The Swamp

That's why it's called a network. Endpoint to endpoint is rarely the point.

Also... bar car.

Isn't there also an assumption that availability will change people's travel patterns versus trying to cater to present-day transit usage?

I believe Amtrak finally turned a profit in 2020, so it's probably no longer an assumption.

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:28 pm That's why it's called a network. Endpoint to endpoint is rarely the point.

Sure, but looking at St Louis to LA, there's only a few larger cities in between. I don't think the traffic going between Albuquerque and Kansas City is going to add much revenue.

And I cannot fathom how the fare for high-speed rail for 1800 miles would be only $50.

Whenever these discussions come up, I feel like the primary argument for HSR is some version of "that's what they do in Europe or Japan so we should be able to do it here." But the Western US is so different from those places in population density, the way the cities are placed, and terrain.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:47 pm And I cannot fathom how the fare for high-speed rail for 1800 miles would be only $50.

That was to illustrate that you're not accounting for the value.

Also, HSR probably makes the most sense for specific routes and corridors, and the argument that it won't work for getting people from every large city directly to every large city doesn't tank the concept wholesale.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:53 pmAlso, HSR probably makes the most sense for specific routes and corridors, and the argument that it won't work for getting people from every large city directly to every large city doesn't tank the concept wholesale.

Yes, this I agree with.

I don't see any reason why high speed rail network couldn't effectively match the current Amtrak network.

Draw a line from Dallas north and east of that you'd have the ability to get from Dallas to Houston in 90 minutes or from St. Louis to New Orleans in two hours, etc. It would be much better for the environment and much more convenient.

It's not like it would be the highway map where you have to be able to get from Dallas to Denver somehow. You'd have three lines going west from there connecting Houston with El Paso to ABQ, PHX and LA. A line from KC/STL west going through Denver to SLC and through to San Francisco. And a line in the north going from MSP to Yellowstone to Boise and then up to Seattle. Then a network along the west coast connecting Seattle to LA/San Diego like there is now.

This isn't brain surgery.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:13 pm

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:57 pm We already have a national low-speed rail network in the West.

Right, and I love it and take it whenever I can find an excuse to do so (which unfortunately isn't that often).

But the long-distance routes only run three days per week, and the only people who can take them are vacationers.

I think that if we spent a shitload of money upgrading those to high-speed lines, they'd still only be used by vacationers because it would still take too much time to get anywhere compared to flying.

For those of us in Salt Lake City, it'd be fantastic. We'd be able to reach all the cities on the West Coast, plus Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver, in a few hours. But I don't think there'd be enough people going to or from SLC to make that work.

I think you're underestimating the hassles of flying, particularly to a place like SLC where you'd often have things like ski gear.


There are also probably a lot of trips that don't happen period because people don't want to drive or fly to the destination.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:47 pm
Whenever these discussions come up, I feel like the primary argument for HSR is some version of "that's what they do in Europe or Japan so we should be able to do it here." But the Western US is so different from those places in population density, the way the cities are placed, and terrain.

There is a train that crosses f-in' Russia.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:14 pm

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:10 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:44 pm I think the fundamental problem with a national high-speed rail network in the US is that once you get to the West, the cities are just too far apart.

Why isn't this an argument for it?

Because even high-speed rail just takes too damn long. St. Louis to LA is 1800 miles. Even with high-speed rail, that would be a 10-hour trip at best, compared to a 3-hour flight. And of course if you are coming from anywhere east of St. Louis, it'd be even longer.

Ok well what about St. Louis to Kansas City and then Kansas City to, I don't know, Wichita?

It's a multiple day drive between St. Louis and LA but we still built the road because most people aren't going from St. Louis to LA.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:19 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:47 pm
Whenever these discussions come up, I feel like the primary argument for HSR is some version of "that's what they do in Europe or Japan so we should be able to do it here." But the Western US is so different from those places in population density, the way the cities are placed, and terrain.

There is a train that crosses f-in' Russia.

Yes but it isn't a high-speed line. It takes 6 days, 5 hours, and 19 minutes from Moscow to Vladivostok.

TurdRyan, do a map!

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:32 pm TurdRyan, do a map!

Hell yes. And use that fancy ArcGIS stuff to project how much traffic there would be on all the various legs of the routes.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:05 pm Yeah, why take 2.5 hours to drive from Portland to Seattle when you could just as easily take 3.5 hours by train?



(Because its more expensive to rent a car.)

I think a major factor is whether you want a car in the city you are traveling to. One thing that makes Amtrak appealing in the Northeast is that I don't want a car when I'm going on a business trip to Boston or NYC or to a lesser degree Philly or DC. If you are travelling to LA by train, you probably need to rent a car, so driving might be a better option than a train. Train has an enormous benefit over airports in NE cities, as the train drops you off in the middle of the city, rather than airports being outside of the city, usually with shitty traffic in or out.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:40 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:32 pm TurdRyan, do a map!

Hell yes. And use that fancy ArcGIS stuff to project how much traffic there would be on all the various legs of the routes.

I've done that for the extremely lucrative Concord-Lowell corridor if you can use that as a proxy for the rest of the country

There are 12 stops between Kansas City and Albuquerque on Amtrak. Topeka, Lawrence, and Santa Fe are the only ones most people have ever heard of. There are over 150,000 people that ride between those places every year.

ETA: Well, the ridership is 150,000. I'd only do it once, but I suppose there are some commuters in there somewhere...

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:49 pm If you are travelling to LA by train, you probably need to rent a car, so driving might be a better option than a train.

And that's a choice that every over-25 licensed driver can make, but isn't a luxury for a large percentage of people that still need to go places.

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:01 pm There are 12 stops between Kansas City and Albuquerque on Amtrak. Topeka, Lawrence, and Santa Fe are the only ones most people have ever heard of. There are over 150,000 people that ride between those places every year.

ETA: Well, the ridership is 150,000. I'd only do it once, but I suppose there are some commuters in there somewhere...

I'm curious, what does that 150,000 represent? For example, people who went all the way from KC to ABQ, or who rode any particular leg, or ... ?

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:57 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:40 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:32 pm TurdRyan, do a map!

Hell yes. And use that fancy ArcGIS stuff to project how much traffic there would be on all the various legs of the routes.

I've done that for the extremely lucrative Concord-Lowell corridor if you can use that as a proxy for the rest of the country

See, that sounds awesome to me. But probably not to the other folks.

My kid has picked up Geography as a second major, with an emphasis in GIS, and it's fucking awesome to me.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:07 pm

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:01 pm There are 12 stops between Kansas City and Albuquerque on Amtrak. Topeka, Lawrence, and Santa Fe are the only ones most people have ever heard of. There are over 150,000 people that ride between those places every year.

ETA: Well, the ridership is 150,000. I'd only do it once, but I suppose there are some commuters in there somewhere...

I'm curious, what does that 150,000 represent? For example, people who went all the way from KC to ABQ, or who rode any particular leg, or ... ?

Total riders at all those stops. They could have also gone beyond on either side (like Topeka to LA or Chicago to Raton, NM)

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:16 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:07 pm

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:01 pm There are 12 stops between Kansas City and Albuquerque on Amtrak. Topeka, Lawrence, and Santa Fe are the only ones most people have ever heard of. There are over 150,000 people that ride between those places every year.

ETA: Well, the ridership is 150,000. I'd only do it once, but I suppose there are some commuters in there somewhere...

I'm curious, what does that 150,000 represent? For example, people who went all the way from KC to ABQ, or who rode any particular leg, or ... ?

Total riders at all those stops. They could have also gone beyond on either side (like Topeka to LA or Chicago to Raton, NM)

Is that data accessible to amateurs? I'd love to play around with it.

I was using this - not very detailed or interactive, but it has summaries

https://www.railpassengers.org/tools-in ... tatistics/

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:44 pm I believe Amtrak finally turned a profit in 2020, so it's probably no longer an assumption.

Probably due to the millions they saved using a certain enterprise legal management company!

They’ve been trying to get high speed rail in California for decades. I don’t think it’s ever really going to happen.
Link

sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:12 pm They’ve been trying to get high speed rail in California for decades. I don’t think it’s ever really going to happen.
Link

I feel like every time high speed rail gets mentioned, you come in with the LA-SF line talk, and I always comment that they were talking about an LA to Vegas line when I moved out there in the mid-90's.

I can't imagine making a line connecting LA and SF with just one stop in LA and one in SF. You're still dealing with significant travel time (and cost, unless you have someone dropping you off) to get to the train station. You can fly from LAX, Burbank, or Orange County to any of the three Bay Area airports (and Long Beach to at least two of the three) in 90 minutes of flight time or less.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:31 pm

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:19 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:47 pm
Whenever these discussions come up, I feel like the primary argument for HSR is some version of "that's what they do in Europe or Japan so we should be able to do it here." But the Western US is so different from those places in population density, the way the cities are placed, and terrain.

There is a train that crosses f-in' Russia.

Yes but it isn't a high-speed line. It takes 6 days, 5 hours, and 19 minutes from Moscow to Vladivostok.

If losing money is the main issue, I don't see why it's only ok to lose it at low speeds.

Germany does this right. And each country in Europe connects to each other country's system. Maybe each state can build their own and then it could be linked through a federal system or something.

https://www.bahn.com/en/view/trains/ind ... LOTTE_LZ01

I went from Kaiserslautern to Paris in about 3 hours.

America can do anything it wants. But there will always be a special interest to keep the public from having good shit and politicians will fall in line.

I’ve seen some version of this map for 20 years now. What would help a lot more is a map of roughly 6 hub and spoke systems, with the hubs at NYC/Atlanta/Chicago/Dallas/Portland/LA, so that people could see how many half-day trips could be improved on. I’m not even sure it would be that important for the map to connect the 6 hubs to each other.

And just to get it out in advance, fuck the mountain states. We don’t have to invest in flood barriers there either. (But I would do a mini one in Denver)

I like that map. I just selfishly want an ABQ to PHX/TUS line without changing trains in El Paso.

The only problem I have with the map is that it focuses your eyes on long routes that don’t really make a lot of sense unless the ride itself is the vacation. A better model would be the maps that airlines use to show their routes.

I think someone started with Ticket to Ride and tried to simplify.



Great gateway board game, by the way. And there's a really good digital implementation on your cell phone too.

I had an iPad version at one point, solid game. Maybe I still have it.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:20 pm I think someone started with Ticket to Ride and tried to simplify.



Great gateway board game, by the way. And there's a really good digital implementation on your cell phone too.

That was probably the game my family enjoyed most.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:20 pm I think someone started with Ticket to Ride and tried to simplify.



Great gateway board game, by the way. And there's a really good digital implementation on your cell phone too.

First thing I thought when I saw that map.

This will please the rural voters.

Well, they are typically big Democratic voters!

[But Pete, what about major delivery and trucking corporations]
"This will be a tax on the individual doing the driving, not the entity that owns the vehicle or employs the driver."

FFS. Doing something like that will lose the Dems 75% of the voters.