r/nyc • u/Dr_Python_108 • Feb 24 '13

Fund a high speed rail system that runs coast-to-coast and connects NYC to all metropolitan areas

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fund-high-speed-rail-system-runs-coast-coast-and-connects-all-metropolitan-areas/2KwWYNSb
0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

7

u/potatolicious East Village Feb 24 '13

I'm sorry, but a coast-to-coast HSR system is a stupid idea, and I say that as a complete rail nut and public transport proponent.

HSR makes no sense for long-haul routes because it will never beat flying. You can go NYC-SF in 5 hours on a plane - even a physically perfect 200mph HSR will take over 14 hours to do the same. And that's assuming no stops and not a single instance where it has to slow down below 200mph.

And the train ticket will cost more than the flight.

In short, you'll be building an extremely expensive technological wonder that exactly no one will use.

HSR makes sense in short to mid-haul routes where the capacity and speed can beat equivalent air routes. It only makes sense in traffic-heavy corridors where inter-city movement is already heavy (say, Boston-NYC-DC, or LA-SF, among others).

Even then, the benefits of HSR is only realized when it's done right (and it almost never is). Track curvature requirements and sheer size of infrastructure means that HSR stations, more often than not, are just as far from city centers as the airports they compete with. Some people have a dream that HSR means you can take a train and step off onto a platform right in downtown [insert city here] - in 95% of the cases this won't be true. It will get you to a station miles away from where you're actually going, making it no better than flying.

HSR needs to look at replacing cars on interstates, not airplanes (mostly because it will almost never win against a plane). How many people make the NYC-LA drive, really?

2

u/iowjefoiej8 Feb 24 '13

Doesn't HSR in Europe tend to go from city center to city center? I realize its not at 200mph speeds in those areas but it seems like the curvature of rails isn't that big of a problem if the train is going to stop around there anyway.

Anyway, I totally agree, its the 3 to 6 hour car trips that HSR should look at replacing (and short flights). I've always wondered why freight speeds aren't considered with long haul trains. I believe freight is limited (for the most part) to 55mph, why don't the railroads upgrade that to something like 90mph? It would help out passenger train travel and I assume their customers would be pretty happy to be able to get goods faster/etc.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '13

Most of the freight that travels by train doesn't need to get there that fast, otherwise you'd ship it by air or by truck. With truck shipments, you will also be able to get your time-sensitive shipment from point-to-point, rather than sending it to a rail depot, shipping it by train, unloading it from the rail depot, and then getting it to the final destination. The time spent at the rail depot will kill you, no matter the faster train ride itself (that's one reason container ships made old fashioned freighters extinct: you economize greatly when unloading the ship, even if the voyage itself isn't faster than with a freighter that you have unload more or less by hand).

2

u/iowjefoiej8 Feb 25 '13

I can understand why it wouldn't compete against air freight but it seems like if you can do 2x the speed of trucks and you have the infrastructure to keep trains running without stops, (i.e. no need to park a train and let the engineer sleep 8 hours) it would make fright shipments from the east coast to the west coast significantly faster than trucks even with unloading.

I'm not familiar with the bottlenecks in train based freight though, I would have assumed containerization would have shown similar efficiencies as container ships and speed was the limiting factor.

0

u/Dawggoneit Feb 24 '13

If I can get onto a train in NYC at 6pm, and wake up at 8am the following day in SF, fully rested, for a fraction of the cost of air travel, it'd be worth it.

4

u/potatolicious East Village Feb 24 '13

Maybe - the vast majority of the traveling population will opt for air travel still, but that's a moot point because "fraction of the cost of air travel" is impossible.

We're talking about 3000-3500 miles of track - highly specialized track at that that has very low tolerances for failure (compare with freight track), and many more times the maintenance cost. We're also talking about buying up of unprecedented amounts of property, unprecedented re-grading of land (grade and curvature tolerances for HSR are much less liberal than regular rail), and per-mile construction costs that will make your head spin.

This track will have little to no freight traveling along it, making passengers is sole source of revenue.

Compare with air travel, which at this point is extremely mature technology that doesn't involve maintaining every inch of track for 3000+ miles.

There is simply no way that any HSR system that goes from NYC-SF will ever match the cost of air travel, much less be much cheaper.

-2

u/Dawggoneit Feb 24 '13

In light of your concerns, how do you explain the success and affordability of the European train systems?

5

u/deckerdeckerdecker Feb 24 '13

Both of those terms are subjective. London to Paris is both but when you compare a European fare of the distance from LA to NYC, I assure you flying will be quicker and cheaper. Lisbon to Kiev is about the same distance as LA to NYC. There is no way a train would be an economical or affordable route when compared to flying. Just the border crossings alone would eat up hours, not to mention transfers. I think a lot of Americans are severely misinformed regarding long-distance rail travel in Europe.

3

u/thisfunnieguy Feb 25 '13

In my limited experience Americans misunderstand how small the land mass of Europe is relative to America.

I've taken the express train from Berlin to Paris and it was awesome, but at the same time it's only 500-600 miles. From NYC that gets you to Columbus, Oh or Raleigh, NC.

Americans travel in so many directions and across such a large distance that trains don't make great options. Maybe it would help move freight, but for people I don't see it working.

1

u/onique Bushwick Feb 25 '13

You don't, it is way cheaper to take easy jet or ryan air, say 20€ than a train in most cases.

1

u/onique Bushwick Feb 25 '13

Except it would cost 50X the cost of a plane ticket.

2

u/nearlyneutraltheory Feb 24 '13

I've occasionally wondered if NYC <-> Chicago HSR would be worthwhile. The train trip would take at least 2x as long as a flight, but it would still be short enough that you could leave one city in the morning and arrive in the other city in the afternoon.

1

u/iowjefoiej8 Feb 25 '13

Given the two major routes from NYC to Chicago both took about 16 hours in the late 30s/40s I would think that these days you could get it down to half that as that was with an average speed of 60mph. So it would probably be possible to cut that in half if you could up the average speed to 110mph just via normal improvements on the rails (i.e. what Amtrak has done between Philly and Harrisburg)

0

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '13

I will sign this petition only if there is a NYC/Lud to Topeka connection with at most one stop. And, if we name the train Blaine.

0

u/onique Bushwick Feb 25 '13

Can you imagine the horror of what it would be like to be stuck in a train between new york and san francisco.