Bullet trains

[Erador]

This would be awesome. We're already building something like this in California. 

[Zach]

We as a country are probably ranked the lowest in rail road usage.

 

 

No one uses trains.

 

Not true...vagabonds!

[Veggie]

Looks like whoever came up with that model is from Chicago

[Ethan]

Looks like whoever came up with that model is from Chicago

Or they recognize how to connect major cities across the states...

[Cam L]

I'd use the Minneapolis to Indianapolis line all the time for college, but if I was going across the country I'd still fly. It would be great for shorter distances like that, but for things like business travel and vacation, even high speed trains would be obsolete. Business travelers need to get from coast to coast in as little time as possible, you know? 

 

Also, on the first page, Ethan said something about using different tracks; it would probably be maglev, like this:

 

Edited February 6, 2013 by Cammy

[Joshjrn]

One thing is not like the other...
 

Edited February 6, 2013 by Joshjrn

[Mike]

Plus only commies ride trains.

[Erador]

One thing is not like the other...

 

Are you aware of how stupidly oversimplified that is, lol? By the way, it only serves to strengthen the argument for having a HSR line--to connect dense populations that are far from each other. 

[Erador]

Plus only commies ride trains.

This.

[Joshjrn]

One thing is not like the other...

 

 

Are you aware of how stupidly oversimplified that is, lol? By the way, it only serves to strengthen the argument for having a HSR line--to connect dense populations that are far from each other. 

 

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post. If it were profitable to have high speed rail lines running through massive voids to connect dense populations, we'd have them already. High speed rail lines are profitable when they pass through high density areas, not simply between them. Our major metro areas tend to be spaced rather far apart. Europe squeezes together over twice the number of cities over 100k and over twice the number of cities over 1M in a significantly smaller land area. Do you honestly think that enough people will ride between San Antonio and El Paso to make the 550+ mile line profitable? If you do, that post would replace your previous as the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

 

Now, am I saying that high speed rail has no potential in the United States? Not at all. Parts of New England, southern California, and possibly even Florida have potential (though Florida has soil stability issues to sort through). It's easy to spot the potential winners. It's where all of those cute little white dots are really close together. What I am saying is that the map posted in the OP is nothing more than a half baked pipe dream that entirely ignores the realities of rail line feasibility. 

 

As an aside, this is all ignoring the problem of a lack of viable public transportation at destination points which hobbles rail options relative to the Interstate Highway System. 

 

P.S. I'm quite fond of Europe's rail system. I used it extensively when I lived there. Doing so makes one acutely aware of the differences between their system and what ours would look like. 

Edited February 6, 2013 by Joshjrn

[Erador]

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post. If it were profitable to have high speed rail lines running through massive voids to connect dense populations, we'd have them already.

Lol, we already have rail that connect much of the United States; in other words, rail is profitable, but HSR would be a massive expense--hence the requirement for government sponsorship. Are you aware that both Japan and Europe have subsidized HSR, lol? I think the stupid is on you, lol. 

 

 

 

High speed rail lines are profitable when they pass through high density areas, not simply between them.

No, for major metropolitan areas, you'd want to have a diverse network of transportation options--not HSR. HSR is ideal as a connector between local network clusters. This is pretty obvious. No one uses airplanes to travel small distances-- in other words, the longer the distance, the greater the margin, lol. It's pretty intuitive, and if you want to see the numbers, I can show you them. 

 

Our major metro areas tend to be spaced rather far apart. Europe squeezes together over twice the number of cities over 100k and over twice the number of cities over 1M in a significantly smaller land area. Do you honestly think that enough people will ride between San Antonio and El Paso to make the 550+ mile line profitable? If you do, that post would replace your previous as the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

Lol, again, you're fundamentally misunderstanding the impetus for HSR and how it'd be used. HSR is a long distance transporter, not a near-area one. In fact, the distance, as I mentioned, increases margins--along with capacity. If this is still too much for you to grasp, lol...

 

Now, am I saying that high speed rail has no potential in the United States? Not at all. Parts of New England, southern California, and possibly even Florida have potential (though Florida has soil stability issues to sort through). It's easy to spot the potential winners. It's where all of those cute little white dots are really close together. What I am saying is that the map posted in the OP is nothing more than a half baked pipe dream that entirely ignores the realities of rail line feasibility. 

Lol...

 

 

As an aside, this is all ignoring the problem of a lack of viable public transportation at destination points which hobbles rail options relative to the Interstate Highway System. 

Have you ever been to NYC, San Francisco, or Chicago?

 

P.S. I'm quite fond of Europe's rail system. I used it extensively when I lived there. Doing so makes one acutely aware of the differences between their system and what ours would look like. 

Yes, Europe's underfunded, subsidized, rail system.

[Joshjrn]

I would break down your post in quotes, but it doesn't deserve it. So, here you go:

 

HSR isn't actually a long distance transporter. It's a moderate distance transporter. Planes travel at over twice the speed as your best case HSR and don't have to deal with topography. No one is going to ride HSR from Houston to LA. People might use it to go between Houston and New Orleans. But, as the population density is so low, you will only have people getting on and off at your "destinations". Rails aren't viable if they can't pick up/release passengers between those major points. I find it humorous that you cite England and Japan's subsidized HSR systems, as their population densities are astronomical by comparison to the United States. The subsidization we would have to do would be astronomical by comparison. I also find it humorous that you cite a sprinkling of cities with decent public transportation as though that will help you when you travel to the 90% of those white dots that have no public transportation to speak of. 

 

Out of curiosity, how much experience do you have riding European HSR? I would appreciate details, if you would be so kind. 

[Erador]

I would break down your post in quotes, but it doesn't deserve it. So, here you go:

Oohhh!

 

HSR isn't actually a long distance transporter. It's a moderate distance transporter. Planes travel at over twice the speed as your best case HSR and don't have to deal with topography.

It's faster to fly from London to Paris. And yet there are still trains. Again, completely misunderstanding the impetus for HSR, lol. 

 

Think price points and capacity. 

 

 

 

No one is going to ride HSR from Houston to LA. People might use it to go between Houston and New Orleans. But, as the population density is so low, you will only have people getting on and off at your "destinations".

Lol what is this Malthusian madness?

 

Think: feeder cities, feeder routes, distance+x, distance-x.

 

 

Rails aren't viable if they can't pick up/release passengers between those major points. I find it humorous that you cite England and Japan's subsidized HSR systems, as their population densities are astronomical by comparison to the United States.

I cited Europe's (each HSR network is subsidized) and Japan's HSR--and again, you're so wrong it's funny. You see, while you're right to say that (Western) Europe has a greater population density on average than the United States, Europe has a smaller range of density, while the United States can go from max-pop-Density to low-pop-Density. In other words, parts of the United States are more densely populated than (Western) Europe, while other parts are less. Additionally, much of the population centers in the United States tend to follow the coast lines, which means that having many additional support lines (like a grid of rails) won't be necessary. 

 

I'm not sure if you're just oversimplifying to argue your point or if you actually believe in what you're saying.

 

The subsidization we would have to do would be astronomical by comparison. I also find it humorous that you cite a sprinkling of cities with decent public transportation as though that will help you when you travel to the 90% of those white dots that have no public transportation to speak of. 

A sprinkling of Cities being the major hubs of HSR. Additionally, most municipalities have some forms of public transportation, and since most of those "small dots" are cities of <100k+ population, you're literally guaranteed to find public transportation. Are they ready for HSR? Not all of them are but they'll adjust accordingly. 

 

 

Out of curiosity, how much experience do you have riding European HSR? I would appreciate details, if you would be so kind. 

Mainly central England, and once from Paris to Le Mans. But I hope you're not trying to imply some kind of an ethical fallacy, as if my/your anecdotal evidence is somehow more/equally valuable to what HSR authorities, economists, urban planners, etc., are suggesting.

[Joshjrn]

First, stop misusing "ethical fallacy". You mean "logical fallacy" every single time you say it. That being said...

 

I certainly don't assert my anecdotal experiences as superior to objective study on the subject. However, I am typically wary of those advocating for policies which would benefit them directly and would not expose them to any loss were the idea to fail miserably, not even considering the fair amount of opinion out there condemning widespread HSR in the US. That said, as you've never traveled extensively by rail, it doesn't surprise me that you don't seem to consider the realities of doing so. For example, no, it doesn't take less time to fly than to take the Eurostar from Paris to London. You can be board to board in less than 2.5 hours. Although the actual flight might be shorter, checking bags, boarding, taxiing, landing, taxiing, disembarking, retrieving your bags, etc, etc would add a considerable amount of time. Then, you would have to be transported from CDG, which is far outside of the city center. That would tack on at least another hour, by itself. Taking the train is significantly faster, all things considered. Again, if you traveled by train more, little nuances like this probably wouldn't escape you. That aside, there are major population centers that aren't terribly far from either London or Paris. This is the density issue I was referencing. 

 

Also, again, you woefully overestimate public transportation in American cities. Next time you are in a city of less than 300k people, try taking the city bus (likely your only option) every time you need to travel within the city. Good luck and best wishes, in advance. 

[Erador]

First, stop misusing "ethical fallacy". You mean "logical fallacy" every single time you say it. That being said...

Ethical fallacies are logical fallacies, but specific in regards to the credibility of the author...

 

 

I certainly don't assert my anecdotal experiences as superior to objective study on the subject. However, I am typically wary of those advocating for policies which would benefit them directly and would not expose them to any loss were the idea to fail miserably, not even considering the fair amount of opinion out there condemning widespread HSR in the US. That said, as you've never traveled extensively by rail, it doesn't surprise me that you don't seem to consider the realities of doing so.

Oh yes of course, teach me, oh wise and experienced one.

 

 

For example, no, it doesn't take less time to fly than to take the Eurostar from Paris to London.

Want to bet that you'll reverse this statement? In 1, 2, 3...

 

 

Although the actual flight might be shorter

 

Ding!

 

checking bags, boarding, taxiing, landing, taxiing, disembarking, retrieving your bags, etc, etc would add a considerable amount of time. Then, you would have to be transported from CDG, which is far outside of the city center.

Yes, of course--this highlights the competitiveness of rail versus air travel.

 

 

That would tack on at least another hour, by itself. Taking the train is significantly faster, all things considered. Again, if you traveled by train more, little nuances like this probably wouldn't escape you. That aside, there are major population centers that aren't terribly far from either London or Paris. This is the density issue I was referencing. 

If you're talking about specific centers, then you'll find similar levels of density in the US--you said this yourself in a previous post.

 

 

Also, again, you woefully overestimate public transportation in American cities. Next time you are in a city of less than 300k people, try taking the city bus (likely your only option) every time you need to travel within the city. Good luck and best wishes, in advance. 

How many of those white dots are cities under 300k? Additionally, transportation will have to ramp up in all cities associated with HSR because it would entail an increase in this type of traffic. So I'm not sure what you're point is--you're merely making a widely known observation, which HSR is part of a solution to.

 

So, basically, it seems that you agree with the idea of HSR, and specifically agree that having a HSR corridor that goes down the Atlantis Seaboard, connects the major hubs in the south, crosses through the larger midwestern cities, links up the West coast, etc., is a good idea. In fact, your only real criticism, it seems, is that those smaller white dots won't pull in enough profit...

[Joshjrn]

That's not what an ethical fallacy is. I'm curious if you can find a single source online that defines it the way you assert. Again, anyway...

 

Your absurd adherence to your statement that it takes less time for an individual to fly from Paris to London illustrates that you're more interested in argument than debate. As a practical matter, how long the plane is actually in the air is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You're hanging onto it merely as a distraction.

 

The rest of your post merely echos what I already specifically stated. Regional HSR is quite possible in the United States due to regional population density. That map shows lines that cross vast expanses of nothingness. Those lines are not worth the insane subsidy it would require to maintain them. Just eyeballing it, I would estimate the unsustainable lines to make up about 75% of the total mileage on the map. Thus, pipe dream. 

[Memphus]

The red line especially would have too high of an overhead cost and would take far too long to pay itself off. Unfortunately, because democracy works on short terms, you only ever see short term solutions to problems. This is a long term project/solution. 

[Beeppudnolan]

This reminds me of how the forums always are lol.

[Erador]

That's not what an ethical fallacy is. I'm curious if you can find a single source online that defines it the way you assert. Again, anyway...

Just take a philosophy class, and you'll hear it.

 

Your absurd adherence to your statement that it takes less time for an individual to fly from Paris to London illustrates that you're more interested in argument than debate. As a practical matter, how long the plane is actually in the air is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You're hanging onto it merely as a distraction.

I don't think that you understood the point in that for more speed, often comes, greater price. I was illustrating that just because you can fly between two points faster, does not make it economical for all people, and hence, there is still a market for HSR for long stretch distances. 

 

You're the one who took it superficially and got into "well, with 3 carry ones and two bags, and waiting for a taxi and standing in line it will take so much longer"--the speed of travel is not the only way people select their travel method. 

 

 

 

The rest of your post merely echos what I already specifically stated. Regional HSR is quite possible in the United States due to regional population density. That map shows lines that cross vast expanses of nothingness. Those lines are not worth the insane subsidy it would require to maintain them. Just eyeballing it, I would estimate the unsustainable lines to make up about 75% of the total mileage on the map. Thus, pipe dream. 

Sure, that's your conjecture.

[Jake]

We as a country are probably ranked the lowest in rail road usage.

 

 

No one uses trains.

 

because our system is horrible and expensive