Make [North] American Passenger Rail Great Again

>>1022002
>Can it be done?
Gotta take out the airlines first probably.
>How you do it?
You could kill the airline industry in about a week if you cut off their subsidies and made them pay for the airports, screening, etc.

>>1022007
You're really going to bitch about subsidies to airlines when you're talking about rail? You have no sense of irony at all.

Why don't we make major airports double as major train stations, and encourage airlines to invest in trains? They would change from being airline companies to transportation companies.

>>1022010
Because you can't just magically build HSR right to any airport just because you feel like it. There are an infinite number of problems with that idea.

>>1022010
You'd have to basically totally reconstruct a lot of major airports. That's why.

>>1022011
>>1022013
All you would have to do is create terminal building for the train and use a people mover system to connect it to the main concourse of the airport. I'm not talking about building a train station right on the tarmac ffs.

>>1022010
That defeats the purpose. A key benefit of HSR is being able to get you from city center to city center over medium distance (~500 miles or less) faster than flying. If you put the station way outside the city centers at airports, you've totally undercut a huge advantage HSR is supposed to have.

>>1022016
see
>>1022018

pointless

>>1022002
A dedicated connection between the great lakes region and the northeast shoupd be made?

Remove the fra
Build interoperability with mainline railways and metro
Convert commuter rail to rapid transit
Build ridership on local corridors
Build HSR as needed.

File: 1280px-Cornelius_Vanderbilt_Daguerrotype2.jpg (342KB, 1280x1709px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1280x1709px

>>1022002
Get people to want to ride a train.

Take one relatively short route (100mi to 200mi) and run it well.

Create for profit train lines run by the engineers themselves. Businessmen and government should take a backseat.

Travel needs to be both shorter and cheaper than driving.

Establish connections with local businesses and the chambers of commerce. Win over local businesses, politicians and people. This is absolutely necessary to enact eminent domain to secure the rights of way and outflank the NIMBYs.

Profit! Show that for profit rail is not dead, that people want to travel and are willing to pay.

Service should be bare bones. Your goal is passenger volume, not creature comforts. Like McDonald's and Southwest Airlines, Volume = Profits.

Vanderbilt made his money by selling the cheapest ticket possible. For rail travel to work, we must do the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VA9VZeox3g

>>1022002
Whoever made that map was wildly optimistic. Florida is never having high speed rail.

>>1022002
Would be nice.
Currently, to get 2 Vegas, it's an 80-mile bus ride outta AZ.

>>1022162
>run it well

Well that's never going to happen in America.

>>1022162
>Create for profit train lines run by the engineers themselves. Businessmen and government should take a backseat.
but that's socialism bruh (which I am totally down with)

>>1022002
If I had more money to buy politicians, sure. In the meantime, Ohio fucked things up years ago for the rest of the Great Lakes states with their jackass governor turning down free money towards building a modern railway. There's been construction anyways, just now the path's slightly less desirable and I think the plan also got downgraded in what speed the rail could handle.

>>1022238
I was thinking something along the lines of Southwest Airlines; large numbers of union employees who collectively own a substantial proportion of company shares.

>>1022222
I can't argue with those digits.

>>1022002
I'd say its possible by 2050.
But the plan in the map is highly optimistic.
But in 2050 trains will be faster there will be more people so those are to solutions to the distance-market that that one anon keeps mentioning.
But still the plan in the map is highly optimistic.

>>1022373
Faster train - Maglev and beyond?
good lucl getting people.accept new technology when you can't do it with established

>>1022162
>Profit! Show that for profit rail is not dead, that people want to travel and are willing to pay.
Although it's quite easy to make a good HSR service pay for its operation, the same isn't true for construction, and building HSR is extremely expensive, especially in urbanized environments where you'll need lots of tunnels and/or viaducts. You'd need lots of profit from running the HSR line to offset construction cost, plus interests on the credit used to build it in the first place.
It would seem more likely if this were some sort of public-private partnership, or even a wholly public entrprise, run for-profit but getting a sort of "free loan" from the government to being the operation, and pay it back eventually but without the interest you'd pay on a regular loan.

Personally, I don't believe in private for-profit transportation other than airlines. Transportation is a basic right, and as such the public sector should be in charge of offering convenient transportation. If this offer is convenient enough it will reduce deficit to a minimum (not that deficit in public transportation services ought to be a big issue). Switzerland shows that this model has the most potential, even while coexisting with some private operators. One big national rail operation providing consistently convenient service across the country, coordinated with a public coach (bus) system to reach places without rail connection. You simply can't beat that.

>>1022002
You have yhe worst rail system on earth. Look at Europe especially France, Germany and Spain etc.

>>1026143
>Spain

I've heard they overbuilt their system, with only a few lines that get enough traffic to be profitable (Madrid-Barcelona?). Is this true?

>>1026143
>Worst rail system in the world
>Generates billions of dollars in profit every year without government subsidies.
Stop talking eurotrash

>>1022455
Viaducts can be half the requirement of HSR already. Tunnels aside, you care about the RoW and routing more.
How urbanized and urban (suburbanized and suburb) is the underlying concern.

>>1026489
>destroy all bridges and alternate roads to a certain area
>put small ferry with super high ticket price
>congratulate yourself for the best road system in the world because it generates shitload of revenue
wow

>>1022019
>>1022018
>>1022016
>>1022013
>>1022011
There's no problem with connecting major airports as well as their respective city centers to a hypothetical HSR network. HS trains can run on regular tracks into the city, and from there to new or pre-existing branches toward the airport. It's not like a standard heavy rail branch and an airport station is some big infrastructure, most major cities in the western world have this in some way or another.

Also in Germany for example there are certain rail connections that are identified with flight numbers so you book as if you were flying. I think at some point Lufthansa even operated a service like this.
Depending on the route a HS or semi-HS rail line can be more competitive, like if there's many large cities close together such as the NEC, you get a lot of short journeys where flying isn't practical, and it's also a lot of driving, maybe even with traffic here and there.

I mean besides the line from Detroit to Quebec City this map pretty much covers everything

Make it worth taking.

>>1026751
While not from Detroit, back in the 90's I believe, the feds we're looking at converting the Montreal - Windsor corridor into an HSR line like what Amtrak did with the Northeast Corridor. Problem was the feds weren't willing to eat the $10 Billion cost to convert the line.

Ontario and Quebec have talked a lot about upgrading the corridor but nothing really ever comes of it since the feds would still need to agree since VIA is a crown corporation. I know at the moment VIA is looking for investors to help fund their upgrades to the corridor which I believe would include moving some of the line onto a dedicated ROW so trains can operate at higher speeds without obstruction. However this plan doesn't include conversion to electric fir the foreseeable future.

>>1026193
it's at a loss always.

But to have a profit it's not why they were made.

>>1026612
>Thinking that's at all analogous to American railroads.

>>1022008
Last I checked, the only people getting subsidies in the railway industry were Amtrack.

take the hundred million we spend every year to keep small airports open and paying airlines to fly to them, and put it into electrifying all the rail.

then, outside the NE Corridor, we make Amtrak into a regional rail line. That feeds people into cities with airports that are still open.

>live in bumfuck North Dakota
>get on the train to Bismark
>fly out of Bismark
>arrive in Atlanta
>take train to Macon

>>1026143
Our rail system is far more extensive and profitable because it's mostly centered around freight. Learn some basic fuckting geography and you'll quickly realize why long distance passenger rail is inherently low value in the US.

>>1030064
That's already how it works.

>>1030066
Except it doesn't

>>1030080
So it's clear you have no fucking idea what the hub and spoke model is.

>>1030095
amtrak still runs all those uncompetitive long haul routes.

File: 85f4912f709897a23ee6de62662e6c54.jpg.gif (684KB, 3508x5010px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 3508x5010px

>>1022002

>America

Get on our level you plebs

File: notts.png (85KB, 1045x787px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1045x787px

>>1030201

For an example of how lacking in detail this map is take this section of the east midlands

>>1030201
The entire UK is the size of just the state of Michigan and has 8x the population density of the US. Your comparison is fucking stupid.

>>1030206

stick to playing your banjo in the swamps m80

leave civilization to the big boys

>>1030185
They apparently have their own niche.

>>1030201
Why all those separate unexchangable stations in London

File: london-underground-tube-map.gif (2MB, 3202x2339px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3202x2339px

>>1030212

Good question my friend

They are all connected via the oldest and greatest metro (also not displayed on this very simplified map)

>>1030216
But I always think interchanging via metro is always a bad idea given how metro are usually densely packed and how long distance train passengers usually carry sone luggage

>>1030208
Enjoy having the worst major international airport in the developed world.

>>1030222

Well there isnt a choice, to make a train terminal big enough to handle the volume of traffic coming into London by train would be absolutely ridiculous.

Many capital cities such as Paris work in the same way.

>>1030224

If its the worst then why does everyone use it? Idiot

>>1030225
Because there isn't another choice with anywhere close to the same number of destinations you fucking dipshit. Had the chance to make another but the retarded government doesn't think easy as fuck expansion at Gatwick is worth it.

>>1030256

And you ever stop to think why everyone's flocking here?

To see our amazing rail system in action first hand, fucking retardo.

>>1030257
You're really bad at what you do. Try some subtlety next time.

>>1030259

Get a fucking train to my house and say that to my face bruv

OH WAIT LOL

>>1030257
A system that's worse than France, Spain, and Germany. Congratulations.

File: 1477941620023.jpg (110KB, 718x628px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 718x628px

>>1030262

Sure thing Franz

>>1030225
Bur you don't need a new terminal for every single line?

>>1022002
>no Toronto to Montreal high speed trains

We still have multiple flights between toronto and Montreal every hour, this is a no brainer

>>1030381
Hamilton --> Mississauga --> Toronto --> Ottawa --> Montreal --> Quebec City

>>1030382
>not 2 separate lines from Toronto to Ottawa and Toronto to montreal

>>1030383
Why? You understand how geographically pointless that would be, right?

>>1030386
Ottawa is pretty far north from Toronto. The existing Via rail line owned by the Feds already follows the lake then st Lawrence river east to Montreal. The line that banks north to Ottawa follows highway 416 north and terminates in Ottawa, then a second line runs South East from Ottawa to Montreal.

Also between Hamilton and Toronto has too many level crossings for high speed trains. There would need to be a bunch of underpasses and bridges built to accommodate
Imo if the feds and provinces ever fund a line like this they should cover Toronto to Montreal first to cut down on air traffic. Neither Quebec nor Ontario burns coal for power so an electric line would prevent tons CO2 emissions from aircraft

File: photo1.jpg (63KB, 720x486px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x486px

>>1022007
>Gotta take out the airlines first probably

>>1030393
>Ottawa is pretty far north from Toronto. The existing Via rail line owned by the Feds already follows the lake then st Lawrence river east to Montreal. The line that banks north to Ottawa follows highway 416 north and terminates in Ottawa, then a second line runs South East from Ottawa to Montreal.
If you check a map, it's not hugely out of the way (adding 10-15% to the distance while serving a major population center is very reasonable; the other cities between Toronto and Montreal are much smaller) *except* that the existing alignment doesn't go that way.

>>1030496
The idea has been discussed by politicians in the past, the purpose is to cut down on flights. The flight is hardly an hour from Toronto to Montreal so a voyage by rail 30min longer than that would be unfavourable to flying unless prices were lower which would mean it would be heavily subsidized

>>1030064
>>1030066
>>1030419
You could make airlines pay for TSA screening in small airports with low throughput, provided those areas also have rail service.

I've taken flights out of places like Knoxville and Gulfport where there were more TSA staff than passengers in the terminal.

In a straight line, Toronto --> Montreal is 313 miles. Toronto --> Ottawa --> Montreal is 323 miles.

By land (roughly following the highways), Toronto --> Montreal is 336 miles. Toronto --> Ottawa --> Montreal is 372 miles.

The difference is not at all significant and adding an areas of 1.2 million people to a route by lengthening it by just 36 miles is worth it without question.

>>1030393
see
>>1030518

>>1030518
I see your point but that would involve a lot expropriation of land if they stray off the existing rail corridor
But then again this isn't a committee meeting we're just pretending
Spend spend spend, build rail through everything!

>>1022002
Any small town with population of not even half million but claim itself is a "city" can be removed from this map of their demand won't be enough to justify even a diversion

>>1030618
>Through
Under!

>>1030644
Why not over?

>>1030646
Noise. Underground rail is way more acceptable in/near a city.

File: 279_7996.jpg (170KB, 800x1043px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 800x1043px

I was visiting Colorado from Australia last year, wish i had the time to make a train journey..

>>1030216
I can't wait til your 'oldest' and 'greastest' metro gets bought by the parisian one. they already own your bus services, will not be long.

File: niedersachsen netzplan.jpg (832KB, 1863x1802px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1863x1802px

Here's a railway map of my home state for comparison with the US

>>1031347
Probably built with American money desu

>>1030652
>Underground rail is way more acceptable in/near a city.
If they're willing to pay for it, sure, but overhead rail has a long history. It's also a lot less noisy if you use a more solid construction material, such as concrete, instead of an open lattice as in many Els in the US.