More like SOCIALISM is coming. I tore all the passenger seats out of my car in protest.

Trains....The Transportation Innovation Straight from the 1890's

For freight, trains are great.
For people....not so much.

Where are the flying cars, moon bases, livable space stations or how about just some high speed web access in rural areas?

Generation_D: As one who had family in Chicago I must ask, why is allowing Detroit better access considered desirable?

It's more like your giving Michiganders easy access to come and shop on the Miracle Mile.

It's more about what else is on that corridor. You have a number of large companies headquartered on the west side of Michigan. You still have some manufacturing facilities in Gary. Chicago of course is a popular tourism destination for Midwesterners and a money hub.

On the opposite run you have Ann Arbor (lots of students who go home to Chicago from time to time, possibly more if they have fast rail) and the border crossing to Canada. Also the world headquarters of the Big 3 and the North American technical headquarters of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, DENSO, and a bunch of other auto related companies.

In addition in Windsor you have the Canadian headquarters of Chrysler and a lot of other other suppliers. You can take the train to Detroit, rent a car, and cross the bridge if you have business over there. That beats a 4 or 5 hour drive.

So you have a lot of business traffic as a staple for the route. You have tourism and student traffic as well.

Beyond that, land is cheaper out here than on the East Coast or West. So it's a great way to build a decent sized high speed line without having to buy a bunch of prime real estate outside of DC, New York, or LA. Great place to test the concept.

Stops in Detroit, Ann Arbor, K-Zoo, Gary, and Chicago (with feeder lines from Lansing and maybe South Bend) create a decent high speed rail setup.

Can I get a ride on the crazy train instead?

WellBelowAverage: or how about just some high speed web access in rural areas?

I like the cut of your jib!

/knows the pain of rural internet all too well.

I'm confused. Why are the winking eyes from a smiley? :/

Arkanaut: Can I get a ride on the crazy train instead?

I prefer the South Detroit midnight train, going anywhere

Parthenogenetic: Arkanaut: Can I get a ride on the crazy train instead?

I prefer the South Detroit midnight train, going anywhere

Singers in a smoky room, a smell of wine and cheap perfume...

Parthenogenetic: Arkanaut: Can I get a ride on the crazy train instead?

I prefer the South Detroit midnight train, going anywhere

You're right, that train doesn't go off the rails.

I would rather have my travel agent book me a ticket on an aeroplane. I don't have time to take a fast train.

ha-ha-guy: K-Zoo

Please tell me no one actually says this.

Gimme a train from Flint to Buffalo or Flint to Columbus and I'd use them regularly. Actually a train back to Iowa would be nice too, but I do the other trips more often.

WellBelowAverage: Trains....The Transportation Innovation Straight from the 1890's

For freight, trains are great.
For people....not so much.


For commuting distances they are great. Wish they would spend this money on improving local public transportation.

Oh my god please no more slow-walking tourists.

Dragonduck: Oh my god please no more slow-walking tourists.

Do they keep you down when you're on your way to the gym?

So the last few people who are stuck in Detroit can finally get out somehow?

lohphat: WellBelowAverage: Trains....The Transportation Innovation Straight from the 1890's

For freight, trains are great.
For people....not so much.


Downtown London to Paris in 2:50 by Eurostar/TGV -- you can't do that time via plane with all the security BS and travel time to/from those cities' airports.

If less than 500 miles, high-speed rail makes better sense. It has the best fuel/payload ratio than another other mode of transport.

Yeah a fast train between San Fran and LA would be perfect. I have family that live in the south bay area and it is almost as fast to drive (if they haul ass and traffic doesn't kill them) than it is to fly once you consider all the time wasted in airports.

tricycleracer: [www.la-redo.net image 600x308]

Very nice.

ha-ha-guy: It's more like your giving Michiganders easy access to come and shop on the Miracle Mile.

Spoken like a true Misshi. It's called the "magnificent mile". Yeah, it's mostly a tourist trap but the Hancock center is worth a visit and if the weather is OK, the architectural tour boats.

Looks like someone took the slow train from Philly. That's code for check out the slut.

WellBelowAverage: Trains....The Transportation Innovation Straight from the 1890's

As opposed to... what, exactly? Even airplanes are almost as old.

No need to reinvent the wheel: trains work, they're safe, and far more efficient than anything else we've come up with.

jst3p:
Yeah a fast train between San Fran and LA would be perfect.

The problem is that there just isn't that much demand for travel between those two cities.

The California high speed rail folks are assuming a literal ten times increase in travel between SF and LA while assuming everyone would stop flying or driving between them - and nobody can figure out a reason for that to happen. It would still be cheaper to get a couple of friends and a car and drive the distance, at that (six hours versus four, once you factor in travel to and from the train stations, plus you still have a car to drive around in). Once you figure in local travel times, a fast train wouldn't be any faster than a cheap plane flight - and will cost the same or more. Using the actual route from SF-LA (instead of a nice direct one), train times will be doubling flight times... and no faster overall than driving, while costing much more per passenger.

The people in Florida were doing something similar - they were pushing an Orlando-Tampa route that would end up at central train stations, nowhere near any good transit routes, in two really spread out cities. While assuming that the daily train ridership would be literally ten times or more the number of people who make the one-hour trip in their cars. This is at a ticket price that would be about twice what it would cost to drive the route in the first place. When you lower the ticket price to be competitive with driving, they would need almost TWENTY times as many travelers along that route per day.

Bacontastesgood: ha-ha-guy: It's more like your giving Michiganders easy access to come and shop on the Miracle Mile.

Spoken like a true Misshi. It's called the "magnificent mile". Yeah, it's mostly a tourist trap but the Hancock center is worth a visit and if the weather is OK, the architectural tour boats.

I've never been there, just know the wife and kids go there. I normal head for the Art Museum or something of that nature. My goal is climb on top of the bean when no one is looking (so thus impossible).

I HAVE taken a train to Chicago. It's great, stopping for 10 minutes twice an hour. Makes your trip THAT MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE.

/grumblehate

lohphat: cirby: The problem is that there just isn't that much demand for travel between those two cities.

LOL WUT? ^

Seriously. Spoken by someone who likely doesn't live there.

lohphat: cirby: The problem is that there just isn't that much demand for travel between those two cities.

LOL WUT? ^

Even better than from LAX to SFO is from LA area to SF area so you include all of the airports...

Link (new window)

hubiestubert: jst3p: So the last few people who are stuck in Detroit can finally get out somehow?

Hopefully they'll turn the lights out as they leave.

Pretty sure they've already ripped out the copper wiring and sold it for meth or crack.

I commute from Detroit to Ann Arbor on Amtrak so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
/Srsly hurry the fark up Amtrak
//"fore I call Biden

MrEricSir: WellBelowAverage: Trains....The Transportation Innovation Straight from the 1890's

As opposed to... what, exactly? Even airplanes are almost as old.

No need to reinvent the wheel: trains work, they're safe, and far more efficient than anything else we've come up with.

They are efficient because we have decided to give them right of way and because when calculating fuel savings we like to pretend they are always full to capacity on all routes and at all hours. If we were to penalize them for all the traffic they hold up, including other forms of public transport that can actually drop you off precisely where you want to be...

As someone who lives in a Detroit burb and has had work assignments in Chicago in the recent past, I would take it without hesitation. The car trip along 94 takes me about 4.5 hours, so if this train can knock anything off of that time, all the better.

Big_Fat_Liar: They are efficient because we have decided to give them right of way and because when calculating fuel savings we like to pretend they are always full to capacity on all routes and at all hours. If we were to penalize them for all the traffic they hold up, including other forms of public transport that can actually drop you off precisely where you want to be...

[citation needed]

In 1978 I took Amtrak from Bowling Green, KY to Newark, NJ, via Chicago. I've been deep sea fishing many many times, never got sea sick. I served as a cabin boy on a great lakes bulk freighter, even in 28 foot seas I never got sea sickness. By God, I got sea sick on that dang train !

ha-ha-guy: Bacontastesgood: ha-ha-guy: It's more like your giving Michiganders easy access to come and shop on the Miracle Mile.

Spoken like a true Misshi. It's called the "magnificent mile". Yeah, it's mostly a tourist trap but the Hancock center is worth a visit and if the weather is OK, the architectural tour boats.

I've never been there, just know the wife and kids go there. I normal head for the Art Museum or something of that nature. My goal is climb on top of the bean when no one is looking (so thus impossible).

Spoken like a true Misshi. it's called the "Art Institute" (of Chicago)

/sorry, couldn't resist

NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: In 1978 I took Amtrak from Bowling Green, KY to Newark, NJ, via Chicago. I've been deep sea fishing many many times, never got sea sick. I served as a cabin boy on a great lakes bulk freighter, even in 28 foot seas I never got sea sickness. By God, I got sea sick on that dang train !

Did the crew not notice the hunting car?

This is the only Train I ever saw in Detroit.

cirby: The problem is that there just isn't that much demand for travel between those two cities.

lohphat:LOL WUT? ^

Right now, using current travel rates between SF and LA, the California High Speed Rail authority is assuming a TEN TIMES INCREASE in travel between the two cities, at airline-equal ticket prices, to pay for the system. Each way. And no, there's not that much pent-up demand for it. This isn't a "LOL" situation, unless you're laughing at the taxpayers who will be footing much of the bill.

Another small problem: San Francisco doesn't have the infrastructure to handle a ten times increase in LA-SF visitors. They don't have enough hotels by a factor of at least three. Hell, SF doesn't even have enough hotels on many occasions right now.

No, there's not a probable 90%+ market increase for travel between those two cities that's going unfulfilled because they could get there slightly faster, while costing the same. If they want a 900% increase in SF-LA tourism, the price is going to have to come down by a crazy amount - and it's already not going to make money (the "break even" price was assuming that much ridership at the $40 billion price that they have already admitted will be over $100 billion).

Remember: when you're talking about travel between two cities, the cost of travel is usually not the important thing. What is important is cost of STAYING in the city, along with things like local travel and other expenses. A small decrease in travel time at low or zero travel cost difference will NOT make a big difference to most people.

A 3h TGV-like train trip allows me to to do other things with my time.

I would pay for that.

That's nice. The thing is, not enough other people need that convenience along that travel route to create a ten times increase in demand. Think for a moment: how many people do you know who say "I'd make a run up to SF today, if I could save two hours of travel time while typing on my computer?" There's not 50,000 of them in Los Angeles.

The fact that YOU might see some benefit from such a system doesn't mean that an extra 50,000 persons per DAY would also need the same thing. Remember that only 5,000 to 7,000 LA residents travel to SF on any given day, on average, using all forms of transportation - and that SF's total visitors per day is only about 14,000 right now. The assumption is that - from LA alone - one of the most popular vacation destinations on the West Coast will suddenly get three to four times as many visitors. That's stupid.

And yes, those numbers include the whole Bay Area - effectively, everything within about 50 miles of SF.