Why can't America have high-speed trains?

[slabay]

Here in the St Pete/Tamp regional area there is none!

I really need something, like a commuter rail!

Ish

I couldn't agree with you more, Ish! Traffic in Tampa Bay is horrible. Now that Season is over, things have improved somewhat but it is still bad. I work in Riverview (SE Tampa). A friend of mine offered me a place to stay in Largo (across the bay for non-locals, 35 miles away). It takes over an hour to get there during peak traffic. For an extra 35 minutes, I commute 115 miles each way every day from Cape Coral (Southwest Florida). It just isn't WORTH selling my home and moving! I had some training last week in Wesley Chapel (NE Tampa) and traffic coming into town from the north was just as bad as coming across the bay.

1) Tampa REALLY needs some options, because what is going on there now is a disaster. I was listening to the District 7 DOT Secretary making a presentation this month and he said that they just finished the I-275 expansion to the tune of over $4 BILLION, and it is obsolete already.
2) Governor Scott screwed us BIG TIME when he killed the Tampa-Orlando rail project. Must be nice to fly wherever you need to go or have Troopers chauffeur you around instead of sitting in I-4 traffic.

 

[bendorsey]

Here's a thought.

What would a ticket cost for a trip from coast to coast on a HSR system?

When you consider the cost of construction, equipment, maintenance, and so on I'd think it would be out of the reach of most of the population. Kind of like the Concord.

Did the Concorde ever show a profit? Tickets were quite high compared to a sub-sonic plane as I recall. I suspect a coast to coast HSR system would find itself in the same $$$ situation.

Ben

 

[Roy3b3]

Here's a thought.

What would a ticket cost for a trip from coast to coast on a HSR system?

When you consider the cost of construction, equipment, maintenance, and so on I'd think it would be out of the reach of most of the population. Kind of like the Concord.

Did the Concorde ever show a profit? Tickets were quite high compared to a sub-sonic plane as I recall. I suspect a coast to coast HSR system would find itself in the same $$$ situation.

Ben

Unless you had the Tourist dollars with you, the country would certainly be out of pocket. HSR tickets in China Second Class from Beijing to Shanghai is $80 and First Class is $138 (full reclining seats, plenty of leg room, walk to the dining car, get off relaxed). When you compare that with cramped aircraft seating prices, why wouldn't you travel by train.

Of course it costs money to get the infrastructure in place, but if you've got millions of people who want to travel that way, then it becomes a cheaper and more convenient way to travel.

Out here in Australia, it will take many years (and after a massive population explosion + 100 times bigger tourism industry) before we will see any HSR systems running. I'll be dead and buried before that eventuates.
Cheers,
Roy3b3

 

[bentrain14]

There is a very simple answer to this. Ain't nobody got time for dat.

 

[Railwoodman]

I'm not as good as some here as to looking up publication I've read over many years, but as to a cost to cost HSR. It's just not that easy as a point to point, what I can remember was a three rout system. With actual two east to west routs,( one north and one south ) with a connection of Saint-Louis to a connection in Texas in the center of the US. As said before a pipe dream . But the total cost at today's figures was in excises of 2 trillion . As to ticket cost, I've read the target price was to be smiler to today's pricing .


[QUOTE Even obeying the cost-of-employee rule for private-sector employees, you've already got half the build cost in construction jobs. Add in the pensions and healthcare, and you're quite easily at $100bn.][/QUOTE]


Why would you consider a life time of work to funded by one public work's a realistic prospect?

But If you build it, you got to maintain it. As I see it we don't do a great job of ether. But were great at dishing out blame as to why it hasn't happen.

My point here is this, in the US we build roads, freeway, and building at great cost themselves regardless of the need. And when these come to need further investment to maintenance funding is always lacking. In many cases being left to the tax payer to pay the bills. In my city alone, there is some 60 million sq ft of commercial property unused. And there keep building more? The cost of just snow removal this winter is in the hundreds of millions for the tri state area. The planning of new road construction never seems to take account that states aren't increasing there budgets for the added cost

Here were talking about a project that would be economically hard up front, but with huge economic benefits over a lifetime for a large area of influence. Kind of like the first railroad were and canals .

 

[JCitron]

What I don't get is the same people who squawk loudly about spending tax dollars on railroads will gladly sit in traffic for hours on end during their daily commutes. I worked within 30 minutes or so of my house up in Haverhill. The road trip entailed three highways changes, at the most, or two if I went the longer way.

A part of my daily commute used I-93 which runs north-south to Boston from New Hampshire. A trip that would take only 14 minutes without traffic to I-95 south, could take 3 hours due to traffic and accidents or a snot amount of precipitation. The majority of the cars, on this 4-lane expressway, "said tongue in cheek" are mostly cars from New Hampshire. The problem is New Hampshire will not spend a dime on commuters, or anything railroad-related. There was an opportunity to revive the old Northern Railroad of New Hampshire as a HSR to Montreal. The state flatly refused any funding for the project and today the line is a snowmobile trail and recreational trail. This would have connected Boston to Concord, their state capitol which has no passenger service, all the way to Montreal via White River Jct.

When it comes to spending money on anything, they are the first to put their hand out for cash, but will not put out on anything except for roads. They'll gladly take the money at their toll gates, but will not pay much for their trains. Maine paid for the DownEaster service that stops in Exeter and Dover, and Vermont pays for the Amtrak trains that stop in Claremont and Dartmouth, NH. There was an opportunity run commuter trains to Manchester and Concord on the Lowell line, and up to Plaistow on the Haverhill line. Nope didn't happen. the NIMBYs from Atkinson came out in droves to complain that the trains "might make noise" if they parked in Plaistow, which is located 3 miles away. The Manchester/Concord never materialized either due to NIMBYs in Nashua and Merrimack who didn't want the train service. So the state backed down quite quickly. We think it was a big show and they didn't want to do this anyway. The same people, by the way, that came out in crowds against the commuter service, are the same ones that sit for hours daily as they drive the 40 miles into Boston.

Go figure.

John

 

[jkinzel]

I just ran across this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/opinions/smart-high-speed-trains-america/index.html

 

[Railwoodman]

What I don't get is the same people who squawk loudly about spending tax dollars on railroads will gladly sit in traffic for hours on end during their daily commutes. I worked within 30 minutes or so of my house up in Haverhill. The road trip entailed three highways changes, at the most, or two if I went the longer way.

Yep, I couldn't agree more. I don't ride on a commuter line regularly, But I have noticed a increase of riders over the years . So people do seem to think there a value of public transportation. I just wish they had more connections with other area lines.


A question for anyone who may have traveled on the Acela, do you find it worth the ticket price ? And was the ride a considerable time savings to your destination ? As this is our only HSR .

 

[bendorsey]

Consider a HSR system from New York City to San Francisco:
1. Its non-stop all the way at 200 MPH. Roughly 3500 miles in 17.5 hours.
2. It must either carry sufficient fuel for the entire trip or be electrified so fuel is external to the train.
3. It must carry at least 1 possibly 2 relief crews for safety and other reasons.
4. It must be able to maintain 200 MPH even through the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Do you really think there would be sufficient ridership from only two locations (NYC to SF or SF to NYC) to make it pay? Of course not - source and destinations are to limited.

So how to increase ridership? The only way is intermediate stops perhaps at Columbus, OH, Indianapolis, IN, St. Louis, MO, Kansas City, KS, Denver, CO, Salt lake City, UT, and Reno, NV. BUT!!! That slows the train down and extends travel time. I'd think by the time you added enough stops to make it financially in the black the speed advantage would be gone.

Seems to me HSR only works if there is a high level of population density all along the route. The Acela, French, and Japanese routes have it. Coast to coast in the US doesn't.

Coast to coast your far better off taking a plane.

Ben

 

[JCitron]

Consider a HSR system from New York City to San Francisco:
1. Its non-stop all the way at 200 MPH. Roughly 3500 miles in 17.5 hours.
2. It must either carry sufficient fuel for the entire trip or be electrified so fuel is external to the train.
3. It must carry at least 1 possibly 2 relief crews for safety and other reasons.
4. It must be able to maintain 200 MPH even through the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Do you really think there would be sufficient ridership from only two locations (NYC to SF or SF to NYC) to make it pay? Of course not - source and destinations are to limited.

So how to increase ridership? The only way is intermediate stops perhaps at Columbus, OH, Indianapolis, IN, St. Louis, MO, Kansas City, KS, Denver, CO, Salt lake City, UT, and Reno, NV. BUT!!! That slows the train down and extends travel time. I'd think by the time you added enough stops to make it financially in the black the speed advantage would be gone.

Seems to me HSR only works if there is a high level of population density all along the route. The Acela, French, and Japanese routes have it. Coast to coast in the US doesn't.

Coast to coast your far better off taking a plane.

Ben

I agree, and the middle of the country, as I said above, has no one to ride the trains. I've traveled through some towns with a whopping population of 40 people in parts of western Oklahoma, Eastern Colorado, and in sections of New Mexico. One town we stopped in was Atwood, KS with all of 27 people in it. The population was pretty scary too, kinda reminded me of those in the movie "Deliverance". The BNSF ran through, and even had a siding there, but as far as the number of people to ride a passenger train goes, I don't think so in this day and age. There are also long stretches of no one except cows, prairie dogs, rabbits, deer, and antelope.

We also have to keep in mind that In order to make up the time difference after a stop, the train would actually have to accelerate quite rapidly to get up to speed again, and this would be extremely uncomfortable for the riders. I've seen this in reverse on our commuter line to Boston. The Reading to Boston portion stops at Reading, Wakefield, Greenwood, Melrose, Melrose Park, and Wyoming Hills before it picks up a decent speed only to stop at Malden then the terminal 5 minutes later. The posted speed is 60 mph on this double-track stretch, but the trains probably can't get up faster than 30 or 35 mph before the need to slow down for the next stop. Given that trains take forever to stop and accelerate, it would be impossible to make up the time difference across the country.

John

 

[bendorsey]

Hi John:

Know what you mean. My daughter lives in a town in Tennessee that hardly even qualifies as a wide spot in the road. 3 or 4 buildings max.

To be economically feasible a HSR system must be in a high population density area but that vastly increases the cost of construction and the difficulty of finding a route.

Miami to Jacksonville would be great but the problems are almost insurmountable. Most of the area is highly congested already.

Ben

 

[Railwoodman]

Bendorsey

Isn't the whole reason of HSR to cross any given distance in the shortest amount of time between two population centers . Even if there's a large area of low population, that already linked to towns, city's by way of the interstate and state roads . And correct me if I'm wrong , but also have higher speed limits on both so to cut down on travel time ?

And where are all the people coming from that are using commuter flights ? I'm not saying there's not a lot obstetrical s ( There are for sure ) But if not HSR, then were left to high speed flight. And the cost there is also staggering. With the issue you've sited.

 

[Vern]

However, a French TGV traveling at 320 MPH could go from Los Angeles to New York in 7 hours*
Or the Japanese Maglev, traveling at 375 MPH could go that distance in 5.9 hours*

*without stops, and considering that it travels at a consistent speed

Quite correct but that is assuming die straight infrastructure - getting through/over or under several mountain ranges and the electrical feeder stations (including some in remote areas) to put enough juice in the catenary to sustain the power consumption of however many trains are running at that speed. That type of rail line isn't just going to cost billions, it's going to cost trillions or whatever comes after that (quadrillions?). It would be cheaper to set up a regular space flight service to Mars (and probably technically on the same level).

And even if feasible, you've got to get the footfall to ensure enough revenue in the farebox to pay for the running costs + profit + return on the infrastructure investment.

 

[bendorsey]

I agree (except for the any distance part).

What are the requirements for a HSR system:
1. Two termini far enough apart to make it competitive with other methods of transportation.
2. Both termini must have a fairly high population density and from within that group sufficient riders who have a reason to go to the other end often.
3. A ticket price to make it advantageous to take HSR.

At the moment only three locations world wide have met those requirements. LA to SF makes a heck of a lot of sense. Extending it to San Diego perhaps but extending it to Seattle - no.

The biggest problems with any route are:

1. The cost of construction. The longer the route the higher the cost.
2. The higher the population density the more difficulty in obtaining right of way.
3. Maintenance. X number of $$$ per mile. Longer the route the greater these costs.

All of these must taken into account in ticket price and to me this is the killer of a coast to coast route. Just to break even the cost of a ticket would have to be quite steep. Equal to and possibly higher then taking a plane.

HSR for (relatively) short routes between (carefully chosen) locations is a great idea but the longer the route the less economically feasible it becomes.

Ben

 

[JCitron]

I agree. The biggest problem we have, at least in the Northeast is populated places. When the railroads were first built in the 1830s to 1880s, there was plenty of room to run wherever they wanted. The towns also, for the most part, were willing to give up land for a price that was quite reasonable too, and industry was willing to invest to get the service to transport goods. Once the railroads went in and the towns and cities grew up around them, any chance of building a new route into the area diminished rapidly. Let's face it who wants to lose their homes and businesses...

When the railroads were built, they were built for the times. The curves and hills were meant for the slower moving trains and the routes climbed hills and followed tightly along a riverbank. This was well and good for those days, however, today we want faster trains with longer cars which require straighter smoother lines. This proved to be one of the speed issues with the NEC. The stretch of tracks between Boston and New Haven is not the straightest on the route. The tracks follow the Atlantic Coastline, thus it was originally called the Shoreline Route on the New Haven. With the sharp curves and countless draw bridges, there is no way of achieving the speeds that the trains are capable without major reworking of the lines. If this was planned 100 or 150 years ago when the line was built, it may surely of happened, but today with the encroached ROW and expensive real estate, there is no way this will ever happen.

The HSR is ideal in this country in corridors, which was pointed out in the article where there are big cities close together and the airlines can't compete with the downtown to downtown business. Price wise it's probably comparable between Amtrak and flying from Boston to New York if one factors in the trip to the airport then the trip from the airport to the downtown too which can get quite expensive. With the trains whisking the passengers quickly between the city centers, they also arrive reasonably relaxed without facing the additional commute and travel time into the downtown.

As far as going across the country, we have a very strong, really, really conservative middle of the country where spending money on anything, including healthcare is considered a waste of money except for their own deep pockets. If we think these state and federal officials would lift a penny in favor of HSR, we've got plenty of old bridges in Brooklyn for sale for you. With this factor alone, we will never see anything possible, not taking into consideration the terribly low population in these areas as well as the great distance needed to travel, or the mountain ranges that need crossing. Nearly 6,000 miles is an awfully long straight railroad to build.

John

 

[ish6]

A few years back, politicians here were in talks about a monorail-type of system from Tampa to Orlando! The Government shut it down due to budge, and the over cost he speculated! Anyone that lives here know such a system will be beneficial due to the I-275 to the I-4, and the traffic jams when approaching Orlando due to the Disney Empire and countless of hotels! In areas like these, unless NYC, I think monorail systems fit well!

Ish

 

[bendorsey]

Hi Ish:

I remember reading about that in morning paper on the east coast. Wasn't a bad idea - just not economically feasible. The Tampa/St.Pete/Clearwater area certainly has the population for it but Orlando doesn't and let face it - the only place folks want to go in Orlando isn't actually Orlando. Its the empire of the Mad Mouse :hehe: at over $100 per person just to get in.

Trying to do the same thing on my side of Florida. ABF (All Aboard Florida). 32 (that's not a typo) passenger trains a day (16 each way) from Miami to Orlando on existing track shared with the Florida east Coast freight traffic which is expected to increase dramatically in the near future as new containerized freight terminals in Ft. Lauderdale and Miami come on line.

I will enjoy watching all the trains go by as I sit in my favorite dog-n-sudz place across from the tracks (hic).

Ben

 

[RRSignal]

It's worth pointing out that that article to which you reference is an opinion piece (like a lot, if not most, of the "news" CNN runs, although in this case they actually stated that fact upfront.) It's about as valid as yours or mine. It is, by no means, a news article. And it sure leaves out a lot of details. So does the Inky article, though it goes into a lot more detail about how the HSR money would be spent.

Since this is a government project, we have to read in details that aren't going to be printed in one-sided stories/editorials but which we know from previous experience how these things operate, such as the fact that the cost overruns of the initial $151bn construction alone will run several times the stated amount, that pensions for the new government employees who will run the HSR will need to be funded, and that even less people will probably ride it seeing as Amtrak is expensive enough with old, beat-up trains.

 

[JCitron]

It's worth pointing out that that article to which you reference is an opinion piece (like a lot, if not most, of the "news" CNN runs, although in this case they actually stated that fact upfront.) It's about as valid as yours or mine. It is, by no means, a news article. And it sure leaves out a lot of details. So does the Inky article, though it goes into a lot more detail about how the HSR money would be spent.

Since this is a government project, we have to read in details that aren't going to be printed in one-sided stories/editorials but which we know from previous experience how these things operate, such as the fact that the cost overruns of the initial $151bn construction alone will run several times the stated amount, that pensions for the new government employees who will run the HSR will need to be funded, and that even less people will probably ride it seeing as Amtrak is expensive enough with old, beat-up trains.

Sure that's absolutely right. Any articles or news from the "Controlled New Network" or "Faux News" should be considered an opinion. They did bring up the point regarding the lack of will for a project like this, but then again they aim their news at a population that thinks this way anyway and have worked for years to undermine anything that Amtrak has tried to accomplish. Their statement that the stations are located out in the middle of nowhere is absolutely false. This is true of airline terminals but definitely not South Station in Boston or Washington Union Terminal, or many others across the country.

John

 

[RRSignal]

If Amtrak was really trying to accomplish anything, they'd fix their phone reservation system that auto-cancels your reservation 24 hours before your trip.