Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Most of this article is pretty good, but it mostly isn't about any sort of relationship between high-speed rail and freight trains. That comes in only at the very end of the article, and is quite speculative.

They admit that the current batch of high-speed rail lines being built, mainly California's, will run on new lines that won't interfere with freight. The Economist's worry seems to be about the more extensive proposed high-speed rail network that's currently on the drawing board, which is proposed to include extended portions on existing freight rails (at 110mph) to link together the purpose-built higher-speed segments. They seem to be thinking of plans like this one: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/203.shtml

But is that really even a medium-term worry? I'll be surprised if even California's line gets finished by 2020. I would be very surprised if this more extensive national HSR plan that's supposed to follow later gets anywhere anytime soon. The map linked above is the result of a process begun in 1991, which has not been turning into a high-speed-rail network at any particularly great rate of speed. It'll be a miracle if they settle on a final plan by 2020, much less fund it or actually start building anything. I'll eat my hat if that entire network is built in my lifetime!

One reason to be a bit more optimistic is Texas (http://www.thsrtc.com/). Their equivalent plan to California's is loads cheaper thanks to their more agreeable geography (plains, mostly).

More importantly, the lighter touch of the state government means rather than do a full-on government build and operate (ala California/Amtrak), they're looking at private build & operations under a long-term lease, with the government providing liability limitations and eminent domain, in return for owning the infrastructure after the lease expires in some decades of operation. This means the builder is subject to market forces: they can only recoup their build costs within the lease window by getting to operations as quickly and efficiently as possible. The incentives are the opposite for government construction: the milk flows during construction, so there's a disincentive to ever finish, and when things go over budget, it almost always means more money, rather than anyone cutting their losses.

To get a sense what a difference this makes, consider that the NYC subway system was built by competing private concerns under the long-term lease model (ala Texas), between 1905 and 1940. In 1940 the system was unified under government control (ala California), and basically the system was frozen in time, with no expansion happening in the 70 years since (see: http://www.diametunim.com/shashi/nyc_subways/).

I do think Texas's plan is one of the most promising, but I suppose my guess is that it'll still take a long time, partly because it's been looking promising for a long time now: the first feasibility study was launched in the 1980s. The state actually awarded a contract to a private group to build high-speed rail in the Dallas-San Antonio-Houston triangle, under terms like those you discuss, in 1991, but it was killed, largely by Southwest Airlines lobbying, in 1994. I went to high school in Texas 1996-2000, and a new high-speed rail plan was being discussed that entire time too, but the talk never went anywhere. In the early 2000s, it was revived once more, this time as part of an ambitious Trans-Texas Corridor (which would have had freight rail, high-speed rail, car-only freeways, and truck-only freeways), but that died a few years later as well, partly due to a nativist backlash against its role as the "NAFTA superhighway".

Now there's yet another HSR plan, separated back out from the road plans, which might work this time, but I probably wouldn't put any money on this being the year the 20+-year impasse is broken. Honestly I haven't seen any of that supposedly lighter-touch, actually-functioning Texas state government on this issue, just a multi-decade series of special interests and politicking resulting in no rails being built.

Fair enough, the special interest game is no fun[1]. But I'll take a bet on the stars aligning in Texas over California finding efficient building practices any day.

In Texas, given all the immigration from other states, the prospect of the population doubling in a few decades and little place left to build freeways, I think there's a growing understanding among policymakers that higher-density transportation will be a necessity going forward. There's a long-term trend of immigration & congestion supporting the eventual adoption of a rail plan, it's just a matter of time.

On the other side, I don't see any trends in California pointing towards sane governance, apart from the possibility of a constitutional convention (http://www.repaircalifornia.org/), which is hardly a safe bet.

So there's good reason to hope for Texas, I'd say, despite the history.

[1] incidentally, I hear that to get the airlines on board, the new Texas HSR plan terminates at the airports specifically, while the earlier plan focused stops at city centers, which might have been better for TOD, but then this makes for inter-modality.

I think rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because it makes it to easy for "undesirable elements" to get to places they're not wanted too easily. I think that's the incredibly sad but honest truth of it all.

The class differences in the United States are far more extreme than most people realize, mostly because people stay inside their tight little class bubbles all day long in their private cars, driving to work and back and rarely venturing out to get a latte every once in a while.

I find this rather implausible. We don't build a Dallas/Houston or LA/San Fran train because we are afraid that a black guy might pay $80 to ride from Dallas to Houston?

I can see this claim being plausible concerning short distance rail, i.e. "don't build a train to the ghetto", however.

In my home town, there's certainly an instance of this fear for mid-distance runs. The Chicago-area Metra commuter train terminates about 15 miles away, and there's a boarded-up old station from the golden age of passenger rail in the middle of the downtown. Whenever the subject of negotiating a deal with Metra and renovating the station comes up, the crime threat is always second right after budget concerns.

I can't say I've ever seen much of the thug life on Metra trains, though.

I don't agree with this comment in this context, but I do know for a fact that the Washington DC Metro does not extend to the popular Georgetown shopping and nightlife district for precisely this reason.

That's the same reason Atlanta's MARTA doesn't extend into Cobb County. I don't think it has much to do with intercity rail, though; it seems to be mainly an issue with opposition to metropolitan-area rapid-transit systems, with people worried that they'll blur boundaries between nice and not-nice neighborhoods within the same city.

It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that isn't so that does. That is a canard, often repeated but without basis in fact.

Hmmm....

Just checking prices it's about $10 more to fly round trip from Omaha to Denver vs. going from Omaha to Denver by Amtrak. The plane ride (including travel to/from the airports) would probably cost me about 4 hours of my life each way while the train would be over 10 each way (this is a trip I have made before).

But that is a simple example where there is a direct route by both modes of transportation. Lets say I'm going to take the family to Orlando for vacation. By air is about $60 per person more expensive than by train BUT the trip by air will take about 8.5 hours while Amtrak will take 53+ hours EACH WAY!

Rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because generally it doesn't go where you want by anything like a direct route so it takes a significant portion of your life in travel time.

> Rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because generally it doesn't go where you want by anything like a direct route so _it takes a significant portion of your life in travel time._

I don't think any HSR advocates really believe something like cross-country would be viable. This would be more like (as it is currently) NY-Washington DC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com