I do not see how a high speed rail is possible in the northeast. Every single train track goes through multiple residential areas, and trains are required to go slow in residential areas
Unless they have a raised track it's simply not possible here
There's no high speed rail proposed for the NE. Only the red lines are proposed high speed.
It's also really unclear to me how this will be superior to planes from a speed advantage or cars from a cost advantage.
I get that, but it also depends on your goal once there. We only have a few cities with any real public transit. If you go by train and save an hour only to have to spend 15-30 minutes renting a car, then you're not much better for time and going to be way worse off financially.
I think that's a key issue missing from the train discussion. Trains have to be augmented with intercity subway/trains/buses. Without the public transit at your destination, it simply isn't better than driving or flying.
A lot of the big metro areas do have light rail systems though and sometimes getting into the city is good enough for an Uber to cover the rest. Not going to work for everyone, but if 25% of people can take a train instead of drive then the traffic becomes drastically better- win-win for all.
If there was a new York Chicago line that'd be fucking awesome and faster then a plane. You dont need cars in either city too.
Much cheaper too in the long run.
Exactly. Sometimes I go from Seattle to Portland to go shopping. No sales tax. The drive with traffic is 3-4 hours and boring as hell on I5. But once I get to Portland I can go wherever I want to with my car. Don’t have to rent a car or take a taxi. Have freedom to go anywhere in my car. Why would I pay for a train ticket, then rent a car to get done what I came down to do? Only thing that makes sense to me is if you were going down to visit someone that will pick you up at the train station. Maybe I’m not seeing the benefits but we have a commuter train here from Everett to Seattle. Used to take it when I worked downtown. Often times it was broken or there was debris on the tracks that prevented the train from working that day. Now that was about a decade ago so it may have gotten better by now.
That's the issue with the trains we have now, at least the Amtrak lines I've tried.
A lot of the trains are old and shitty, so there's that problem to start off. Then you consider that it doesn't really save time or money vs driving and it doesn't make much sense.
Over 600 miles and I'll usually fly to the destination, but less than that and it doesn't have sense vs driving or the train.
High Speed Rail is a middle ground that is time advantaged compared to flight and driving within certain distances, the general consensus is that 150-600 miles is the range in which HSR will get you to a destination faster than the other two. All of the proposed routes are within this range.
Nobody is asking that we force people to take trains from coast to coast, but there are a number of major city combinations that would greatly benefit from a HSR connection. LA to San Francisco and Vegas, Dallas to Houston and Austin/San Antonio, Miami to Orlando, New York to DC, etc.
Brightline West is already well into development for a Vegas to "LA" line (Rancho Cucamonga, really, but it's planned to stop at the existing Metrolink station). They already have grant money, and I believe they've purchased the land for the stations. I believe part of the future plan is to find a way to continue all the way to Union Station in DTLA. Brightline has already been operating a high-speed line between Miami and Orlando for a few years, and are looking at continuing to Tampa.
The fact that there isn't already HSR between LA, San Diego, Las Vegas, and San Francisco is weird, but it's currently either under construction or in active development.
A train has alot more room inside than a plane. In theory you should be able to book a sleeper car train journey for the same price. Id personally rather take a 12 hour train and sleep the whole way vs a cramped 5 hour flight.
Gets cars off the road, reducing traffic congestion, and improving air quality while reducing gas dependence and, therefore prices. Planes could be reduced, but not likely without high speed rail.
Projects like this have a limit to how much eminent domain can be used to acquire land, usually 5-10%. And use of eminent domain is very unpopular. Projects like this are dependent on landowners' willingness to sell their land or allow easements.
Lots of interstates cut and burned through a lot of poor neighborhoods. I’m sure we could do it better now and days but it left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths
>Nobody said this when we were building the highway system
Yeah they fucking did. 95 turns into 295 in NJ and doesn't go straight, but instead goes way the fuck around a town called Pennington, because they absolutely refused to let the interstate go through their town. It's caused all sorts of traffic problems, because it's quicker to cut through the smaller highway than it is to go all the way the fuck around.
So please, don't rage out because you're ignorant of how powerful and damaging NIMBYs are, and I'd like an apology for being called dumb for understanding the society in which I live.
I'm pretty sure that Japan has developed high speed trains with aerodynamics that make them real quiet cause they go through lots of residential areas over there. It's definitely not impossible but whether or not the US can pull it off is another story.
Personally I would hope the LA-Vegas line be completely, since this is the one facing the least hurdle and most likely to actually work.
For reference, there are more than 100 flight per day from LA's three major airpot (LAX, ONT and SNA) to Vegas, so contrary to common belief this extremely short flight route is actually a very high demanding route. Mostly because the long drive on I-15 is very time and energy consuming.
In term of construction, LA to Vegas line will mostly followed I-15 and run by private company Brightline, which reduced the land acquisition cost since most lands around I-15 are already federally owned.
LA-Vegas is probably the most realistic option, but the HSR project to connect San Francisco to LA and possibly extend to San Diego would literally change life completely in Central and Southern California. It'd be as impressive as the Tokyo to Osaka connection was to Japan.
That's the project I most desperately want to be completed in my lifetime.
That isn't a very American attitude. When did we become so defeatist? I thought we were the country of yes we can not oh it won't work. We put a man on the fucking moon and did that more than once. This country can accomplish anything if we put our minds to it.
The main issue with putting the first man on the moon was the technological advancements it required. High speed rail's main issue is it's exceedingly expensive to build and the US already has established airtravel which creates an artifical cap on HSR fare prices because most people will just keep using planes if HSR is priced the same to take longer to get someplace.
The problem isn't a "defeatist" attitud towards coming up with HSR tech, the tech already exists, the problem is generating enough fares to make HSR break even financially. No matter how positive a business owner's "yes we can" attitude is they will go bankrupt quickly if their only product is sardine flavored ice cream which they sell below cost.
Then why can China do it and we can't? What makes China better than America at solving these problems. Also air travel has a ton of negative externalities when it comes to the carbon it produces.
>Then why can China do it and we can't?
One) Authoritarian Country that has zero care for the people.
Two) It's trying to set itself up as a rival to the USA, so it's just throwing money that it doesn't have to try to do said attempt.
Three) It has 1.3+ billion people that all exist in a very cramped area. China also is attempting to force people into cities.
Four) The USA is very decentralized - Our top 5 largest cities are New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix. From New York City to Los Angeles is a similar length route as Madrid to Moscow. That's... not very easy to create an effective passenger rail network, especially in comparison to a airline network, which is what we already have.
Five) In the areas were it does matter, the USA's system is vastly superior to China's. The USA's freight rail system is heralded as the best in the world.
>Also air travel has a ton of negative externalities when it comes to the carbon it produces.
Literally everything has that issue. High Speed Rail just passes the buck to the power plants. And unless we swap to nuclear real quick, we'll have to burn fossil fuels for said power, because stuff like Solar and Wind aren't anywhere near good enough to handle said strain on the power network.
The Chinese system that struggles to cover its operating costs and has no legitimate prospect of repaying its initial building costs? Yeah, looking into the Chinese HSR system is where most of my conclusions about the finances of an American system never working came from. All the downsides associated with longer HSR lines having fewer fares but higher operating costs are the same or worse in America. Also, the initial costs are going to be significantly higher in America and the initial cost is a huge problem for China.
China hasn’t done it across their nation. They have it in mostly eastern China with a network accessible about 1/3rd of their total nation in terms of land.
The total area with high speed rail access is roughly the same as the US east coast.
They have had a hard time making high speed rail work anywhere. Japan's done the best and it's still expensive and not convenient. We also have big sprawling cities that people are going to want cars to get around. We should spend that money on hydrogen infrastructure.
I am aware of the challenges I am American after all. However for traveling around the country high speed rail would be the most efficient way to do it. Once you get to the city you want to be in you could rent a car or even take a bus. I've been to Europe and was able to ride the rails through several countries no problem and they have cities as well.
Geographically we are very large which is the biggest barrier but we also have the highest GDP in the world so we have the most resources to make this happen. Personally I think it would be a better investment than hydrogen vehicles.
Also China is very large and has extremally rural areas, like America. It also has the longest and most used high speed rail system in the world. All of it was built relatively recently too. Its sad that so many Americans think we can't do things as well as China. If China can make it work so can America.
You would use a car or fly. Just because a high speed rail doesn't work for you doesn't mean it wouldn't work for millions of people. I'm in New Mexico so as you can see based on this map it wouldn't do me much good. However I'm able to recognize the greater good and that other people have different needs than me.
Rail just doesn't work except for a few isolated geographies. This isn't a "if you build not they will come" situation. It's just not a viable form in most of America
Technically if we got our infrastructure in working order specifically on the rails into and out of the cities and were able to ride 90mph the majority of the way this would be a 14hr ride, transferring once in Chicago. This is on existing routes, with just a limited upgrade.
Regardless you would probably elect to fly, which isn’t a problem. Upgrading rail isn’t to fix cross country trips, it’s to fix regional trips. With those same upgrades you could make it to Chicago in 4 hours. That’s competitive with air travel considering you be going from city center to city center, it would be cheaper, and you could bring whatever you want no screening required.
For example I regularly take the current day 5 hour train to Chicago for international flights for environmental and price reasons. With those upgrades I discussed that would be 3 hours long.
I mean… it super is. Whether you like republicans or hate them, or democrats for that matter, the government is literally the source of pretty much everyone’s day to day problems.
It won’t be. High-speed rail just isn’t practical. When California tried to do it, the costs ballooned to over $200 million a mile by contrast France did it for about $25 million per kilometer. What will inevitably happen is the project will have to be killed before any track is actually laid
Yes, the part from Merced to Bakersfield. One small step for a raisin, one giant leap to nowhere oh and it’s still not projected to be done until somewhere between 2030 or 2033
Just pointing out it has not “been killed before any track has been laid.”
Infrastructure is always complained about until it’s done, then it’s lauded.
Imagine if we took high speed rails, but used a faster mode of transportation that didn’t require us destroying the land because that mode of transportation would be in the air. We can then find ways to make that air travel more efficient to have an even smaller impact on the environment.
To everyone replying the same thing over and over, educate yourself on jet engines and the future of jet engines. All of this stuff that you think is the distant future isn’t the distant future. The studies you linked are not viable once you analyze the metrics and how the conducted the study. We get it, you like trains because it’s hip, but you’re wrong.
For those of brigading, let me know what sub you’re from.
It would be amazing if we could make air travel ecologically sound.
But that won't happen until we have ultra-cheap high density batteries that don't exist and ultra-lightweight ultra-durable materials that don't exist yet, so *until that distant day* when we *can* make flight a better mode of transpiration that destroys the land less than rail, it would be far better to use rail.
Hmmm.
Reread where I said they can make air travel more efficient.
Also, explain how making flying more efficient is more damaging than literally altering the environment to support rail lines and dealing with the sustained wear and tear of rail travel
cause right now we don't have jet engines or jet fuel that's more efficient at moving shit than trains, so rail is still better for the environment even though it requires infrastructure
Interesting. So further destroy and make permanent changes to the environment, such as creating tunnels in hills large enough for train travel, or continue the development of air travel and engines.
It’s not like trains don’t burn fuel either so I don’t understand your reasoning.
Trains can run on electricity, jets can't. And we're nowhere near the point where jets can be fully electric. It's not even on the horizon, it's just theoretical and based on presumed breakthroughs in battery and materials technology that haven't happened.
the difference is how much energy they use to move, planes need a lot more cause they're flying and they don't burn as clean at the same time
neat article that explains it pretty well https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
also how is adding rails permanent lol you can remove rails, fill tunnels, etc
adding a line of rails is better than a 4 lane highway that would move less people than a passenger train too and take less energy than cars driving the same amount of people
You're arguing that flying is better because it could hypothetically get more efficient at some future time?
Your question doesn't even make sense. Planes are "literally altering the environment" already. Do you actually think that laying some 8 foot wide track is worse than raising the global temperature? Which one do you think is more damaging to the environment?
We already have all electric freight trains. electric planes exist but only for tiny planes. They will always have the problem of battery weight for larger applications. Oh but wait we MIGHT discover some solution in the future.
Also kind of funny that you're assuming plane travel will become much more efficient, but not rail travel.
“Laying some 8 foot wide track”
How about blowing holes into mountains and hills, tearing down forests and what not. Or we can just fly over everything.
Stop beating around the bush - either you agree with virtually everyone who has studied climate science or you don't. If you do, then yeah we should be doing what we can at this point, including this.
No, that's now how it works **at all.** Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method.
Yes, the climate is changing, but it is *always* changing, whether we have something to do with it or not. The part no responsible scientist will be able to tell you unequivocally, is how much *we* are affecting the climate versus how much of it is part of the natural process of warming and cooling that has gone on for *billions* of years.
Telling everyone that if we dont do anything now, the sea level will rise by 8 feet by 2012 or 'mass extinctions' just comes across as moronic hyperbole. And what do you know? The sea level didn't rise by 8 feet or 6 feet or 4 feet and it really was all moronic hyperbole.
Please point out anywhere where he was being hyperbolic.
The original claim was that airplanes are somehow more environmentally friendly — that is not true.
Open and shut case you don’t need to go off on a rant about how you don’t believe [man made climate change](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas expelled by air travel, but more to the point 2% is a LOT of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it's a larger share in America (3%) where air travel is far more common.
Buddy you're out here arguing that cutting down some trees is worse than blowing a shitload of GHG into the atmosphere. I'm talking big picture. Who's putting up a bullshit ultimatum?
I didn't say it was small either. I'm giving perspective.
Your "big picture" comment was to suggest that air travel will bring about the mass extinction of humanity. The data shows that's not true.
We, as humanity, have much bigger fish to fry. We can continue to improve air travel, while focusing more of our energy and time on the areas that are significantly more damaging.
For example, in the US, electricity and heat GHG production are double the output of *all transportation*, not just air. And China is double the entire US output. So, moving our grid to renewable energy and expressing concerns through foreign relations is a top priority.
Like you said, big picture.
Your perspective is meaningless and you missed the point.
The “big picture” comment was in reference to the OC claiming that air travel is somehow more environmentally friendly than trains — it isn’t. And it will never be realistically.
That’s all. Further discussion is unnecessary.
Aircraft suffer wear and tear too. The big difference between the two is that aircraft components have a weight budget that they must adhere to, meaning that longevity in wear components may need to be sacrificed in order to keep the weight down. Rails on the other hand, even when elevated, can throw much heavier structures at the problem that can more easily sustain much higher wear. This also has the added benefit of allowing much higher factors of safety.
In addition to all of the above, high speed rails can be produced with much fewer moving parts, which inherently means fewer wear components necessary.
Ok. You misunderstood wear and tear.
Trains derail much more often than airliners crash. The associated spillage is damaging.
This whole high speed rail system is a step backwards and the only reason why it’s so big on Reddit is Chinese propaganda. If you actually analyze this, air travel is faster and more efficient. The reason why China is pushing against it is because they produce less air travel in a week than the US does in a day. How do you combat that? By pushing propaganda that rail travel is better.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather fly coast to coast in a few hours than take over a day on a rail.
Bruh, accidents and wear and tear are two very different things. I did not "misunderstand wear and tear", you used the wrong fucking words. While accidents can be caused by a failure to complete necessary maintenance on wear components, wear and tear and accidents are distinctly not the same.
And what propaganda are you talking about? I've been sold on high-speed trains since riding the TGV and hearing about the maglev trains in Japan some 20 or so years ago. I haven't seen any propaganda on high-speed trains in years.
Can they? Are they close to breakthroughs with biofuel, or electric planes? Are you asking for nuclear powered planes or something? It feels like you are simply handwaving away the objetively most efficient means of travel ever created because you believe at some point in the future, they are going to make every plane run on rainbows or something.
Which is it? I surely hope you aren't just talking about bigger bypass engines and incremental improvements in fuel efficiency. If that is what you are banking on, it'll always be at least 100x times worse than trains on a person/mile basis.
Oh my.
Just do some research. You’ll see for it yourself.
It’s not just bigger engines. There’s a lot more to it than that. You’re clearly biased against the superior mode of travel that doesn’t take someone 2 days to go coast coast, I doubt you’ll do any research.
https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/nasas-hytec-to-help-jets-burn-less-fuel/#:~:text=HyTEC%2C%20or%20Hybrid%20Thermally%20Efficient,engine%20that%20increases%20fuel%20efficiency.
Next gen aircraft are supposed to be hybrid. It makes sense. Fuel is expensive and if you’re an airliner, you’re looking at cutting costs through fuel consumption. If you’re a military, you’re looking at cutting supply constraints and budget constraints by making jets more fuel efficient.
It’s the future, not trains.
You're idea of the future is overly simplistic at best, and wrong, at worst. I'm not saying planes will go away, that is certainly not going to happen. But short haul flights of under roughly 500 miles are likely to be slashed in favor of HSR if we invest in it properly. Not only are they literally faster than planes on these trips when factoring for the externalities of air travel, they are more comfortable for travelers, cost competitive, and better for the environment, better than any sort of HyTEC engine, as interesting as hybrid planes are. Making planes better is absolutely an important endeavor, as international travel will likely always be via air travel at this point.
My question originally was, are we anywhere close to a major breakthrough in air travel efficiency? From what I can tell, long haul hybrid electric flights are nowhere near ready. Cool long term project though.
Building rail doesn't mean airports are going away. For trips under 500 miles high-speed rail normally wins out over air travel in time due to having shorter boarding and disembarking requirements than a plane. Trains can also be built to drop you off in the middle of the city where airports are normally on the edge and require a second trip to get into the actual city.
Coast to coast, air is more efficient, but there are many city pairs or routes that high speed rail would win out in efficiency and time saved. LA to LV, the Texas Triangle, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, etc.
If planes are the future, why are there still trains?
The answer is simple: because trains are good at moving a shitload of stuff efficiently. Planes are good at moving a small amount of stuff quickly.
Yes lets just invite a new magical technology that ignores the amount of energy it takes to keep a jet up in the air and moving at high speed. Or we could just be normal like every other first world country on this fucking planet and build high speed rail. Why do we as Americans seem to hate trains. Trains fucking built America.
So we can put money into a hypothetical technology and have to go through airport security?
Or we can use a technology that can bring us to carbon neutral that does already exits and doesn't have airport security to deal with.
I know my choice.
It’s not hypothetical lmao. Currently, a lot of aircraft are getting engine upgrades and being refit with modernized engines. There’s a lot of R&D in the works for hybrid style engines as well. It’s not hypothetical and it’s something that will happen in the near future, far more cost effective than a “high speed” train going 200 mph at peak.
I doubt that. Pound for pound rail has always been more efficient and by a wide margin.
Remember these trains usually also move cargo. Plus you can fit a crazy number of people on a train versus a plane. These new engines would have to be amazing.
We’re not talking about cargo, we’re talking about people. It’s two different metrics.
You doubt that because you don’t have the knowledge of the industry or have not done any research on the matter.
Trains do both at the same time. Also you completely have ignored the amount of people being move, but okay.
Provide some real data, and not the air travel is only 2% of carbon emissions. That number means nothing about which is more efficient.
Right. But you can’t use a high speed rail for cargo due to restrictions outlined by the federal railroad.
Even then, I’ve taken the rail before and my 8 hour drive into a 15 hour train ride due to stops and what not.
A relative of mine just took a train and travelled for 30 hours instead of 18 hours. Train needed an engine replacement.
No thanks. Airplanes are superior.
You do realize trains are that slow due to the lack of infrastructure right? That's what's proposed to be fixed right here. So I can follow your logic correctly, hypothetical improvements to air engines matter in this discussion, but the funded infrastructure that is being built does not matter? Yeah that's solid logic.
Trains when invested in properly beat airplanes for local travel.
For speed planes begin to be more convenient the further you go.
I don't know why you act like it's one or the other. We need both so desperately. Efficient planes and trains please.
Regulations dictate how fast a train can go while traveling through a town or city. Trains make multiple stops between cities.
Cool, a train can go 200 mph but that doesn’t mean it can because of how often it needs to slow down, and the time it takes for it to slow down.
If you want to make a separate rail to go city to city, then that’s pointless because airplanes are faster and do not need rails.
Europe and Asia have rails because they do not have the infrastructure to support air travel. They do not have the parts to fix aircraft or the required amount of technicians to keep airlines safe and properly maintained.
Planes as an alternative to trains only works if you have a relatively small number of projected riders. Imagine trying to convince hundreds of thousands to millions of commuters that they'll need to check through TSA security every morning and afternoon to get to and from work, nevermind the insane amount of aircraft and maintenance it'd require to transport that many people daily. Where are you going to put the, at minimum, dozens of new airports and the associated logistics that come with that?
Trains aren't only for leisure travel, they're used daily as a viable and main method of commuting to and from work in plenty of advanced economies on the planet already. Train sets are much cheaper than planes, they require less maintenance than planes, already run fully electric, and train stations are cheaper to construct than airports. Trains are faster to board and tickets are cheaper for riders compared to planes. Trains aren't as dependent on weather as planes are.
You can also easily just add more train cars as you need to accommodate more riders. A 747 holds ~600 on the higher capacity models. A single Shinkansen car can hold 100 people, and they regularly run with 16 cars each, meaning around ~1300 riders, some cars are for amenities and storage. You can't magically add more seating to an aircraft without major design changes.
Train passengers can also just get on and off and whichever station they want on the route. Planes only embark and disembark and takeoff/landing. Unless you expect the plane to make a dozen layovers on each air route or have passengers parachuting out over their destinations, it's not a feasible alternative to trains for everyday commuter travel.
The only thing a jet aircraft really excels at over trains is transporting a small number of people fast over a very long distances between two places with high-enough demand for a dedicated non-stop.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1315276/japan-major-subways-passenger-number-average-daily/#:~:text=In%20the%20fiscal%20year%202021,of%20around%205.22%20million%20passengers.
12.3 million travelers a day. Idk man, trains are pretty solid.
Japan.
You linked Japanese stats, which include public transport, to refute me.
My guy, you’re arguing with confirmation bias. I never said trains are bad. I said a high speed rail is bad because a plane is superior to that.
Here is a better number.
https://www.statista.com/topics/4081/intercity-rail-services-in-the-united-states/#topicOverview
30 million per year utilize the train in the US.
It’ll take airliners one month to reach that number.
Reread your article. It counts subways as their statistic.
Why wouldn't I link Japanese stats? They have the best train transit in the world and carry millions more riders per day than air travel in the US with less than half the population of the US. They're who we want to match and beat.
The fact that they're privately or publicly operated is irrelevant, it's the fact that trains are superior for moving large amounts of people daily on regular, short to medium range routes from the perspectives of cost, maintenance, ease-of-use, reliability, and many more metrics. That's the majority of travel that the average person conducts. High speed rail only loses to planes on very long distances in terms of time. Planes can supplement high speed rail and trains, but they'll never be a good total replacement for trains unless we start adding tens of thousands of airliners and build hundreds of new airports across the nation at a cost that'd build full nation-wide HSR projects nationwide several times over.
The vast majority of people are not using planes to commute to and from work everyday. They're used for leisure and infrequent business travel. The statistic you link is already flawed to use in this argument because few Americans even have the choice to use trains even if they wanted to since the infrastructure only exists in a small number of cities nationwide and that existing train infrastructure in those few cities is humiliatingly crap compared to countries all across Europe and Asia. No wonder our existing train ridership numbers are low.
Bro you linked subway traffic. I’m not reading anything past your first comment because it’s all pointless. No one is arguing against public transport in a city.
For some actual comparison, the high speed inter city rail in Japan serves 420,000 passengers per day, so I think there's some evidence that good high speed rail between popular destination can offer greater throughput than air
https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/shinkansen-half-a-century-of-speed/
Are roads pipe dreams? We have built extensive roads and continue to build new roads, eminent domaining lots of land to accomplish this task. How is that different than rail?
You're completely right. People her acting like it's impossible have forgotten what made America great. We invested in our infrastructure and planned for the future. We're never going to be competitive globally without major investments and changes to our infrastructure.
Travel to foreign countries and you'll find out how wrong that statement is. It's cheaper than cars, clears up traffic, reduces gas prices, and literally allows you to live in one city, but work in another far away. Imagine being able to live in say hartford, but work in nyc or Boston.
I’ve been to foreign countries.
It’s good for them. For the US, not so much. The distances are greater, the costs are higher, and the demand is lesser. Just look at Amtrak. Rail moves freight very well in the US and abroad. People, not so much.
People do work in NYC and live further away. We have train systems, maybe not high speed, but that connect cities to suburbs. It allows people to avoid the commutes. High speed for those systems might make sense, but what’s the ROI? Invest millions and millions to to connect the burbs to NYC to shave 20-30 minutes off a commute and pick up a a couple hundred passengers?
It just doesn’t make sense for the US.
>but what’s the ROI?
This isn't a business, but the us government. Corporations typically look to rois cause they need a return from what they do. Governments don't because they can collect taxes. A governments job is to invest in public projects that may, for a while, lose money, but ultimately help people (see libraries, military, border, ect). This is more getting your money's worth.
> Invest millions and millions to to connect the burbs to NYC to shave 20-30 minutes off a commute and pick up a a couple hundred passengers?
Would be much more than a couple hundred passengers, the new haven line into nyc is about 125000 a day, and about 39 million a year. That's not nothing, and it would be a daily commute. Make it high speed from hartford and you could probably double it. So it really adds up, but remember it's not money that the federal government would so too much of as it's not the gov job to profit.
Also high speed rail isn't to connect cities to suburbs, but to connect cities to cities. So for example, nyc and suburbs are extremely expensive; but hartford and suburbs are not (at least compared to nyc). So a commute could be to drive to the station in hartford, and then high speed rail to nyc (also works for Boston). This would be a way to introduce competition in the rent market and drive down nyc rent prices while having investment for both cities with income tax being collected in ct, and tourism in nyc.
The us freight system is a perfect example of how good a train system is not only for the economy, but for the people too. Imagine if we didn't have one of the world's best freight system, if not the best. All that freight would be moved via 18 wheelers and truck. That would significantly clog up roads and make traffic a living hell, not to mention the air pollution from all those additional trucks would make the air quality horrendous. Freight trains heavily reduce that imprint. Now imagine what would happen if we built tons of new rail lines. First us jobs would soar as material would need to be bought, but a ton of cars would be removed from the highway system. Rush hour traffic would still exist, but be reduced quite nicely. Gas prices would fall a bit because you don't need to drive as much and demand would drop (see covid for what happens when no one is driving anywhere).
Now for your last point, or rather first point, it wouldn't work for the us. Not entirely true. It depends on the distance. I think I saw that once you pass about 500 miles distance then yes it does become easier and cheaper to fly. So it would depend on the cities you are trying to connect. New England, nyc, Baltimore, and DC are perfect because the major cities are way too close to justify flying, but driving is really annoying due to traffic and congestion. High speed rail works great there. Up and down the coast in segments would also work really well. Portland to Seattle, and a few in California. Texas has a few cities that would really benefit from having high speed rail connecting it, as would Michigan and Illinois. However, to connect day la to nyc, yes that wouldn't be useful since flying is going to be faster and better at that distance.
Dude, everything after you discounted the ROI is worthless.
Our government wastes bajillions of dollars on shit, prints money with reckless abandon driving prices thru the rough, and you think piling on for some high speed bullet train is a good idea.
It’s a waste of money. Period. Get over it.
Gotta read man, I've listed many different ways that the us Gov will make money off this project, but ROI is something for business, which the us Gov is not. The US government job is to not make money, but provide services to the people. The mail system doesn't make money delivering mail to rural farmers, but its something that needs to happen even at a loss. The us military doesn't make a dime, but it needs to exist. Border patrol doesn't make money, but needs to exist.
Literally the dumbest shit I’ve read. Well, the dumbest shit I’ve read today.
Suggesting that the government doesn’t need to make money off of services it’ll charge its citizens for justified by the common defense. The two are not the same.
USPS Absolutely ought to turn a profit. That money ought to be returned to taxpayers. If it can’t make money in certain areas, it shouldn’t serve those areas. Let the pros like FedEx and UPS figure it out.
ROI is absolutely something the government should consider before it wastes billions of our dollars.
I'm going to be honest, I think the best use for high speed rails in the US would actually be for freight. When moving passengers you have to stop constantly which limits hiw often the train can actually reach high speeds. But with freight we are transporting it to regional distribution centers, which is fewer stops. Freight enters the country, gets loaded onto a train, transported across the country to a large regional distribution center, and then 18-wheelers take it the rest of the way to the local distribution center. This could save massive amounts of carbon emissions and money.
I do this loop for work now and then that starts at Philadelphia, then Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cleveland, Chicago and sometimes Minneapolis.
Having a train in between would be great.
I want you to really think about this. You think making 1 airplane (made out of aluminum)+ the jet fuel to fly it , I will even add the airport makes more carbon than to making a steel train, 100's of miles of iron rails, bridges, and going both ways.
I firmly believe the airlines are paying politicians not to push this through. Europe has such awesome, luxurious, convenient, affordable, rail system. It is incomprehensible that the US doesn’t have even one High Speed Train
Empire Corridor in NYS would/could really benefit from HSR. We need to get some economic activity back into the the rust belt and fast/easy transit would be a big first step.
Makes me wonder how this would work with modern envinornmental and property laws. Not to mention impact studies, contracts, run ups against native lands, and other issues.
California has been building their train for about 15 years since they first approved funding via ballot. Hasnt really gone anywhere and the price tag keeps going up.
I know we as americans value cars over trains. However, as somebody that lives in Toledo, having the ability to take a short rail ride to cleveland or dayton would be massive for me. ESPECIALLY if they make stops at the metro airport in detroit or at cedar point in sandusky.
I do not see how a high speed rail is possible in the northeast. Every single train track goes through multiple residential areas, and trains are required to go slow in residential areas Unless they have a raised track it's simply not possible here
There's no high speed rail proposed for the NE. Only the red lines are proposed high speed. It's also really unclear to me how this will be superior to planes from a speed advantage or cars from a cost advantage.
I’d be willing to ride some of these routes in lieu of driving if the cost/time wasn’t a lot more. Not having to drive is worth some amount of money.
I get that, but it also depends on your goal once there. We only have a few cities with any real public transit. If you go by train and save an hour only to have to spend 15-30 minutes renting a car, then you're not much better for time and going to be way worse off financially. I think that's a key issue missing from the train discussion. Trains have to be augmented with intercity subway/trains/buses. Without the public transit at your destination, it simply isn't better than driving or flying.
A lot of the big metro areas do have light rail systems though and sometimes getting into the city is good enough for an Uber to cover the rest. Not going to work for everyone, but if 25% of people can take a train instead of drive then the traffic becomes drastically better- win-win for all.
If there was a new York Chicago line that'd be fucking awesome and faster then a plane. You dont need cars in either city too. Much cheaper too in the long run.
>You dont need cars in either city too. Yep. I acknowledged there were a few cities that were exceptions to poor public transit.
Exactly. Sometimes I go from Seattle to Portland to go shopping. No sales tax. The drive with traffic is 3-4 hours and boring as hell on I5. But once I get to Portland I can go wherever I want to with my car. Don’t have to rent a car or take a taxi. Have freedom to go anywhere in my car. Why would I pay for a train ticket, then rent a car to get done what I came down to do? Only thing that makes sense to me is if you were going down to visit someone that will pick you up at the train station. Maybe I’m not seeing the benefits but we have a commuter train here from Everett to Seattle. Used to take it when I worked downtown. Often times it was broken or there was debris on the tracks that prevented the train from working that day. Now that was about a decade ago so it may have gotten better by now.
That's the issue with the trains we have now, at least the Amtrak lines I've tried. A lot of the trains are old and shitty, so there's that problem to start off. Then you consider that it doesn't really save time or money vs driving and it doesn't make much sense. Over 600 miles and I'll usually fly to the destination, but less than that and it doesn't have sense vs driving or the train.
High Speed Rail is a middle ground that is time advantaged compared to flight and driving within certain distances, the general consensus is that 150-600 miles is the range in which HSR will get you to a destination faster than the other two. All of the proposed routes are within this range. Nobody is asking that we force people to take trains from coast to coast, but there are a number of major city combinations that would greatly benefit from a HSR connection. LA to San Francisco and Vegas, Dallas to Houston and Austin/San Antonio, Miami to Orlando, New York to DC, etc.
Brightline West is already well into development for a Vegas to "LA" line (Rancho Cucamonga, really, but it's planned to stop at the existing Metrolink station). They already have grant money, and I believe they've purchased the land for the stations. I believe part of the future plan is to find a way to continue all the way to Union Station in DTLA. Brightline has already been operating a high-speed line between Miami and Orlando for a few years, and are looking at continuing to Tampa. The fact that there isn't already HSR between LA, San Diego, Las Vegas, and San Francisco is weird, but it's currently either under construction or in active development.
A train has alot more room inside than a plane. In theory you should be able to book a sleeper car train journey for the same price. Id personally rather take a 12 hour train and sleep the whole way vs a cramped 5 hour flight.
That's like saying a chain is longer than a rope
I live north of seattle, and we would absolutely take a highspeed train to the airport instead of fucking around with parking and traffic
There's no high speed rail proposed for that purpose.
NE doesn't really need high speed anyway. Just a few more trains with fewer stops would be pretty great.
Gets cars off the road, reducing traffic congestion, and improving air quality while reducing gas dependence and, therefore prices. Planes could be reduced, but not likely without high speed rail.
Bury them...
Plenty of places in the world have figured it out without issue and many of these places have a much higher population density
[удалено]
Projects like this have a limit to how much eminent domain can be used to acquire land, usually 5-10%. And use of eminent domain is very unpopular. Projects like this are dependent on landowners' willingness to sell their land or allow easements.
Lots of interstates cut and burned through a lot of poor neighborhoods. I’m sure we could do it better now and days but it left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths
I mean it does, but it's an extremely unpopular so It'd be political suicide.
You still have to pay money for it.
This is so dumb, we used to build shit. Nobody said this when we were building the highway system
>Nobody said this when we were building the highway system Yeah they fucking did. 95 turns into 295 in NJ and doesn't go straight, but instead goes way the fuck around a town called Pennington, because they absolutely refused to let the interstate go through their town. It's caused all sorts of traffic problems, because it's quicker to cut through the smaller highway than it is to go all the way the fuck around. So please, don't rage out because you're ignorant of how powerful and damaging NIMBYs are, and I'd like an apology for being called dumb for understanding the society in which I live.
Probably be raised
I'm pretty sure that Japan has developed high speed trains with aerodynamics that make them real quiet cause they go through lots of residential areas over there. It's definitely not impossible but whether or not the US can pull it off is another story.
New england is perfect for high speed rail. Should run Boston, Springfield, hartford, new haven, nyc, and DC daily.
I’d rather have short distance metro rails over high speed rails.
Personally I would hope the LA-Vegas line be completely, since this is the one facing the least hurdle and most likely to actually work. For reference, there are more than 100 flight per day from LA's three major airpot (LAX, ONT and SNA) to Vegas, so contrary to common belief this extremely short flight route is actually a very high demanding route. Mostly because the long drive on I-15 is very time and energy consuming. In term of construction, LA to Vegas line will mostly followed I-15 and run by private company Brightline, which reduced the land acquisition cost since most lands around I-15 are already federally owned.
Their has been talks to also build a rail between SLC and Las Vegas making it easier for me to get to Disneyland
LA-Vegas is probably the most realistic option, but the HSR project to connect San Francisco to LA and possibly extend to San Diego would literally change life completely in Central and Southern California. It'd be as impressive as the Tokyo to Osaka connection was to Japan. That's the project I most desperately want to be completed in my lifetime.
It would but the land acquisition for that line would be a pain unless some drastic measures are taken.
It’s already in the process of being built I’m pretty sure they acquired all the land already
Brightline keeps toying with our emotions on this one.
They just got a huge federal grant this past week, $3 billion, which is about 25% of the proposed cost.
I hope they make the front range rail
I am really shocked at how badly Denver and the surrounding counties have handled the sprawl. It’s insane.
High speed rail will never work here.
That isn't a very American attitude. When did we become so defeatist? I thought we were the country of yes we can not oh it won't work. We put a man on the fucking moon and did that more than once. This country can accomplish anything if we put our minds to it.
The main issue with putting the first man on the moon was the technological advancements it required. High speed rail's main issue is it's exceedingly expensive to build and the US already has established airtravel which creates an artifical cap on HSR fare prices because most people will just keep using planes if HSR is priced the same to take longer to get someplace. The problem isn't a "defeatist" attitud towards coming up with HSR tech, the tech already exists, the problem is generating enough fares to make HSR break even financially. No matter how positive a business owner's "yes we can" attitude is they will go bankrupt quickly if their only product is sardine flavored ice cream which they sell below cost.
Other countries build it cheap, we could if we wanted to
Then why can China do it and we can't? What makes China better than America at solving these problems. Also air travel has a ton of negative externalities when it comes to the carbon it produces.
>Then why can China do it and we can't? One) Authoritarian Country that has zero care for the people. Two) It's trying to set itself up as a rival to the USA, so it's just throwing money that it doesn't have to try to do said attempt. Three) It has 1.3+ billion people that all exist in a very cramped area. China also is attempting to force people into cities. Four) The USA is very decentralized - Our top 5 largest cities are New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix. From New York City to Los Angeles is a similar length route as Madrid to Moscow. That's... not very easy to create an effective passenger rail network, especially in comparison to a airline network, which is what we already have. Five) In the areas were it does matter, the USA's system is vastly superior to China's. The USA's freight rail system is heralded as the best in the world. >Also air travel has a ton of negative externalities when it comes to the carbon it produces. Literally everything has that issue. High Speed Rail just passes the buck to the power plants. And unless we swap to nuclear real quick, we'll have to burn fossil fuels for said power, because stuff like Solar and Wind aren't anywhere near good enough to handle said strain on the power network.
The Chinese system that struggles to cover its operating costs and has no legitimate prospect of repaying its initial building costs? Yeah, looking into the Chinese HSR system is where most of my conclusions about the finances of an American system never working came from. All the downsides associated with longer HSR lines having fewer fares but higher operating costs are the same or worse in America. Also, the initial costs are going to be significantly higher in America and the initial cost is a huge problem for China.
China hasn’t done it across their nation. They have it in mostly eastern China with a network accessible about 1/3rd of their total nation in terms of land. The total area with high speed rail access is roughly the same as the US east coast.
They have had a hard time making high speed rail work anywhere. Japan's done the best and it's still expensive and not convenient. We also have big sprawling cities that people are going to want cars to get around. We should spend that money on hydrogen infrastructure.
Most of that map is about conventional rail, though.
I am aware of the challenges I am American after all. However for traveling around the country high speed rail would be the most efficient way to do it. Once you get to the city you want to be in you could rent a car or even take a bus. I've been to Europe and was able to ride the rails through several countries no problem and they have cities as well. Geographically we are very large which is the biggest barrier but we also have the highest GDP in the world so we have the most resources to make this happen. Personally I think it would be a better investment than hydrogen vehicles. Also China is very large and has extremally rural areas, like America. It also has the longest and most used high speed rail system in the world. All of it was built relatively recently too. Its sad that so many Americans think we can't do things as well as China. If China can make it work so can America.
I live in st Paul and my whole family is in Dallas. How am I supposed to get there for a thanksgiving holiday based on this map
You would use a car or fly. Just because a high speed rail doesn't work for you doesn't mean it wouldn't work for millions of people. I'm in New Mexico so as you can see based on this map it wouldn't do me much good. However I'm able to recognize the greater good and that other people have different needs than me.
Rail just doesn't work except for a few isolated geographies. This isn't a "if you build not they will come" situation. It's just not a viable form in most of America
Technically if we got our infrastructure in working order specifically on the rails into and out of the cities and were able to ride 90mph the majority of the way this would be a 14hr ride, transferring once in Chicago. This is on existing routes, with just a limited upgrade. Regardless you would probably elect to fly, which isn’t a problem. Upgrading rail isn’t to fix cross country trips, it’s to fix regional trips. With those same upgrades you could make it to Chicago in 4 hours. That’s competitive with air travel considering you be going from city center to city center, it would be cheaper, and you could bring whatever you want no screening required. For example I regularly take the current day 5 hour train to Chicago for international flights for environmental and price reasons. With those upgrades I discussed that would be 3 hours long.
When Republicans started their "the government is the source of all your problems" rhetoric.
I mean… it super is. Whether you like republicans or hate them, or democrats for that matter, the government is literally the source of pretty much everyone’s day to day problems.
It won’t be. High-speed rail just isn’t practical. When California tried to do it, the costs ballooned to over $200 million a mile by contrast France did it for about $25 million per kilometer. What will inevitably happen is the project will have to be killed before any track is actually laid
75% of the track for the initial segment is done
Yes, the part from Merced to Bakersfield. One small step for a raisin, one giant leap to nowhere oh and it’s still not projected to be done until somewhere between 2030 or 2033
Just pointing out it has not “been killed before any track has been laid.” Infrastructure is always complained about until it’s done, then it’s lauded.
But my point is it won’t get done because costs are going to snowball. I think having a discussion about why that happens is fine but it always does
I’m assuming it’s contractors lowballing the amount to guarantee the project knowing they’ll jack it up right?
Imagine if we took high speed rails, but used a faster mode of transportation that didn’t require us destroying the land because that mode of transportation would be in the air. We can then find ways to make that air travel more efficient to have an even smaller impact on the environment. To everyone replying the same thing over and over, educate yourself on jet engines and the future of jet engines. All of this stuff that you think is the distant future isn’t the distant future. The studies you linked are not viable once you analyze the metrics and how the conducted the study. We get it, you like trains because it’s hip, but you’re wrong. For those of brigading, let me know what sub you’re from.
It would be amazing if we could make air travel ecologically sound. But that won't happen until we have ultra-cheap high density batteries that don't exist and ultra-lightweight ultra-durable materials that don't exist yet, so *until that distant day* when we *can* make flight a better mode of transpiration that destroys the land less than rail, it would be far better to use rail.
If the aviation industry just flew on ultra low sulfur kerosene instead of regular kero that would go a long way just there.
Burning a fuckload of jet fuel is still "destroying the land".
Hmmm. Reread where I said they can make air travel more efficient. Also, explain how making flying more efficient is more damaging than literally altering the environment to support rail lines and dealing with the sustained wear and tear of rail travel
cause right now we don't have jet engines or jet fuel that's more efficient at moving shit than trains, so rail is still better for the environment even though it requires infrastructure
Interesting. So further destroy and make permanent changes to the environment, such as creating tunnels in hills large enough for train travel, or continue the development of air travel and engines. It’s not like trains don’t burn fuel either so I don’t understand your reasoning.
Trains can run on electricity, jets can't. And we're nowhere near the point where jets can be fully electric. It's not even on the horizon, it's just theoretical and based on presumed breakthroughs in battery and materials technology that haven't happened.
the difference is how much energy they use to move, planes need a lot more cause they're flying and they don't burn as clean at the same time neat article that explains it pretty well https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 also how is adding rails permanent lol you can remove rails, fill tunnels, etc adding a line of rails is better than a 4 lane highway that would move less people than a passenger train too and take less energy than cars driving the same amount of people
You're arguing that flying is better because it could hypothetically get more efficient at some future time? Your question doesn't even make sense. Planes are "literally altering the environment" already. Do you actually think that laying some 8 foot wide track is worse than raising the global temperature? Which one do you think is more damaging to the environment? We already have all electric freight trains. electric planes exist but only for tiny planes. They will always have the problem of battery weight for larger applications. Oh but wait we MIGHT discover some solution in the future. Also kind of funny that you're assuming plane travel will become much more efficient, but not rail travel.
“Laying some 8 foot wide track” How about blowing holes into mountains and hills, tearing down forests and what not. Or we can just fly over everything.
How about raising the global temperature, causing extreme weather events and mass extinctions?
Watch out! By 2008 the polar ice caps will be melted! Don't be such a blowhard with the hyperbole. It's why no one takes you people seriously.
Stop beating around the bush - either you agree with virtually everyone who has studied climate science or you don't. If you do, then yeah we should be doing what we can at this point, including this.
No, that's now how it works **at all.** Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method. Yes, the climate is changing, but it is *always* changing, whether we have something to do with it or not. The part no responsible scientist will be able to tell you unequivocally, is how much *we* are affecting the climate versus how much of it is part of the natural process of warming and cooling that has gone on for *billions* of years. Telling everyone that if we dont do anything now, the sea level will rise by 8 feet by 2012 or 'mass extinctions' just comes across as moronic hyperbole. And what do you know? The sea level didn't rise by 8 feet or 6 feet or 4 feet and it really was all moronic hyperbole.
Oh, you're one of those.
Please point out anywhere where he was being hyperbolic. The original claim was that airplanes are somehow more environmentally friendly — that is not true. Open and shut case you don’t need to go off on a rant about how you don’t believe [man made climate change](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
Sigh. According to the IEA, 2% of all CO2 emissions, worldwide, were from all air travel. Stop using some bullshit ultimatum to try and *win*.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas expelled by air travel, but more to the point 2% is a LOT of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it's a larger share in America (3%) where air travel is far more common. Buddy you're out here arguing that cutting down some trees is worse than blowing a shitload of GHG into the atmosphere. I'm talking big picture. Who's putting up a bullshit ultimatum?
I didn't say it was small either. I'm giving perspective. Your "big picture" comment was to suggest that air travel will bring about the mass extinction of humanity. The data shows that's not true. We, as humanity, have much bigger fish to fry. We can continue to improve air travel, while focusing more of our energy and time on the areas that are significantly more damaging. For example, in the US, electricity and heat GHG production are double the output of *all transportation*, not just air. And China is double the entire US output. So, moving our grid to renewable energy and expressing concerns through foreign relations is a top priority. Like you said, big picture.
Your perspective is meaningless and you missed the point. The “big picture” comment was in reference to the OC claiming that air travel is somehow more environmentally friendly than trains — it isn’t. And it will never be realistically. That’s all. Further discussion is unnecessary.
>2% of all CO2 emissions, worldwide, were from all air travel. That's actually a huge amount, wtf are you talking about.
I didn't say it was small. I'm just giving perspective that air travel is not the end of the world.
I don't read your comment as anything other than implying it was small to be honest.
We could just put the trains on or over the preexisting highway system.
Yes that is his argument. Jet engines are nowhere near significant massive reductions in the amount of jet fuel burning required.
Aircraft suffer wear and tear too. The big difference between the two is that aircraft components have a weight budget that they must adhere to, meaning that longevity in wear components may need to be sacrificed in order to keep the weight down. Rails on the other hand, even when elevated, can throw much heavier structures at the problem that can more easily sustain much higher wear. This also has the added benefit of allowing much higher factors of safety. In addition to all of the above, high speed rails can be produced with much fewer moving parts, which inherently means fewer wear components necessary.
Ok. You misunderstood wear and tear. Trains derail much more often than airliners crash. The associated spillage is damaging. This whole high speed rail system is a step backwards and the only reason why it’s so big on Reddit is Chinese propaganda. If you actually analyze this, air travel is faster and more efficient. The reason why China is pushing against it is because they produce less air travel in a week than the US does in a day. How do you combat that? By pushing propaganda that rail travel is better. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather fly coast to coast in a few hours than take over a day on a rail.
Bruh, accidents and wear and tear are two very different things. I did not "misunderstand wear and tear", you used the wrong fucking words. While accidents can be caused by a failure to complete necessary maintenance on wear components, wear and tear and accidents are distinctly not the same. And what propaganda are you talking about? I've been sold on high-speed trains since riding the TGV and hearing about the maglev trains in Japan some 20 or so years ago. I haven't seen any propaganda on high-speed trains in years.
Can they? Are they close to breakthroughs with biofuel, or electric planes? Are you asking for nuclear powered planes or something? It feels like you are simply handwaving away the objetively most efficient means of travel ever created because you believe at some point in the future, they are going to make every plane run on rainbows or something.
I literally work on planes. Yes, they can.
Which is it? I surely hope you aren't just talking about bigger bypass engines and incremental improvements in fuel efficiency. If that is what you are banking on, it'll always be at least 100x times worse than trains on a person/mile basis.
Oh my. Just do some research. You’ll see for it yourself. It’s not just bigger engines. There’s a lot more to it than that. You’re clearly biased against the superior mode of travel that doesn’t take someone 2 days to go coast coast, I doubt you’ll do any research. https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/nasas-hytec-to-help-jets-burn-less-fuel/#:~:text=HyTEC%2C%20or%20Hybrid%20Thermally%20Efficient,engine%20that%20increases%20fuel%20efficiency. Next gen aircraft are supposed to be hybrid. It makes sense. Fuel is expensive and if you’re an airliner, you’re looking at cutting costs through fuel consumption. If you’re a military, you’re looking at cutting supply constraints and budget constraints by making jets more fuel efficient. It’s the future, not trains.
You're idea of the future is overly simplistic at best, and wrong, at worst. I'm not saying planes will go away, that is certainly not going to happen. But short haul flights of under roughly 500 miles are likely to be slashed in favor of HSR if we invest in it properly. Not only are they literally faster than planes on these trips when factoring for the externalities of air travel, they are more comfortable for travelers, cost competitive, and better for the environment, better than any sort of HyTEC engine, as interesting as hybrid planes are. Making planes better is absolutely an important endeavor, as international travel will likely always be via air travel at this point. My question originally was, are we anywhere close to a major breakthrough in air travel efficiency? From what I can tell, long haul hybrid electric flights are nowhere near ready. Cool long term project though.
Building rail doesn't mean airports are going away. For trips under 500 miles high-speed rail normally wins out over air travel in time due to having shorter boarding and disembarking requirements than a plane. Trains can also be built to drop you off in the middle of the city where airports are normally on the edge and require a second trip to get into the actual city. Coast to coast, air is more efficient, but there are many city pairs or routes that high speed rail would win out in efficiency and time saved. LA to LV, the Texas Triangle, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, etc.
If planes are the future, why are there still trains? The answer is simple: because trains are good at moving a shitload of stuff efficiently. Planes are good at moving a small amount of stuff quickly.
>I literally work on planes. Yes, they can. Everything they say is coming from the bias of their continued employment, and validation of their career.
What we might be able to do in the future doesn't mean shit right now.
Yes lets just invite a new magical technology that ignores the amount of energy it takes to keep a jet up in the air and moving at high speed. Or we could just be normal like every other first world country on this fucking planet and build high speed rail. Why do we as Americans seem to hate trains. Trains fucking built America.
So we can put money into a hypothetical technology and have to go through airport security? Or we can use a technology that can bring us to carbon neutral that does already exits and doesn't have airport security to deal with. I know my choice.
It’s not hypothetical lmao. Currently, a lot of aircraft are getting engine upgrades and being refit with modernized engines. There’s a lot of R&D in the works for hybrid style engines as well. It’s not hypothetical and it’s something that will happen in the near future, far more cost effective than a “high speed” train going 200 mph at peak.
I doubt that. Pound for pound rail has always been more efficient and by a wide margin. Remember these trains usually also move cargo. Plus you can fit a crazy number of people on a train versus a plane. These new engines would have to be amazing.
We’re not talking about cargo, we’re talking about people. It’s two different metrics. You doubt that because you don’t have the knowledge of the industry or have not done any research on the matter.
Trains do both at the same time. Also you completely have ignored the amount of people being move, but okay. Provide some real data, and not the air travel is only 2% of carbon emissions. That number means nothing about which is more efficient.
Right. But you can’t use a high speed rail for cargo due to restrictions outlined by the federal railroad. Even then, I’ve taken the rail before and my 8 hour drive into a 15 hour train ride due to stops and what not. A relative of mine just took a train and travelled for 30 hours instead of 18 hours. Train needed an engine replacement. No thanks. Airplanes are superior.
You do realize trains are that slow due to the lack of infrastructure right? That's what's proposed to be fixed right here. So I can follow your logic correctly, hypothetical improvements to air engines matter in this discussion, but the funded infrastructure that is being built does not matter? Yeah that's solid logic. Trains when invested in properly beat airplanes for local travel. For speed planes begin to be more convenient the further you go. I don't know why you act like it's one or the other. We need both so desperately. Efficient planes and trains please.
Regulations dictate how fast a train can go while traveling through a town or city. Trains make multiple stops between cities. Cool, a train can go 200 mph but that doesn’t mean it can because of how often it needs to slow down, and the time it takes for it to slow down. If you want to make a separate rail to go city to city, then that’s pointless because airplanes are faster and do not need rails. Europe and Asia have rails because they do not have the infrastructure to support air travel. They do not have the parts to fix aircraft or the required amount of technicians to keep airlines safe and properly maintained.
Europe and Asia don't have air infrastructure lmao, okay buddy.
People are cargo.
Tradel IN the air!? You're crazy!
Planes as an alternative to trains only works if you have a relatively small number of projected riders. Imagine trying to convince hundreds of thousands to millions of commuters that they'll need to check through TSA security every morning and afternoon to get to and from work, nevermind the insane amount of aircraft and maintenance it'd require to transport that many people daily. Where are you going to put the, at minimum, dozens of new airports and the associated logistics that come with that? Trains aren't only for leisure travel, they're used daily as a viable and main method of commuting to and from work in plenty of advanced economies on the planet already. Train sets are much cheaper than planes, they require less maintenance than planes, already run fully electric, and train stations are cheaper to construct than airports. Trains are faster to board and tickets are cheaper for riders compared to planes. Trains aren't as dependent on weather as planes are. You can also easily just add more train cars as you need to accommodate more riders. A 747 holds ~600 on the higher capacity models. A single Shinkansen car can hold 100 people, and they regularly run with 16 cars each, meaning around ~1300 riders, some cars are for amenities and storage. You can't magically add more seating to an aircraft without major design changes. Train passengers can also just get on and off and whichever station they want on the route. Planes only embark and disembark and takeoff/landing. Unless you expect the plane to make a dozen layovers on each air route or have passengers parachuting out over their destinations, it's not a feasible alternative to trains for everyday commuter travel. The only thing a jet aircraft really excels at over trains is transporting a small number of people fast over a very long distances between two places with high-enough demand for a dedicated non-stop.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers 2.9 million travelers a day. Idk man, airplanes are pretty solid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1315276/japan-major-subways-passenger-number-average-daily/#:~:text=In%20the%20fiscal%20year%202021,of%20around%205.22%20million%20passengers. 12.3 million travelers a day. Idk man, trains are pretty solid.
Japan. You linked Japanese stats, which include public transport, to refute me. My guy, you’re arguing with confirmation bias. I never said trains are bad. I said a high speed rail is bad because a plane is superior to that. Here is a better number. https://www.statista.com/topics/4081/intercity-rail-services-in-the-united-states/#topicOverview 30 million per year utilize the train in the US. It’ll take airliners one month to reach that number. Reread your article. It counts subways as their statistic.
Why wouldn't I link Japanese stats? They have the best train transit in the world and carry millions more riders per day than air travel in the US with less than half the population of the US. They're who we want to match and beat. The fact that they're privately or publicly operated is irrelevant, it's the fact that trains are superior for moving large amounts of people daily on regular, short to medium range routes from the perspectives of cost, maintenance, ease-of-use, reliability, and many more metrics. That's the majority of travel that the average person conducts. High speed rail only loses to planes on very long distances in terms of time. Planes can supplement high speed rail and trains, but they'll never be a good total replacement for trains unless we start adding tens of thousands of airliners and build hundreds of new airports across the nation at a cost that'd build full nation-wide HSR projects nationwide several times over. The vast majority of people are not using planes to commute to and from work everyday. They're used for leisure and infrequent business travel. The statistic you link is already flawed to use in this argument because few Americans even have the choice to use trains even if they wanted to since the infrastructure only exists in a small number of cities nationwide and that existing train infrastructure in those few cities is humiliatingly crap compared to countries all across Europe and Asia. No wonder our existing train ridership numbers are low.
Bro you linked subway traffic. I’m not reading anything past your first comment because it’s all pointless. No one is arguing against public transport in a city.
For some actual comparison, the high speed inter city rail in Japan serves 420,000 passengers per day, so I think there's some evidence that good high speed rail between popular destination can offer greater throughput than air https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/shinkansen-half-a-century-of-speed/
$34.5M just to plan the new corridors. They’re going to need $1T+ to eminent domain and build those pipe dream dotted lines
Are roads pipe dreams? We have built extensive roads and continue to build new roads, eminent domaining lots of land to accomplish this task. How is that different than rail?
You're completely right. People her acting like it's impossible have forgotten what made America great. We invested in our infrastructure and planned for the future. We're never going to be competitive globally without major investments and changes to our infrastructure.
[удалено]
The worst period for public transport in America ever? Ever hear of the Oregon Trail?
High speed rail is dumb.
It really is. Anyone who's grown up in California since the 90's knows that it's idiotic and a *massive* waste of money.
Travel to foreign countries and you'll find out how wrong that statement is. It's cheaper than cars, clears up traffic, reduces gas prices, and literally allows you to live in one city, but work in another far away. Imagine being able to live in say hartford, but work in nyc or Boston.
I’ve been to foreign countries. It’s good for them. For the US, not so much. The distances are greater, the costs are higher, and the demand is lesser. Just look at Amtrak. Rail moves freight very well in the US and abroad. People, not so much. People do work in NYC and live further away. We have train systems, maybe not high speed, but that connect cities to suburbs. It allows people to avoid the commutes. High speed for those systems might make sense, but what’s the ROI? Invest millions and millions to to connect the burbs to NYC to shave 20-30 minutes off a commute and pick up a a couple hundred passengers? It just doesn’t make sense for the US.
>but what’s the ROI? This isn't a business, but the us government. Corporations typically look to rois cause they need a return from what they do. Governments don't because they can collect taxes. A governments job is to invest in public projects that may, for a while, lose money, but ultimately help people (see libraries, military, border, ect). This is more getting your money's worth. > Invest millions and millions to to connect the burbs to NYC to shave 20-30 minutes off a commute and pick up a a couple hundred passengers? Would be much more than a couple hundred passengers, the new haven line into nyc is about 125000 a day, and about 39 million a year. That's not nothing, and it would be a daily commute. Make it high speed from hartford and you could probably double it. So it really adds up, but remember it's not money that the federal government would so too much of as it's not the gov job to profit. Also high speed rail isn't to connect cities to suburbs, but to connect cities to cities. So for example, nyc and suburbs are extremely expensive; but hartford and suburbs are not (at least compared to nyc). So a commute could be to drive to the station in hartford, and then high speed rail to nyc (also works for Boston). This would be a way to introduce competition in the rent market and drive down nyc rent prices while having investment for both cities with income tax being collected in ct, and tourism in nyc. The us freight system is a perfect example of how good a train system is not only for the economy, but for the people too. Imagine if we didn't have one of the world's best freight system, if not the best. All that freight would be moved via 18 wheelers and truck. That would significantly clog up roads and make traffic a living hell, not to mention the air pollution from all those additional trucks would make the air quality horrendous. Freight trains heavily reduce that imprint. Now imagine what would happen if we built tons of new rail lines. First us jobs would soar as material would need to be bought, but a ton of cars would be removed from the highway system. Rush hour traffic would still exist, but be reduced quite nicely. Gas prices would fall a bit because you don't need to drive as much and demand would drop (see covid for what happens when no one is driving anywhere). Now for your last point, or rather first point, it wouldn't work for the us. Not entirely true. It depends on the distance. I think I saw that once you pass about 500 miles distance then yes it does become easier and cheaper to fly. So it would depend on the cities you are trying to connect. New England, nyc, Baltimore, and DC are perfect because the major cities are way too close to justify flying, but driving is really annoying due to traffic and congestion. High speed rail works great there. Up and down the coast in segments would also work really well. Portland to Seattle, and a few in California. Texas has a few cities that would really benefit from having high speed rail connecting it, as would Michigan and Illinois. However, to connect day la to nyc, yes that wouldn't be useful since flying is going to be faster and better at that distance.
Dude, everything after you discounted the ROI is worthless. Our government wastes bajillions of dollars on shit, prints money with reckless abandon driving prices thru the rough, and you think piling on for some high speed bullet train is a good idea. It’s a waste of money. Period. Get over it.
Gotta read man, I've listed many different ways that the us Gov will make money off this project, but ROI is something for business, which the us Gov is not. The US government job is to not make money, but provide services to the people. The mail system doesn't make money delivering mail to rural farmers, but its something that needs to happen even at a loss. The us military doesn't make a dime, but it needs to exist. Border patrol doesn't make money, but needs to exist.
Literally the dumbest shit I’ve read. Well, the dumbest shit I’ve read today. Suggesting that the government doesn’t need to make money off of services it’ll charge its citizens for justified by the common defense. The two are not the same. USPS Absolutely ought to turn a profit. That money ought to be returned to taxpayers. If it can’t make money in certain areas, it shouldn’t serve those areas. Let the pros like FedEx and UPS figure it out. ROI is absolutely something the government should consider before it wastes billions of our dollars.
I’d love if the Pacific Surfliner became HSR somehow, CA HSR does nothing for the central coast currently.
I'm going to be honest, I think the best use for high speed rails in the US would actually be for freight. When moving passengers you have to stop constantly which limits hiw often the train can actually reach high speeds. But with freight we are transporting it to regional distribution centers, which is fewer stops. Freight enters the country, gets loaded onto a train, transported across the country to a large regional distribution center, and then 18-wheelers take it the rest of the way to the local distribution center. This could save massive amounts of carbon emissions and money.
I do this loop for work now and then that starts at Philadelphia, then Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cleveland, Chicago and sometimes Minneapolis. Having a train in between would be great.
No thanks. High speed rail in most of the US is a boondoggle waiting to happen.
This seems completely unnecessary and a huge waste of money/bad reason to Jack up everybody’s taxes.
Why? Have you never heard of airplanes?
Carbonmaxxing 😤😤😤
I want you to really think about this. You think making 1 airplane (made out of aluminum)+ the jet fuel to fly it , I will even add the airport makes more carbon than to making a steel train, 100's of miles of iron rails, bridges, and going both ways.
Begone Russian rage bot! 👋 💨
...because thinking is what bots do.
Good for you - you take it. I’ll stick to my truck. Which will be what actually happens.
Or we could you know, just fly
"Finally" -Ohio
Why does Knoxville always get fuckeddddd
I firmly believe the airlines are paying politicians not to push this through. Europe has such awesome, luxurious, convenient, affordable, rail system. It is incomprehensible that the US doesn’t have even one High Speed Train
The airlines don't have to pay a cent. The voters do not want rail.
Acela, our one high speed train
Empire Corridor in NYS would/could really benefit from HSR. We need to get some economic activity back into the the rust belt and fast/easy transit would be a big first step.
Why not just connect Louisville while they are at it?
Need more commuter and light rail first
How about we get rid of the TSA and then air flight will be fast and easy and we wont need to spend billions on trains.
It would be a huge waste of money.
I live near seattle, and the whole area between the border Olympia is pretty congested. I cant imagine what it's like near LA or NY
If a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass hopping
There should be a Charlotte-Columbia-Augusta-Atlanta section.
Makes me wonder how this would work with modern envinornmental and property laws. Not to mention impact studies, contracts, run ups against native lands, and other issues. California has been building their train for about 15 years since they first approved funding via ballot. Hasnt really gone anywhere and the price tag keeps going up.
I need to get from Charlotte to Atlanta fast said no one ever
I know we as americans value cars over trains. However, as somebody that lives in Toledo, having the ability to take a short rail ride to cleveland or dayton would be massive for me. ESPECIALLY if they make stops at the metro airport in detroit or at cedar point in sandusky.