kebosabi

I wholeheartedly agree for the need of improving intracity mass transit.

OTOH, America pretty much sucks at this as well and it all stems from post-war suburban sprawl planning based on the automobile. Trying to fix something like that is another headache that will a long time and a lot of money to fix.

This in itself is another point of discussion which will diverge from the main discussion of this thread though.

SeriouslyLost

You misunderstood - so clearly I should have written more...ummm... clearly.

It's not a matter of trying to match it. That's not the goal. I was saying that it can be as flexible. As others have said, there will be situations where flying is the better economic choice overall for the society. In others, it might be trains. Or cars. Or donkeys. Whatever. The problem is that the US (yes, it's a gross generalization) doesn't even want to have the conversation about what's best for a given situation.


Indeed. And IMO that would actually be easier if you chose the big (but achievable) routes first because you'd be building from scratch, not just cobbling something together to lay over the top of the existing, antiquated system. The thing that really needs to change is the American mindset, and that's most quickly done by acting big and demonstrating that it works.



The things you mention are true. But they also speak to a mindset of "train as subsidiary to flying" and "it can't be done". Why shouldn't it compete outright in certain areas? If the airlines want better access to airports to make themselves more efficient then why aren't the airlines fronting the money for it?



Pardon? You mean as in they can't sprawl any further? I'd agree with that pretty much.


Ah, now that's one of the interesting parts: how do we measure the ROI? That's a whole new discussion all by itself.

kebosabi

IIRC, AA actually was for the Texas HSR plan and was ready to put some money into it, but another competitor, WN said no and lobbied heavily against it.

Care to analyze why AA would be for it, while WN would be against it?


A good study case where even within the industry, perspective may differ.

kebosabi

Here's a food for thought. Can intracity mass transit be profitable? Should intracity mass transit be profitable to begin with, or is it more of a "way for the poor who can't afford cars to get around" idea.

Is there anything wrong with privatizing mass transit for intracities run for profit, instead of using public mass transit paid for with tax dollars?

Is mass transit in the US mainly still viewed as "way for the poor who can't afford cars to get around therefore it makes sense to throw tax dollars at it as a public good" or is there a paradigm shift going on where the middle class are starting to get hurt with rising gas prices that it's not really just a way for the poor to get around, but for the middle class as well, which could warrant public transit to diverge away from that line of thinking to become a for profit enterprise?

What fare models would suit better in order to run intracity mass transit for profit? What fare models do we use today with most public transit in the US? (LA Metro, NY Metro, CTA, etc.)

What fare models do other countries use when they are run as a private mass transit? (Tokyo JR lines, HKMTR, Singapore SMRT)

How much freedom should we give to mass transit agencies (or if privatized, to corporations) in real estate development? Should mass transit agencies (or if privatized, mass transit corporations) be allowed to reap in money and profits from building condos and apartments, office buildings and department stores so as to make cities livable?

Once you get into the details, discussion of this matter is better off left to another thread.

exbayern

So much of this discussion centres around 'current state'. Those of you arguing that in America there is a decent coverage via air seem to be overlooking the fact that air travel in the US may change in the near future. With the number of mergers recently, as well as a number of other factors such as technology, fuel costs, etc I suspect that the US airline industry will continue to change over the next few years and 'current state' may no longer be an argument for not investing in alternatives.

And frankly, I think that the current culture of fear in America is here to stay. I don't think that airport security will ease to the levels in 'rest of world'; I think that if anything, the US will continue to become more and more fearful and continue to implement more and more unnecessary measures in airports in the claim of 'security'. At some point people will reach their personal tipping point and won't see air travel as the first option anymore.

Too much of the argument is being made in black and white. HSR is one of several methods of transportation; in France for instance the TGV lines have only recently expanded to include more cities. Now I have the option to fly to FRA or STR, or to take train to Strasbourg, and connect via car/bus/train if I need to be in western German/eastern France. I don't think that those who support HSR are suggesting that it cover all of the US, just as it doesn't cover all of France, or Germany, or China or other relatively large countries which have HSR.

But as kebosabi says in the post above, it's also about changing mindsets about travel and the perceptions about transit, and trains.

fastflyer

Any private company, a new start-up or one of the many existing railroads, has the right to raise capital and start constructing a HSR, even as a small proof-of-concept between two high value endpoints, like the NYC and Chicago example cited above.

Once that happens, I would be willing to take a look at investing public money in HSR. Until then, I think our ever-dwindling transportation budgets should be directed at the transportation options that are actually providing the vast majority of passenger miles -- the highway and the airplane.

aroundtheworld76

Then you clearly don't understand transportation economics. Did bus lines and motor freight carriers fund the interstate? No, but they followed public money with private. Did the airlines build the first runways and air terminals? No, but again, they followed public investment with private. Even the existing rail infrastructure was primarily built with government gifts of land to the railroads in exchange for........wait for it........... following public investment with their own private dollars.

ksandness

Last time I flew through LAX, I had a long layover, and I went to the departure area for my outbound airline, since it was more comfortable than standing around in the baggage claim area. I was headed for MSP, so flying made sense, but there was a group of people at the next gate headed for San Diego. Their flight kept getting delayed again and again, so much so that they could easily have taken a train, a bus, or a car to San Diego.

Now high-speed rail is not suitable for traveling from the East Coast to the West Coast, but it would be a fantastic option for shorter distances. Amtrak in its present incarnation is underfunded, uses antiquated equipment, and forced to yield to freight trains, but if there were a Shinkansen-type train running between Minneapolis and Chicago, I'd choose it over air travel every time. And that may be what the airline and auto industries are afraid of.

Sweet Willie

sources/links? thanks.

aroundtheworld76

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=334&invol=573

This the text of the appeal. Most historians now realize that GM/NCL was only a small part of the problem. Government unwillingness to invest in new infrastructure and the national embrace of suburban sprawl played equal or larger roles.

gailwynand

China actually does have passenger security screening in their HSR stations. It's basically like pre-9/11 style airport security and a mild annoyance at most. (laptops in, shoes/outerwear stay on, etc.)

It's mostly security theater but it seems to be taken more seriously than in the subway stations - for example someone actually looks at the x-ray display...

legalalien

Acela is a good product, and NE Regional is not bad either. I was addressing the viability of express trains. Acela, traveling faster and making far fewer stops, saves 35-40 min on BOS-NYP route vs NER - decent savings, but hardly a game changer.

yandosan

Some thoughtful discussion here about what's lacking in
America's woefully inept (passenger) train services...

As OP, I can't help but notice one thing--FlyerTalk readers are leaps and bounds ahead of transportation engineers and politicians in terms
of creativity and common sense...the country that sent
a man to the moon 40 years ago can do better than AMTRAK.

legalalien

My mindset (can't speak for others) is that we already have a fairly good inter-city transportation system, so it's up to the HSR supporters to convince me that we need to spend bid bucks to create an alternative. There is no question it can be done. Whether it should be done is what I am trying to figure out.

The majority of arguments I hear can be distilled to "HSR works great in Europe and Japan." Not good enough; we are not in Europe or Japan. I can see how true HSR would work on the current Acela route. I can sort of see how HSR could work along West coast if the trains would actually serve San Francisco proper (not Emeryville) and make stops at area airports. I'm much less convinced that HSR will do a great deal for Chicago. HSR value proposition becomes much harder to prove for the rest of the country.

I mean that US cities tend to sprawl over much larger area than similarly sized European and Japanese cities. As an example, compare Paris (Population: 2,234,105 (2009) Area: 40.7 sq miles (105.4 km�)) to Chicago (Population: 2,707,120 (2011) Area: 234 sq miles (606.1 km�)).

I don't think it's a separate discussion. ROI helps a lot if mindset change is a goal.

My approach is fairly simple: investments in local public transportation benefit more local residents and visitors (e.g., those arriving by air), more often (every day vs. travel days). Local public transportation does not rely on HSR to be efficient, whereas HSR can't realize its potential without an easy way for passengers to get to/from train stations. Distances are shorter and technological challenges are smaller. In other words, higher return on lower investments equals a better ROI.

slawecki

Randal O’Toole's seat at cato is funded by oil and gas.

O'Toole has been criticized for declaring that roadways pay for themselves and are the best use of public funds, even though highways are some of the most expensive public works projects.[17] Detractors have noted O'Toole's selective use of information, undocumented statistics, and unverifiable sources of information in order to support his claims against rail transit.