Trump unveils awesome new, "FU, U Pay For It" Infrastructure Plan

[lpetrich]

Why not something like a network of high-speed railroad lines connecting the more populated US cities? It's rather easy for me to think of some suitable lines.

It's not that simple. We don't have high speed rail because it's not viable here. There are three basic issues:

1) Population density. Very few places in the US have the population density needed to support good passenger rail.

What would you consider good density? I'd like to see some numbers, and I'd like to see how those numbers compare to the corresponding numbers in Europe and east Asia.

2) Cities exist. You either put the rail station on the outskirts (negating much of the advantage) or you are faced with incredibly expensive construction due to the cost of what you're tearing down to build it.

Then use existing tracks and existing rights-of-way, like they do in Europe. Several US cities have plenty of usable trackage and rights-of-way.

3) You give examples of where to build high speed rail--but they are lists of cities. Oops, now the train isn't competitive with the airplane any more due to the time it spends at the stops along the way. (Which is also going to doom California's high speed rail boondoggle.)

I could make comparable lists of cities for Europe and east Asia -- cities that are well-served by high-speed trains.

Note that China is a special case. They are undergoing extreme urban renewal--near 100% replacement of the buildings anyway. This greatly cuts the cost of running a train into the city.

As if they don't already have railroad trackage in cities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why not something like a network of high-speed railroad lines connecting the more populated US cities? It's rather easy for me to think of some suitable lines.

It's not that simple. We don't have high speed rail because it's not viable here. There are three basic issues:

1) Population density. Very few places in the US have the population density needed to support good passenger rail.

2) Cities exist. You either put the rail station on the outskirts (negating much of the advantage) or you are faced with incredibly expensive construction due to the cost of what you're tearing down to build it. Note that in many places in Europe the existing tracks were changed over to passenger rail rather than freight--that means more trucks on the road. (However, shipping is far more useful in Europe than it is here.) While in theory both types of train can use the same tracks it doesn't work very well in practice. The passenger trains want to run fast, the freight trains run slow because the situation isn't suitable for them to run fast. Mix them and you force the passenger trains to run slow.

3) You give examples of where to build high speed rail--but they are lists of cities. Oops, now the train isn't competitive with the airplane any more due to the time it spends at the stops along the way. (Which is also going to doom California's high speed rail boondoggle.)

 High-speed rail notes some market-share values that indicates that trains can easily compete with airplanes for trips less than 3 or 4 hours.  List of high-speed railway lines has the length of such lines per nation. Its definition: new lines with speeds of 250 km/h (160 mph) or more, or upgraded lines with speeds of 200 km/h (120 mph) or more.

• China: 25,000 km (16,000 mi) -- around 2/3 of all high-speed trackage

• 
  
  Note that China is a special case. They are undergoing extreme urban renewal--near 100% replacement of the buildings anyway. This greatly cuts the cost of running a train into the city.
  
  Besides, lets look at that high speed rail. I'm taking an example specifically stated as being competitive to air travel: Shanghai to Beijing.
  
  High speed train: 5 hours from the Shanghai Honqqiao train terminal, cheapest tickets ~$130.
  By air: 2 hours from the Shanghai Hongqiao airport, cheapest tickets ~$80.
  
  Given the extra time needed to actually get into Beijing and the greater security time at the airport (there is a security check with the trains) I would consider the time to be similar.
  
  This is about as good as it gets--and note that the train still is behind. (Not to mention that it's easier to buy that air ticket and you can buy it much farther out if you want. On the other hand, there isn't a close-in fee with the train.)

• 
  The biggest problem with high speed rail is simply the cost. To build from scratch between cities would cost a fortune... unlike the massive Interstate system that was built in the US in the 50s and 60s which only cost the nation $26 or something.

 

[lpetrich]

Loren Pechtel seems to have the misconception that no city has railroad trackage in it that was not built recently. In actual fact, many of the older cities in the world do have abundant railroad trackage in them. Much of it was built from the mid 19th cy. to the early 20th cy. European high-speed trains routinely use such trackage to get in and out of cities, and many US cities also have such trackage.

As to trains getting slowed down by lots of stops, trains can be run in express fashion, skipping lots of stops.

I'll see how well US cities can do, using a maximum separation of 3.5 hours at 250 km/h or 155 mph: 900 km / 550 mi.

Atlantic Axis:
Portland ME - 107 mi - Boston MA - 232 mi - NYC - 233 mi - DC - 109 mi - Richmond VA - 155 mi - Raleigh NC - 166 mi - Charlotte NC - 245 mi - Atlanta GA - 368 mi - Jacksonville FL - 346 mi - Miami FL
Total: 1961 mi

Though the Atlantic Axis's total length is above the limit, many of its users would go only part of the way, and could easily stay within the limit.

Greater Chicagoland:
Chicago IL to
Cleveland OH: 346 mi
Cincinnati OH: 295 mi
St. Louis MO: 297 mi - from there to Kansas City: 248 mi
Minneapolis MN: 409 mi

California:
San Francisco CA - 48 mi - San Jose, CA - 152 mi - Fresno, CA - 109 mi - Bakersfield, CA - 95 mi Palmdale, CA - 62 mi - Los Angeles, CA
Total: 466 mi

Distances are Google Maps highway distances.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What would you consider good density? I'd like to see some numbers, and I'd like to see how those numbers compare to the corresponding numbers in Europe and east Asia.

I don't know the numbers. I do know our density mostly is far lower than the areas you are talking about.

2) Cities exist. You either put the rail station on the outskirts (negating much of the advantage) or you are faced with incredibly expensive construction due to the cost of what you're tearing down to build it.

Then use existing tracks and existing rights-of-way, like they do in Europe. Several US cities have plenty of usable trackage and rights-of-way.

You failed to quote the part of my message that pointed out the problem here. Go back and read it.

Note that China is a special case. They are undergoing extreme urban renewal--near 100% replacement of the buildings anyway. This greatly cuts the cost of running a train into the city.

As if they don't already have railroad trackage in cities.

They've built lots of new tracks. And note that most of their trains are not that fast--they can share with freight.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't know the numbers. I do know our density mostly is far lower than the areas you are talking about.

Shoddy research.

Then use existing tracks and existing rights-of-way, like they do in Europe. Several US cities have plenty of usable trackage and rights-of-way.

You failed to quote the part of my message that pointed out the problem here. Go back and read it.

A "problem" that often does not exist.

 

[lpetrich]

Looks like I'll have to do all the research. But someone has to do it.  List of countries and dependencies by population density,  List of U.S. states and territories by population density

Population density per square kilometer:

• Massachusetts: 336
• - Japan: 335
• Connecticut: 286
• Maryland: 238
• - Germany: 232
• Delaware: 187
• Florida: 145
• - China: 144
• - France: 123
• Pennsylvania: 110
• California: 97
• - Spain: 92
• Illinois: 89
• US overall: 33

So the density argument is hogwash.