
Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S. - rosser
http://mashable.com/2013/02/10/high-speed-rail-map/#
======
tunesmith
So there's this puzzle that people enjoy thinking about regarding space
travel.

Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's
a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will
support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500
years to get there.

Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development
will stop in the meantime. In fact, given 100 years of development, we might
be able to construct a new ship that will only take 300 years to get to that
planet. Which would mean it would overtake the first, and beat it by a hundred
years.

In which case, why build the first ship at all?

That's the objection I've heard most recently against building high-speed rail
in the united states. For instance, in the context of self-driving cars that
might be able to organize themselves into "trains" on the road, or fit
conditions where they would qualify for a higher speed limit, etc. While it
may be true that we need high-speed rail _now_ , is it going to be as true by
the time they would actually get built?

~~~
rayiner
Infrastructure technology progresses extremely slowly, in a way I think is
hard for people used to the progress in computer technology to understand.
Most electricity in the U.S. is still produced by coal power, in plants that
usually aren't dramatically more efficient than they were a century ago. 2050
is 37 years from now. 37 years ago was 1976. Most of the transit
infrastructure we use today was already built by 1976, down to the physical
rail cars used on Amtrak today. On the train line I take to work every
morning, they're just now replacing 1970's train cars with ones built in the
2000's.

Holding infrastructure development hostage to starry-eyed visions of what we
might have in the future is just foolish. The fundamental building blocks of
society--power, water, transit, etc, have been pretty much unchanged since the
1960's. It's unlikely that they will do so in a dramatic way by the time HSR
gets built.

~~~
oijaf888
I think coal plants are vastly more efficient than they were in 1913 from
improvements in materials technology, higher pressures and more efficient
combustion.

~~~
jacquesm
What we can do (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aved%C3%B8re_Power_Station>) vs
what we do most of the time are two different things.

Avedøre shows we can do 91% thermal and 49% electrical efficiency if we set
our minds to it. But the fact is that most plants don't do better than 33% at
both (because they're not that efficient and because they throw out all the
heat).

------
david_shaw
I think that now, perhaps more than ever, America and Americans would benefit
from domestic high-speed rail.

As someone who travels occasionally--albeit somewhat infrequently--for both
business and pleasure, I share the opinion that flying is not altogether
pleasant. From arriving at the airport several hours early, to dealing with
TSA, to sitting in the cramped aircraft seating, it's not a stretch to say
that it's a somewhat miserable experience. For the amount of money one has to
pay for a flight, especially if going to a less popular/metropolitan
destination, the experience is very sub par.

Trains, however, are a joy to ride. There is no TSA (or any other form of
security theatre), no having to show up several hours early, and the journey
itself is pleasant while watching the world pass by outside. Delays are very
infrequent. I've personally done some of my best thinking, coding, and writing
while on a train.

There is, however, one major problem: trains in America are _slow_. Slow to
the point that driving through Los Angeles (including traffic delays) is still
about twice as fast as taking the Amtrak. There is probably some efficiency
gain on longer trips, but who wants to sign up for a 72-hour train ride that
could easily be a 36-hour drive or, more realistically, a two hour flight _for
the same cost?_

I would welcome a revitalization of the rail industry in this country with
open arms, but only if they do it right; after all, as a project that would
likely be subsidized with tax dollars, I'd rather not pay for something that
one one would use.

~~~
kylemhill
Do you not think that a major government initiative in HSR (which it would
require, tax dollars or not) wouldn't come with the standard TSA security
theater in tow?

~~~
betterunix
Probably not -- they know full well that people take trains to avoid the TSA
and that they would have substantially reduced ticket revenue if they put
people through that nonsense.

------
thrownaway2424
Hilarious comparison with the self-driving cars. The whole POINT of a train is
you arrive in an actual PLACE. Not some god-forshaken dump surrounded by
parking lots.

In 2011 I was in Zurich during "street parade" which is one of those crazy
european things where lots of people gather to dance to awful music. Anyway,
the attendance was nearly a million. Substantially all of these million people
arrived by train in the six hours before noon on the day of the event. I was
flabbergasted watching these people pour out of the rail station by the
thousand. This is totally impossibile by road.

The contest between trains and cars is not about the way people get around. It
is about the way they live when they are not moving. Trains enable the kinds
of cities people want to visit. Cars hollow out and destroy cities.

~~~
jarcoal
I don't know if the self-driving car would survive your "street parade", but
at least they can drop you off and then leave the city to park somewhere else
until you need them again.

------
wtvanhest
Historically I have been a big supporter of trains in the US. Recently, I have
decided that the cost may not be worth the benefit if future technology is
considered.

The future is going to involve self driving busses, self driving cars, self
driving trucks etc.

The primary thing I enjoy about the train is the additional space.
Fundmantally, that is the problem with trains too. If they jammed people on a
train the way they jam them on a bus, it should drive the profits up. Amtrak
sells out a lot of routes in the north east while competing with $20 bus
tickets.

In 20 years, self driving busses should replace trains as the up front cost is
lower and the market is freer.

I'd argue that any money considered spent on trains should be put to better
use.

(Added)

I think it is safe to assume all vehicles will run on electric and batteries
in the distant future, further reducing train advantages.

~~~
oijaf888
Trains are substantially more efficient to move freight. I don't think that
self driving trucks will be able to compete insofar as bulk movement of
freight goes.

~~~
dyno12345
The freight rail system in the US is actually pretty good, and virtually all
freight doesn't need bullet-train speed.

------
uvdiv
In 2030-2050, passenger rail will be obsolete. Self-driving cars will surpass
them on every metric. After AI* obsoletes physical safety as an engineering
problem, cars will shrink to tiny, weightless pieces of plastic most closely
approximating today's motorcycles. And following Jevon's paradox, the massive
efficiency gains will push economic driving to extreme speeds. As fast as
bullet trains, without the timetables.

*AI from 2013's POV; in 2030 it will be just another dumb algorithm

~~~
rayiner
The idea that in 20 years we'll have self-driving cars on any substantial
scale is totally ridiculous. If I had to bet money, we won't even have a
substantial electric car deployment by then, much less self-driving cars.

Also: the physics of high-speed cars makes the concept of cars traveling as
fast as bullet trains totally ridiculous. The fact that a car is self-driving
doesn't change the physics of tire/road friction.

~~~
jarcoal
I won't argue that 2030 will be the magic year, but self-driving is a far
greater incentive for most people than being electric powered.

~~~
uvdiv
You'll get both, because they're complementary. Self-driving cars will cut the
economic cost of electric vehicles: autotaxis will replace private ownership,
and their high upfront costs will be split between many users [1]. Conversely,
self-driving cars will push performance envelopes, so the EV's enormous
efficiency advantage will be desirable.

[1] The economics DO NOT work this way yet, because batteries degrade too
quickly (Tesla is what, 500 charge-discharge cycles?). Heavier use means
proportionally shorter life; no advantage. Solve battery life, and you've
solved economics.

------
nostromo
It's fun to look at, but the trip from LA to New York would be about 13 hours
-- and that's ignoring the time stopped at stations and assuming you can go
220mph the entire trip.

New York to some other city would be even worse. For example, New York to
Seattle and you're approaching something like 20 hours.

I really love trains for short trips (NY to DC), but I just don't see the
actual demand these long distance lines. Maybe we should just try and fix
airport security and intra-urban mass transit instead.

~~~
ronaldj
I'd take a high speed if it was cheaper than flying and didn't require all the
security.

~~~
glenra
We could solve the security problem with the stroke of a pen - just abolish
the TSA. It is a horrendous waste of money, a ludicrously expensive tax on our
time that we choose to pay out of pure paranoia. Is it really worth building
an entire hugely slower alternate infrastructure to avoid this tax, when we
could just opt to stop paying it?

Contrariwise, if we _are_ that committed to TSA, whatever brain-dead political
calculation forced us to waste an extra hour in the airport before every
flight would almost certainly cause us to do the same before every train trip.

------
smackfu
This is from a few weeks ago and is basically one guy's fantasy based on not
much facts. The real current plans are much more about small regional networks
that connect places people want to go rather than rail geek porn that just
connects everything because it looks nicer on the map.

------
skcin7
I'm all for a HSR system and I think it sounds AWESOME, but I have doubts if
it would ever catch on.

HSR would have to compete with the current airline system. If it's cheaper,
more convenient to ride, and the time required to travel is comparable to
airline, it could catch on, but as it stands I'm unsure if there's enough room
for it to survive while competing against the airline system.

Commercial airlines travel at around 500-600 miles per hour, so if a HSR
system is able to reach 220mph, then the plane will get you there about ~2.5x
as fast. Of course. People consider their time to be valuable, so if you need
to get somewhere quick, you'd likely just take the airplane, unless you're
traveling somewhat nearby (like San Francisco to Los Angeles). It would appeal
to most people not having to deal with the TSA, but there's no guarantee TSA
wouldn't decide that it's their duty to "protect" (terrorize) the people in
the HSR system as well.

Somebody please write me a message to convince me my message is nonsense and
that a HSR system is a great idea.

~~~
krschultz
I agree with your reasoning but it's a bit deeper than "airplanes are 2x the
speed of trains so therefore they are faster", and not just because airplanes
fly a lot of extra distance for ATC reasons.

At major city airports you easily lose 2 hours with security, taxing around
the airport in the airplane doing 5 mph, and boarding/deplaning. Not to
mention any weather delays, and good luck if you have luggage.

Plus, most airports are not _that_ close to the city center. Most train
stations in the city center. I'm most familiar with NYC, but I can walk from
my office to 3 train stations (Penn Station, PATH, Grand Central) in less than
15 minutes. The 3 airports are all an hour in a subway or 30 minutes in a $50
cab ride away. The airports are also more subject to traffic. The last time I
flew to Florida from NYC, I spent more time on the ground getting to JFK,
waiting to get on the plane, and waiting to take off to NYC than in the air.

With all that said, 200-300 mile trips make a lot of sense by train.
Boston->NYC, NYC->DC by train make a lot more sense than airplanes even in the
best weather. When the planes get slowed down by bad weather, forget it. Even
Boston->DC by train makes a lot of sense, even today with our relatively
crappy high speed rail.

I imagine a train up and down the east coast of florida, or the California
coast with slightly better technology would do similiarly well.

But a train from NYC to Chicago or Denver makes no sense. And definitely not
for NYC to LA. As soon as the portion of the flight cruising increases beyond
an hour or two, it just kills a train.

------
grandalf
Making Chicago a hub would be a nightmare. The city is already home to the
worst highway gridlock in the US.

The hub should be shifted further west to help create another metro area, not
to just add to an existing one that happens to also be very corrupt.

~~~
hakaaaaak
Does anyone else see something wrong with Chicago being the central hub
(specifically regarding our president's past history in Chicago)? Sure, it's
not exactly like it would have been if Bush (W) proposed a large rail hub in
Crawford, but Chicago isn't exactly the only choice for such a hub either. In
fact, why not avoid a large hub?

~~~
mark-r
The best choice for a hub is someplace that large numbers of people would use
as their destination. Chicago fits the bill much better than anywhere else in
the middle of the country. There's a reason O'Hare is one of the busiest
airports in the nation.

------
newbie12
First we need to fix regular passenger rail in this country. As long as
interstate passenger rail is controlled by the Amtrak monopoly, and its
attendant unions, rail travel in America will continue to fall behind the rest
of the world. There's not even regular rail service between most major US
cities 3-8 hours apart, even though tracks exist and demand would exist if
trains ran as fast as driving.

~~~
jarcoal
Freight is a big problem. They own the rails; Amtrak is a guest.

~~~
newbie12
That's only partially true-- Amtrak owns the Northeast corridor. Amtrak's only
innovation in forty years (!) on the NEC is Acela, a "high speed" offering
that is marginally faster than regular service (shorter times mainly because
Acela makes fewer stops) and is more expensive than private air shuttle travel
along the same routes.

~~~
jarcoal
Ah yes, I've heard of that train. It doesn't go any faster than 100mph does
it?

~~~
jlgreco
Acela goes up to 150mph. Even the Pittsburgh-Philly Keystone Line breaks
100mph.

~~~
jarcoal
That's not too shabby at all.

------
pzaich
It looks a lot like the Ticket to Ride board [http://nightmaremode.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/ticket1....](http://nightmaremode.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/ticket1.jpg)

------
graycat
At least in the US, the history of rail and high speed rail is clear: Even if
you build it for free, during operations it fails (A) to show a profit or (B)
to pass the laws on 'cost/benefit' analysis on the needed subsidies. So, in
simple terms, in the US, passenger trains are non-starters.

Or, at one time the US had one heck of a passenger train system: Could get a
train from tiny town A and travel to tiny town B for nearly any two tiny towns
A and B in the country. But as soon as the Model T came out, people rushed to
buy them and use them in place of the trains, in spite of the fact that the
roads were awful.

Since then the cars and roads have gotten much better. For short trips, train
technology is not much better than 100 years ago when it started losing out to
the Model T and has no chance now.

For long trips, we have airplanes.

Look, we could have 'high speed' ships to cross the Atlantic, too. And the
last of the great Atlantic ships were fantastic. Alas, people didn't like
them, needed all the luxury just to put up with the uncomfortable aspects of
travel by ship, and, really, were eager just to get where they were going. So,
when Boeing sold their 707 jets for crossing the Atlantic, the 707 jets
quickly 'sunk' essentially all the passenger ships.

The Boeing 707 had some serious 'engineering-economic' advantages: (A) It was
much lighter than a ship, no doubt much lighter per person carried so that are
moving much less dead weight across the Atlantic. (B) It could make a round
trip while a ship was at dock loading. (C) Net, per month, a Boeing 707 could
carry enough passengers across the Atlantic to compete with a ship, for less
money and much less time per passenger. That sank the ship.

For another detail, look at the map in the OP: The trains go long distances,
commonly across a whole state, without stopping. E.g., in Tennessee, the
trains stop in Nashville and Memphis, but between Memphis and Kentucky is
about 100 miles that the trains bypass. So, for all those people bypassed, how
will the train serve them? Yes, I saw the plan of a 'tram' that catches up
with the high speed, non-stop train, 'couples up' side by side, does a
transfer of people and baggage, 'decouples', and slows down. Still I expect
that mostly the plan would be that people in the 100 miles from Memphis to
Kentucky would have to drive a car, ride a bus, or take a slow train to reach
Memphis. Now we are back to the old problems of handling luggage and making
connections: That's why the train terminals were so big -- to have space for
people waiting for connecting trains. Besides, passenger trains are vulnerable
to Big Sis at the DHS and her TSA gang. A lot of people would rather walk than
face the TSA; to drive a car 1000 miles to avoid the TSA is a great pleasure.

Net, for short to medium distances, say, 1000 miles or less, just drive a car
and, then, have all the luggage in the car during the trip, all under own
control for the whole trip, and have the car at the destination. For longer
trips, take a plane as now.

Heck, there's a chance that modern blimps -- lighter than air craft -- could
beat passenger trains.

Yes, I know: Maybe there are some lawyers who want to live in Manhattan, have
their offices near Grand Central, take a fast moving train to DC, take a cab
to Capitol Hill for the day, and reverse the process and be home for dinner
early in the evening. Fine for people earning big bucks with an office near a
train station and wanting to work at another office near another train station
at most only a few hundred miles away. Sorry 'bout those people. For all the
rest of us, we shouldn't pay subsidies for those few big bucks lawyers.
Besides, have they heard of video conferencing?

My main objection to passenger trains is that they want to use publicity
efforts such as the OP to build political support to tax people to pay
subsidies for the trains. That is, the effort is to get into my checkbook. No
thanks.

If they want to build the trains with capital raised privately, fine with me.
If they wanted to proceed with private capital, then we wouldn't see publicity
efforts such as the OP.

