Cities that should be connected by train

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Actually, compared to Europe, China, and the rest of East Asia, America has terrible highways.

lol no -- and certainly el lay is not the usa. you cant drive 3k miles for free in those places. the highway system is much more well established and at the very least still serviceable enough. this is why we dont have nice trains. now when trump builds his infrastructure 'improvements' aka toll roads, then ok.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Probably the coolest HSR line, though, is between Frankfurt and Hannover. Half the line is underground. It's like an HSR subway or something. It travels through a number of lower mountain ranges and just tunnels through. Can you imagine something like that in the U.S.?

That was basically the proposal for the new Inland NEC through Connecticut, with a series of massive tunnels through the eastern and western hills.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

lol no -- and certainly el lay is not the usa. you cant drive 3k miles for free in those places. the highway system is much more well established and at the very least still serviceable enough. this is why we dont have nice trains. now when trump builds his infrastructure 'improvements' aka toll roads, then ok.

Although most, if not all, of China's expressways are tolled, the actual physical infrastructure is definitely more impressive than the US Interstate system (I've driven on both, and Chinese drivers aside I prefer driving on China's expressways) and China's expressway network length is nearly double that of the US Interstate system.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Although most, if not all, of China's expressways are tolled, the actual physical infrastructure is definitely more impressive than the US Interstate system (I've driven on both, and Chinese drivers aside I prefer driving on China's expressways) and China's expressway network length is nearly double that of the US Interstate system.

I find this extremely hard to believe. China has 2x the freeway miles of the U.S.? Every podonk town in China has like 5 freeways like in the U.S.?

Can you source this?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I find this extremely hard to believe. China has 2x the freeway miles of the U.S.? Every podonk town in China has like 5 freeways like in the U.S.?

Can you source this?

With the caveat that that they do seem to use the terms "expressways" to avoid the implication that driving is "free" (the roads are tolled), Wikipedia at least seems to confirm:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Expressways_of_China

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Interstate_Highway_System

131,000 km for China, vs. 77,000 km for the United States. Crazy too because China apparently only passed the U.S. in 2011.

[Crawford]

I'm highly skeptical that this is an apples to apples comparison. Don't believe it.

China uses the same terms but with different, often broader definitions.

A subway or metro in China isn't the same as in the West. It basically means any heavy rail, light rail or commuter line. I'm guessing expressway is just some broad label for limited access or higher speed roads.

[Busy Bee]

Plenty of state and national routes in the US are limited access divided highways built nearly identical to Interstate standards that would undoubtedly dramatically increase the total national mileage. This distinction probably does not exist in China.

As for the infrastructure being more "impressive" in a general sense of the word, this should really not come as a surprise. The American Interstate Highway system was unfortunately intentionally designed and built in a spartan utilitarian manner when compared to oversees systems like the Autobahn where aesthetics and architecture (even down to the roadway geometry designed for driving pleasure) of the built infrastructure was a much higher priority. Along with it's thoughtlessly reckless and socially destructive routing through cities, this "artless" aspect of the USIHS has always been its most disappointing.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm highly skeptical that this is an apples to apples comparison. Don't believe it.

China uses the same terms but with different, often broader definitions.

A subway or metro in China isn't the same as in the West. It basically means any heavy rail, light rail or commuter line. I'm guessing expressway is just some broad label for limited access or higher speed roads.

Actually, it's quite easy to believe. Look at this map:


Every one of those thicker orange lines is an expressway, either an S (Provincial) or G (National) road. Look how thickly they're bunched on the east coast particularly. Chinese expressways (Chinese 高速公路) are built to every bit as high standards as Interstates, if not higher.

Also, you're wrong about light rail being considered Metro in China. What the Chinese call light rail is not what we think about in North America when we think about light rail - light rail in China generally refers to elevated heavy or light metro. As an example, Line 3 of Shanghai's Metro was previously referred to as the Pearl Light Rail line, when it absolutely is not light rail by North American standards - it's very obviously a heavy rail elevated metro line. I'm unaware of any metro system in China that encompasses anything but light / heavy metro - even lines that serve as more like commuter rail (such as Shanghai's Line 16) are built to full heavy rail metro standards (full grade separation, Metro trainsets, etc) and share little in common with North American commuter rail.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Although most, if not all, of China's expressways are tolled, the actual physical infrastructure is definitely more impressive than the US Interstate system (I've driven on both, and Chinese drivers aside I prefer driving on China's expressways) and China's expressway network length is nearly double that of the US Interstate system.

Agreed. It seems like everywhere else has nice bridges and tunnels, too.

[electricron]

Why does every thread stray away from its main topic? The last thing I expected to read about new city pairs for trains was the status of freeways, in China, USA, or Europe! I Am Very disappointed!
Keep to the topic under discussion, or start a new thread under a new topic will be greatly appreciated by all.

[dubu]

It must be the hot ass summer, I can't think most the time, I actually thought it was a highway thread and I made the thread jk

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

and yeah kasich shooting down the three 3Cs plan in ohio was just asinine. unfortunately, the state government in ohio tends to cater to "i got mine" suburbanites who elected trump and screws over the rural areas, cities and anything like public transit. i believe florida has that money now for their rail projects.

If I recall correctly, the 3C plan was kicked off as a HSR plan (200+ mph) that over the many years of planning and scheming deteriorated into a regional rail plan (79 mph). At those slower speeds, Ohio would be far better off investing state funds into local commuter or light rail projects. Intercity Bus services under private enterprise can deliver passengers at higher speeds, at a cheaper price, than publically subsidized trains. And there is a healthy competitively priced market for jetliners too, for those who must get there faster.
It’s not like there are a lack of choices already.....

[LMich]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why does every thread stray away from its main topic? The last thing I expected to read about new city pairs for trains was the status of freeways, in China, USA, or Europe! I Am Very disappointed!
Keep to the topic under discussion, or start a new thread under a new topic will be greatly appreciated by all.

You can't be serious. You regularly find ways to deliver anti-government/anti-public screeds - hell, you've already done it at least once in this very thread - in the least political of threads, and you're criticizing someone else for being off-topic?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by LMich

You can't be serious. You regularly find ways to deliver anti-government/anti-public screeds - hell, you've already done it at least once in this very thread - in the least political of threads, and you're criticizing someone else for being off-topic?

My two prior posts discussed rail. My first reply addressed the specific topic, where I pointed out Dallas to Houston would make a great choice. My second argued a point that America’s rail network isn’t as bad as a previous poster suggested, that it is aimed more for freight than passengers, and I included a lot of statistics proving that it moves the freight very, very well. In my second post I also pointed out how Switzerland funded its expensive rail tunnels. I don’t see political ranting as much as pointing out realities. Both of my earlier responses included passenger rail in the discussion.
Yet here I stand accused of being completely political and completely off-topic
Getting back to being on topic again, wouldn’t you agree than connecting two cities with over 5 million in their metros less than 250 mikes apart with rail services would be wiser than connecting two cities with less than 50,000?

[dubu]

I think cities that are at least 100,000. The cities I mentioned are almost that.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Not sure what this means, but the route between SD and LA is the second busiest corridor in the US and has several Amtrak trains daily plus commuter rail service.

Yeah its a busy corridor with shitty service. Needs electrification.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Map is interesting in that many of the wealthiest and most successful European states have crap or no HSR. The UK, the Nordics, and really all the prosperous parts of Northern Europe have limited HSR. France, Spain and Italy, all relative "sick men" of Europe have the best systems.

I think the main difference is that HSR in the likes of France and Spain have been driven more by politics rather than economics; as a consequence, the viability of many lines is dubious.

Spain has built the second largest network in the world, yet only 17.5mn journeys were made, and it has been suggested that none of the lines will ever be profitable. France’s TGV network carries substantially more than the Spanish AVE network – 105mn last year – and it did see an uptick in growth for the first half of this year, but that is following several years of stagnation and a strategy and brand review. New line openings this year (LGV Sud Europe Atlantique and LGV Bretagne-Pays de la Loire) will likely increase growth in the second half of the year, but France has just deregulated the intercity coach sector which in the coming years will undoubtedly put further pressure on passenger numbers and the finances of SNCF.

The UK currently only has HSR from St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, but it has begun construction on HS2 which is a required to alleviate the heavily congested main line routes heading north out of London. Despite the absence of a national HSR network and a deregulated coach market dating back to the 1980’s, more journeys are made on the UK’s intercity network than in Germany (ICE) and France (TGV and Intercités). More people use Virgin Trains East Coast (the intercity operator out of London King’s Cross) than the entire Spanish AVE network. Speed ultimately isn’t everything.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nito

More people use Virgin Trains East Coast (the intercity operator out of London King’s Cross) than the entire Spanish AVE network. Speed ultimately isn’t everything.

Excellent point I would suggest elapse time is more important than speed.
The area of France is 248,573 mi², Spain is 195,364 mi², Great Britain is 93,628 mi², and England is 50,301 mi². FYI, the area of Texas is 268,597 mi² (2nd largest), California is 163,696 mi² (3rd largest), Michigan is 96,716 mi² (11th largest), and Louisiana is 51,840 mi² (31st largest).

The point of all the area data is to point out how far people will be riding trains within their own country, where the vast majority commute daily or travel weekly and monthly. One of the reasons why England ride intercity trains in larger numbers than elsewhere is the relatively short distances between major metros. It's only been within the last 15 years that they could ride trains off Great Britain with the Chunnel opening on May 6, 1994. Even though the train speeds aren't super fast, the shorter distances to travel means doing it in less time.

So what is that sweet spot where the numbers riding trains soars? Less than 1, 2, 3, or 4 hours? I'm not sure there is a study general enough to define it. Whenever it is, at some point most passengers will choose to fly.
Another consideration in attracting higher ridership besides elapse time, is frequency. How many trains per day and per hour can passengers take between two cities? There is no doubt that in most of America; Spain, England, and France provide more intercity trains per day. There is only just one train a day between Chicago and Los Angeles, there's dozens of flights per day from many airlines.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by electricron

Excellent point I would suggest elapse time is more important than speed.
The area of France is 248,573 mi², Spain is 195,364 mi², Great Britain is 93,628 mi², and England is 50,301 mi². FYI, the area of Texas is 268,597 mi² (2nd largest), California is 163,696 mi² (3rd largest), Michigan is 96,716 mi² (11th largest), and Louisiana is 51,840 mi² (31st largest).

The point of all the area data is to point out how far people will be riding trains within their own country, where the vast majority commute daily or travel weekly and monthly. One of the reasons why England ride intercity trains in larger numbers than elsewhere is the relatively short distances between major metros. It's only been within the last 15 years that they could ride trains off Great Britain with the Chunnel opening on May 6, 1994. Even though the train speeds aren't super fast, the shorter distances to travel means doing it in less time.

So what is that sweet spot where the numbers riding trains soars? Less than 1, 2, 3, or 4 hours? I'm not sure there is a study general enough to define it. Whenever it is, at some point most passengers will choose to fly.
Another consideration in attracting higher ridership besides elapse time, is frequency. How many trains per day and per hour can passengers take between two cities? There is no doubt that in most of America; Spain, England, and France provide more intercity trains per day. There is only just one train a day between Chicago and Los Angeles, there's dozens of flights per day from many airlines.

I'm of the opinion that any train journey of 6 hours or less is better than flying, especially given the dismal punctuality statistics of Chinese airlines / airports.

Chinese people definitely agree in general on this point, as the opening of HSR lines in China has been shown to cause air traffic to drop significantly on the same route.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Only four abreast? Are American passenger trains narrow? Chinese HSR trains are all 5 abreast in 2nd class - only first class is four abreast.

American commuter trains, which travel less than 100 miles, can have 5 abreast seating. Amtrak provides intercity trains with 4 abreast seating in coach, with some 3 abreast seating in first class (or what used to be first class and now downgraded to business class).