, that almost always ends up being highly subsidized by people who don't use them - the last thing this country needs.

not at all true. trains are the most efficient method of moving freight. the best commuter option. and they are making a comback

Until you add in the hundreds of thousands of man hours lost by people waiting while CSX jockeys cars around blocking important thoroughfares four or five times a day and the cost of gasoline wasted by the drivers waiting for the conductor to get off his frigging lunch break while he has been blocking traffic. Or the empty light rail systems that go no where and block cross traffic all day long.

Build a system like BART in the SF Bay Area and you might have a point, other than that you do nothing but tie up traffic all day long and make things worse.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Freight efficiency is not the same for passengers. Trains are not the best door to door transportation method for passengers who vary time, place & frequency.

Explain that to Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans for starters.

There are two high speed rail lines that don't run in the red worldwide. Commuter rail can be made to work. It must obviously be in a highly metropolitan area. Train tavel (even high speed) is nowhere near as efficient and cheap as air travel over long distances.

One person recomended transcontinental but that person doesn't understand the immense outlay in cash to build a single line. You would squander well over 100 billion to build a single line and that doesn't include the rolling stock and maintenance which is extremely high.

Actually, it was Shaman and I who agreed on transcontinental, I do understand the outlay of cash that would be required. That is why I said the system is too expensive. Local HSR simply is not worth the expense either and light rails are notorious for "runs to no where". Light rail simply ties up cross traffic with empty "cars" that go no where.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

Freight efficiency is not the same for passengers. Trains are not the best door to door transportation method for passengers who vary time, place & frequency.

Explain that to Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans for starters.

There are two high speed rail lines that don't run in the red worldwide. Commuter rail can be made to work. It must obviously be in a highly metropolitan area. Train tavel (even high speed) is nowhere near as efficient and cheap as air travel over long distances.

One person recomended transcontinental but that person doesn't understand the immense outlay in cash to build a single line. You would squander well over 100 billion to build a single line and that doesn't include the rolling stock and maintenance which is extremely high.

I travel extensively on business and frequently use AMTRAK Acela often between NY, Boston and DC. It is cheaper and more reliable than air travel

But the time of the trip is at the margin of what is acceptable for rail travel. I would never pass up air travel for any other possible high speed rail link

 

[KissMy]

After looking at efficiencies of HSR vs Planes it looks like it would work in the northeast. There are not that many people who live in one city & work in another unless you live in the northeast. Customers / riders would have to come from the airlines. Would we let these airline routs fail or would we be subsidizing the airlines also? Also promoting long distance commuting to work is not the direction we should be going.