US Rail System Transportation?

[DougM]

The US is just to big for high speed trains.
No country in the world has EVER invested enough money in them to cover a country as big as the US is.
So you are looking at a limited system. Not something covering most of the country. This means you are going to have MAJOR issues getting it paid for by the Federal Government as the states that don't get it are going to vote against it.
Add in that building a line across the country has a few issues. First off it is so long that no one will use is. It is 1400 miles from Detroit to Miami. Even at 200 miles an hour that is 7 hours. Add in 4 stops and you are at 8 hours. Add in acceleration and deceleration time and you are at about 9 hours. Or you can hop a plane and get down in about 2.5 hours. Add in security time and you are still at half the time.
So even in our smallest direction a line across the country is useless.
So while you may convince the country to pay for a transcontinental line it would never be used.
This means we are looking at short inter city lines. And that takes us back to asking 45 states to pay for a system that the other 5 states get to use.
Keep in mind that with very few exceptions HSR does not pay for itself much less pay for the initial capital investment (directly I am not going to argue about the benefits of the system)
Also I think that a LOT of folks are way way over estimating the benefits the ease of use and the popularity of HSR in Europe while underestimating the use of cars.
I have traveled around Europe a good bit over the last 40+ years. I have relatives in Germany and I can tell you that they have a VERY extensive expressway system in Germany France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and others and those systems are HEAVILY traveled. I can also tell you that the HSR system has its issues. Is relatively expensive and faces competition from aircraft. Add in that the way France (for example) runs its system means I would NEVER suggest it for elderly or others with issues walking and I can tell you from firsthand experience that it is not the be all and end all that some seam to think it is.

By the way no way on earth can you run any rail system much less HSR next to the interstate. The curves and grades of the interstate are way way way to much for normal railroads. And that assumes the court does not outlaw the government competition with private railroads.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Is this a passenger rail only thread?

Pretty much at this point.

 

[TripleCitizen]

I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but if the airline industry was never deregulated, and the prices stay as astronomical as they were, wouldn’t that open up a niche for high speed routes between say, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

[dmg86]

No because the cost of building them in a urban area is going to be huge. Also railroads were very heavily regulated to the extant that it made hard to end service in unprofitable lines.

 

[Bbone91]

I think we’re failing to recognize the other use of railroads: freight transportation. Passenger trains, while nice, are kind of awesome but impractical once transnational aircraft enter the picture. Most railroads switched over to hauling large amounts of freight over long distances.

 

[SsgtC]

I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but if the airline industry was never deregulated, and the prices stay as astronomical as they were, wouldn’t that open up a niche for high speed routes between say, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

No. Passenger rail was dead a decade+ before the airlines were deregulated. When you factor in stops enroute (and how spread out the LA and SF areas are) the train lacks any real advantage over just driving there yourself.

 

[Riain]

So you are looking at a limited system. Not something covering most of the country. This means you are going to have MAJOR issues getting it paid for by the Federal Government as the states that don't get it are going to vote against it.

I did a tour of the Hoover Dam in 2013 and it was said that the flooding only caused problems in 7 (I think?) states so it wasn't a Federal problem, but in the end it was decided that 7 states was a lot so the Federal government would pay. I don't know the exact details at this point, maybe the Feds matched what the states contributed or something.

HSR networks could be seen in a similar light given some of the proposed systems cover several states. In any case IIUC the Feds fund roads and aviation that doesn't serve all states equally so why can't the same apply to rail; instead of loading huge amounts of case into certain road and aviation projects they tip some of that into HSR to alleviate the congestion in these sectors?

 

[Riain]

No. Passenger rail was dead a decade+ before the airlines were deregulated. When you factor in stops enroute (and how spread out the LA and SF areas are) the train lacks any real advantage over just driving there yourself.

Regular rail offers no advantage, but better services would offer an advantage. But that's the whole point isn't it.

 

[Marc]

Interurban rail - a la what Germany has - could easily have worked in the Northeast down to Virginia. But we simply didn't want it. The money and pleasure was in cars. Now it's just too late.

 

[Johnrankins]

I did a tour of the Hoover Dam in 2013 and it was said that the flooding only caused problems in 7 (I think?) states so it wasn't a Federal problem, but in the end it was decided that 7 states was a lot so the Federal government would pay. I don't know the exact details at this point, maybe the Feds matched what the states contributed or something.

HSR networks could be seen in a similar light given some of the proposed systems cover several states. In any case IIUC the Feds fund roads and aviation that doesn't serve all states equally so why can't the same apply to rail; instead of loading huge amounts of case into certain road and aviation projects they tip some of that into HSR to alleviate the congestion in these sectors?

Hoover Dam is chump change compared to HSR.

 

[DougM]

Anational disaster is declared in a TOTALLY different way then a railroad would have to be paid for. A railroad would have to go into the Federal budget. Thus congressmen from all 50 states would have to vote and 50+% would have to approve it and the President would have to approve the budget with tit in.
And a railroad serving only a handful of states is not getting approved.
Add in that a number of states build Aircraft and a number of other states build a lot of cars and other things that “compete” with railroads and you have as many states that have a vested interest in the railroad not getting built as you do interested in building it. Then you have the 45 or so states that won’t get any given line and you are just not getting this spending approved.
France gets around this because France is only as big as a couple states in the US so no one is that far from the line.

As I keep saying the US is just way way to big to see HSR as a viable option on anything but a few intercity routes and in general those are going to be viewed as regional lines and thus won’t get federal money.

No matter how we may want trains they just don’t work in a country this big

 

[DougM]

We had Interurbans and streetcars and guess what? The people wanted cars...

 

[Marc]

We had Interurbans and streetcars and guess what? The people wanted cars...

Actually, evidentially people never did want streetcars to go completely away, at least not completely. At least from the numbers I was told a number of years ago at a conference. A couple of extensive quotes that might help illuminate the situation:

“Through the mid-1950s, transit was provided throughout the country mainly by private companies. With ridership declining, many companies were financially strapped. Despite pressure from local officials, the companies were cutting unprofitable lines, putting off maintenance, raising fares-and moving in a downward spiral. Many were still profitable in the mid-1950s, but bankruptcy was in their future.”

Elected officials, listening to their constituencies, apparently wanted the streetcars to continue.
However:

Now consider a different direction, committed by the leadership of General Motors together with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, B.F. Phillips Petroleum and Mac Manufacturing. In 1936, the five companies formed National City Lines, a holding company that proceeded to buy electric trolley lines and tear up the tracks in cities across the nation. Each time it destroyed a local trolley system, National City would license the rights to operate a new system to a franchisee, under the stipulation that the system convert to diesel-powered General Motors buses.

By 1949, more than one hundred electric transit systems in forty-five cities had been torn up and converted. In April of that year, a federal jury convicted GM and the other firms of conspiracy to commit antitrust violations. But the penalty turned out to be negligible. The judge set the fine at $5,000 for each company. H.C. Grossman, treasurer of General Motors and a key player in the scheme, was fined one dollar. After the conviction, the companies went back to purchasing transit systems, removing electric trolley lines, and replacing them with buses. By 1955, 88 percent of the country’s electric streetcar network was gone.”

 

[Not James Stockdale]

I think we’re failing to recognize the other use of railroads: freight transportation. Passenger trains, while nice, are kind of awesome but impractical once transnational aircraft enter the picture. Most railroads switched over to hauling large amounts of freight over long distances.

The problem here is that you can't run freight and high-speed passenger trains on the same tracks at the same time. High-speed freight is not efficient unless you can snatch high-value, low-weight express packages from air freight, and the speed differential otherwise is too high to be safe. US high speed trains (Acela) are twice the weight of other countries' HSR trains because they're designed to maintain structural integrity while slamming into a parked freight train at 120 mph because the NEC is still used for freight service at night. Like many Western European rail networks, freight would have to fit in around the passenger trains.

 

[Johnrankins]

Actually, evidentially people never did want streetcars to go completely away, at least not completely. At least from the numbers I was told a number of years ago at a conference. A couple of extensive quotes that might help illuminate the situation:

“Through the mid-1950s, transit was provided throughout the country mainly by private companies. With ridership declining, many companies were financially strapped. Despite pressure from local officials, the companies were cutting unprofitable lines, putting off maintenance, raising fares-and moving in a downward spiral. Many were still profitable in the mid-1950s, but bankruptcy was in their future.”

Elected officials, listening to their constituencies, apparently wanted the streetcars to continue.
However:

Now consider a different direction, committed by the leadership of General Motors together with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, B.F. Phillips Petroleum and Mac Manufacturing. In 1936, the five companies formed National City Lines, a holding company that proceeded to buy electric trolley lines and tear up the tracks in cities across the nation. Each time it destroyed a local trolley system, National City would license the rights to operate a new system to a franchisee, under the stipulation that the system convert to diesel-powered General Motors buses.

By 1949, more than one hundred electric transit systems in forty-five cities had been torn up and converted. In April of that year, a federal jury convicted GM and the other firms of conspiracy to commit antitrust violations. But the penalty turned out to be negligible. The judge set the fine at $5,000 for each company. H.C. Grossman, treasurer of General Motors and a key player in the scheme, was fined one dollar. After the conviction, the companies went back to purchasing transit systems, removing electric trolley lines, and replacing them with buses. By 1955, 88 percent of the country’s electric streetcar network was gone.”

It was in GM's interest but it was just speeding things up. As you stated the trolleys were going belly up as is.

 

[Marc]

It was in GM's interest but it was just speeding things up. As you stated the trolleys were going belly up as is.

Agree, although the process would have taken longer, giving a number of communities more time to explore their options.
Ironically, artificially low fares, and gridlock were major factors in private streetcar decline. Still, are you aware that bus service in many American cities were private until they were bought out by their municipalities by necessity?
There always were lines that were either profitable, or had enough passenger volume to justify their existence. We just didn't think it out more thoroughly at the time.

 

[marathag]

any were still profitable in the mid-1950s, but bankruptcy was in their future.”

From what I came across, the last time profitability was in sight, was during tire and gasoline rationing during WWII.

Who was still profitable in the '50s? Everything I've seen was all being in the Red after 1947 when the supply of new autos caught of with demand.

 

[marathag]

It was in GM's interest but it was just speeding things up. As you stated the trolleys were going belly up as is.

People stopped riding the buses, as well.

 

[Johnrankins]

People stopped riding the buses, as well.

True enough. basically, everything that wasn't a car or plane was sliding. Planes weren't going up hugely in numbers at this time but they were going up.

 

[Indicus]

This sounds an awful lot like a totalitarian regime.

Oh, come on. “Totalitarian” is an egregious insult and a word of alarm which should only be used in a few rare circumstances to refer to a regime which is establishing itself as superior to the people. By using “totalitarian” to refer to practices you don’t like, you are weakening the word totalitarian, and you make it so that if actual totalitarians get called “totalitarian” they can blow it off as a meaningless insult.