Solar Roadways - really

[InsaneTD]

There is also the fact that planes can't be hybrids and full electric planes probably won't be feasible. Alternate fuels are a possibility but the amount it will cost to convert a fleet would be staggering.

[Simon_Jester]

What high speed rail does is replace a swarm of individual fuel-inefficient vehicles with a smaller number of highly inefficient vehicles, for travel that predictably runs from one point to another.

I mean, a twin-engine airplane of the type commonly used on short-range passenger flights is basically a flying bus, or a flying double-decker railroad car in terms of its ability to carry people. In which case you have to ask, how in heaven's name does it make the system more efficient to make the system fly? Fuel economy alone could never justify that; what does justify it is speed- and high speed rail is broadly competitive with air traffic for speed, at least over distances of no more than, say, 500 miles.

So rail passenger travel (with the rise of high speed rail) replaces heavy air passenger travel along single predictable routes.
____________________

We already make the same calculation for, for example, freight rail. If I need to ship huge amounts of cargo from the nearest container port to an inland city 300 miles away, I don't hire a huge stream of 18-wheeler trucks to carry it one container at a time. I load it up onto double-stacker freight cars, because one train hauling 100 containers at fifty or so miles an hour is more efficient than 100 trucks doing the same thing.

But if I instead need to take the cargo from a single distribution center and spread it out all over a wide area... I use the trucks, because I need to hit each of a hundred destinations scattered randomly across that area. It is not convenient to build railroad lines to all of them.
_____________________

Note that as fuel gets more expensive, this calculation changes. Before the automobile, it was profitable to build railroad spurs so that every little town, even if it was only ten miles from the next town, had its own railroad stop. This was because the cost of transporting freight by horse-drawn wagon, or the cost of moving passengers by carriage or on foot, is very very high.

When cars trucks replaced the horse and buggy, but were ten times faster than horses and buggies, they increased the distance that small, individual transport vehicles could profitably service from a central location by about the same factor of ten. Now it was profitable to use rail to move goods to a place fifty miles from the customer and move it by truck, rather than moving it five miles from the customer and moving it by wagon.

[K. A. Pital]

What high speed rail does is replace a swarm of individual fuel-inefficient vehicles with a smaller number of highly inefficient vehicles, for travel that predictably runs from one point to another.

High-speed rail is persistent and can last for decades - its energy, unlike that of the fuel car, can be generated in a multitude ways and thus allows for a clean grid in the future without disrupting the functionality. Its routes can be set in advance, but also expanded, altered. The speed of operation can be increased or decreased depending on requirements of the country and the network. The car network is dependent on the car and as-is offers few tweaking abilities other than making new routes, really; unless electromobiles become a feasible replacement for the car fleet, there is hardly a way to make them as efficient, in a long-term development point of view, as rail.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, there's two separate issues here. One is efficiency in the sense of "the central planning committee thinks it most cost effective to do X." The other is efficiency in engineering terms. They're correlated but not the same.

For example, measured objectively in ton-miles of freight moved per liter of fuel consumed, a diesel-electric locomotive is inherently more efficient than a diesel-powered truck. Both burn the same fuel, but the locomotive gets more stuff to the same place with the same amount of fuel.

Conversely, measured objectively electric cars are not (necessarily) more efficient than gasoline or diesel cars in that sense... but as you say they are more flexible, which is "more efficient" in terms of long term economic planning where flexibility is part of the goal.

[biostem]

What high speed rail does is replace a swarm of individual fuel-inefficient vehicles with a smaller number of highly inefficient vehicles, for travel that predictably runs from one point to another.

High-speed rail is persistent and can last for decades - its energy, unlike that of the fuel car, can be generated in a multitude ways and thus allows for a clean grid in the future without disrupting the functionality. Its routes can be set in advance, but also expanded, altered. The speed of operation can be increased or decreased depending on requirements of the country and the network. The car network is dependent on the car and as-is offers few tweaking abilities other than making new routes, really; unless electromobiles become a feasible replacement for the car fleet, there is hardly a way to make them as efficient, in a long-term development point of view, as rail.

The problem w/ high speed rail, at least for transporting people, is that people would want stations near them, which means that there'd have to be frequent stops, and thus you'd spend a lot of time accelerating and decelerating. If you wanted to construct a 300kph rail from, say new york to california, in order to maintain top speed the longest, you'd have to limit the overall trip to 1 or 2 stops between origin and destination. But, no, people aren't going to travel to another state just to hop a train, when they can go to their local airport instead. And as soon as you start adding more stops, the overall travel time increases, and trains become less attractive as an alternative to planes...

[Darmalus]

The problem w/ high speed rail, at least for transporting people, is that people would want stations near them, which means that there'd have to be frequent stops, and thus you'd spend a lot of time accelerating and decelerating. If you wanted to construct a 300kph rail from, say new york to california, in order to maintain top speed the longest, you'd have to limit the overall trip to 1 or 2 stops between origin and destination. But, no, people aren't going to travel to another state just to hop a train, when they can go to their local airport instead. And as soon as you start adding more stops, the overall travel time increases, and trains become less attractive as an alternative to planes...

High speed rail isn't meant to replace all airplanes, it's mean to replace specific heavily used flight paths. There's no reason you couldn't take a flight from Sacramento to San Jose, then ride the HS rail to LA.

[Purple]

There is also no reason why you could not set up a number of hub stations and than have people switch over from a local train to a high speed one. Or even from their cars to a high speed train.

[Borgholio]

The problem w/ high speed rail, at least for transporting people, is that people would want stations near them, which means that there'd have to be frequent stops, and thus you'd spend a lot of time accelerating and decelerating. If you wanted to construct a 300kph rail from, say new york to california, in order to maintain top speed the longest, you'd have to limit the overall trip to 1 or 2 stops between origin and destination. But, no, people aren't going to travel to another state just to hop a train, when they can go to their local airport instead. And as soon as you start adding more stops, the overall travel time increases, and trains become less attractive as an alternative to planes...

Accelerating and decelerating a train is nothing compared to the time it takes to land and take off a plane. You don't have to have a non-stop train coast to coast. You can easily have one or two stops in each state in the biggest cities and it wouldn't impact the overall travel time that much. Remember you're still talking (at max speed) almost a 13 hour trip between Los Angeles and New York City. What's another 45 minutes per stop added to that?

[Me2005]

Fuel economy alone could never justify that; what does justify it is speed- and high speed rail is broadly competitive with air traffic for speed, at least over distances of no more than, say, 500 miles.

And that's the problem. It's almost 500 miles from Seattle to the northern CA boarder. Sacramento and SF are ~800 miles, LA is ~1,100. All that in a very mountainous and seismically-active region, much of which doesn't have room for much needed freeway lanes, let alone HSR lines.

When cars trucks replaced the horse and buggy, but were ten times faster than horses and buggies, they increased the distance that small, individual transport vehicles could profitably service from a central location by about the same factor of ten. Now it was profitable to use rail to move goods to a place fifty miles from the customer and move it by truck, rather than moving it five miles from the customer and moving it by wagon.

And that's a big part of my original point - with people as spread out as they are in my region, individual vehicles will be more efficient than trains can hope to be for a long time. Even HSR will need to make enough stops or use hubs to get sufficient passengers to make the trip worthwhile, and that'd defeat the purpose of being high speed since the places people go are close enough that making them go to a hub or wait at another station would take longer than just driving. Around here it would be more cost effective and beneficial to run electric bus wires and build freeway lanes locally, and continue using air traffic or standard rail mid-and long-distance.

Accelerating and decelerating a train is nothing compared to the time it takes to land and take off a plane. You don't have to have a non-stop train coast to coast. You can easily have one or two stops in each state in the biggest cities and it wouldn't impact the overall travel time that much. Remember you're still talking (at max speed) almost a 13 hour trip between Los Angeles and New York City. What's another 45 minutes per stop added to that?

You also don't usually need to take off and land a plane more than 1-2 times per trip to go anywhere in the world. I can take an 8 hour flight to NYC or London, but a regular train takes days/weeks to NYC. IIRC it's longer than driving and costs as much as or more than flying. A HSR line would need to be built between here and there and that'd be an undertaking almost as large as the solar roadways would be, depending on your definition of "High-speed" (I'd prefer at least 500 MPH if we're going to that expense).

High-speed rail is persistent and can last for decades - its energy, unlike that of the fuel car, can be generated in a multitude ways and thus allows for a clean grid in the future without disrupting the functionality. Its routes can be set in advance, but also expanded, altered. The speed of operation can be increased or decreased depending on requirements of the country and the network. The car network is dependent on the car and as-is offers few tweaking abilities other than making new routes, really; unless electromobiles become a feasible replacement for the car fleet, there is hardly a way to make them as efficient, in a long-term development point of view, as rail.

There is no arguing that trains are more energy efficient, but it's not always economically efficient or a good use of resources. A single lane of highway can take thousands of individual cars per hour to their local routes and wherever they please, whenever they want, while the same lane of rail only takes as many people as can fit (and want to ride at those times) only as often as the train can run.

We have a great couple monuments to that concept around here - the light rail and monorail - both in Seattle. Both are barely used for anything other than tourist attractions. The freeways, on the other hand, are jammed full of traffic every day - so bad we apparently have the 4th worst traffic in the country now, but still most people don't/can't use the mass-transit rail options. Admittedly, part of the problem with those two projects is that they go places where people don't really live.

[Borgholio]

And that's the problem. It's almost 500 miles from Seattle to the northern CA boarder. Sacramento and SF are ~800 miles, LA is ~1,100. All that in a very mountainous and seismically-active region, much of which doesn't have room for much needed freeway lanes, let alone HSR lines.

I'm curious, where do you live exactly? How many times have you driven between LA and San Francisco? I can assure you it's not THAT mountainous and along much of the route there is plenty of room for additional freeway lanes / rails (assuming they're that badly needed, which they're not...)

And that's a big part of my original point - with people as spread out as they are in my region, individual vehicles will be more efficient than trains can hope to be for a long time. Even HSR will need to make enough stops or use hubs to get sufficient passengers to make the trip worthwhile, and that'd defeat the purpose of being high speed since the places people go are close enough that making them go to a hub or wait at another station would take longer than just driving. Around here it would be more cost effective and beneficial to run electric bus wires and build freeway lanes locally, and continue using air traffic or standard rail mid-and long-distance.

One or two stops per state for the major cities normally connected by air travel would not harm the overall travel time and I guarantee there'd be plenty of people wanting to get from LA to San Francisco without having to make stops in Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Bakersfield, and Fresno.

You also don't usually need to take off and land a plane more than 1-2 times per trip to go anywhere in the world.

Your point?

but a regular train takes days/weeks to NYC.

This is not a regular train. It can make the trip in under one day even with a few stops in each state along the way.

IIRC it's longer than driving and costs as much as or more than flying.

Which is why an high speed train might be very useful for such trips. It would be three times faster than driving, and if it costs less than air travel then it would be perfect for budget-minded individuals or people who want to enjoy the scenery on the way to their destination.

A HSR line would need to be built between here and there and that'd be an undertaking almost as large as the solar roadways would be, depending on your definition of "High-speed" (I'd prefer at least 500 MPH if we're going to that expense).

Why would you set a goal to such a ridiculous number? You don't need a train to run as fast as a 737, you need it to be able to go long distances at a speed where it doesn't take a week to arrive. It's supposed to be a middle ground between driving and flying...not replace either of them.

A single lane of highway can take thousands of individual cars per hour to their local routes and wherever they please, whenever they want, while the same lane of rail only takes as many people as can fit (and want to ride at those times) only as often as the train can run.

Yes, LOCAL routes. We're not talking local. We're talking long distance, where a single land of highway doesn't do jack shit. Take a look at Interstate 5 or the 99 through the central valley. Interstate 15 East, or 80 North as well. Traffic is not at all common unless you're in proximity to commuters near one of the major cities...and when you're in a major city, you need way more than one lane of highway to clear up some of those traffic nightmares. However, if you can take a high-speed rail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, that one lane of high speed rail will be a godsend. The I-15 will no longer be a parking lot on holidays as you're leaving LA or getting close to Vegas, and you won't have to spend an hour or more going through security at an airport just for a 45-minute flight. You get on the train, relax for two hours, and you're there.

Don't try to think of HSR replacing any other form of travel completely. It can't, and it won't. Just think of high speed rail as a middle ground between air travel and driving for long distances and it will make a lot more sense. Here's a great article on Wikipedia explaining how HSR is actually FASTER than air travel on trips of up to around 500 miles due to the hassle of going through security alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed ... _transport

[Me2005]

I'm curious, where do you live exactly? How many times have you driven between LA and San Francisco? I can assure you it's not THAT mountainous and along much of the route there is plenty of room for additional freeway lanes / rails (assuming they're that badly needed, which they're not...)

Western Washington, where it is mountainous and our freeways are jammed everyday for 25+ miles north and south of Seattle. Much of the trek down to and through California is also pretty rugged; at least compared to other parts of the country. I've driven past SF toward LA on a couple occasions, but never that route exactly (Just bombing down 5).

I'll freely concede that much of 5 isn't packed with cars every day. The parts where rails would be useful around me are, however. Rails would also take up valuable real estate that would better serve more cars.

One or two stops per state for the major cities normally connected by air travel would not harm the overall travel time and I guarantee there'd be plenty of people wanting to get from LA to San Francisco without having to make stops in Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Bakersfield, and Fresno.

Sure, but those two cities alone have more than half the population of the entire state of Washington. Rail isn't a one-size solution.

You also don't usually need to take off and land a plane more than 1-2 times per trip to go anywhere in the world.

Your point?

That making multiple stops on a long rail journey =/= multiple take offs and landings. You aren't making as many stops in the aircraft as you would on a train, so the length of the takeoff/landing cycle is a moot point if you're stopping the train 1-2x per state.

but a regular train takes days/weeks to NYC.

This is not a regular train. It can make the trip in under one day even with a few stops in each state along the way.

Agreed, but it also is not a train for which infrastructure exists. What would building such a thing cost? How many people would use it? How frequently could it run? Once per day? Twice? Can it only go one direction each day? How much more does it cost per additional rail? Aircraft don't have those costs the same way - sure airports are expensive, but the intercontinental railroad had to be practically built with slave labor. A shortish run between large cities makes much more economic sense than making one huge run across the middle of the country, where there aren't many stops to make and when transportation that does that same trip faster already exists. As Darmalus said, you only need to ease pressure on the heavily used airports to keep them viable, not replace the things they're really good at.

IIRC it's longer than driving and costs as much as or more than flying.

Which is why an high speed train might be very useful for such trips. It would be three times faster than driving, and if it costs less than air travel then it would be perfect for budget-minded individuals or people who want to enjoy the scenery on the way to their destination.

IF it costs less. With Amtrak already being subsidized, that's a big if. Sure the cost of the project can be amortized, but it's still such a huge cost, and the energy to run that fast at sealevel isn't insignificant. Maybe we need to be talking about solar railways instead of roadways.

Why would you set a goal to such a ridiculous number? You don't need a train to run as fast as a 737, you need it to be able to go long distances at a speed where it doesn't take a week to arrive. It's supposed to be a middle ground between driving and flying...not replace either of them.

For long-distance treks, it'd need to be fast to be worthwhile. It's 2700 miles from LA to NYC, probably the best route to even consider. At 200 MPH, that's a little over 13 hours as you said earlier. If all it takes is building faster trains to run on existing/shored up tracks, that'd be a good deal. But if it's going to cost much to build better tracks, I'm not sure that is worth the cost compared to cheap ($600 as of right now leaving this week) flights that take less than half the time.

Yes, LOCAL routes. We're not talking local. We're talking long distance, where a single land of highway doesn't do jack shit. Take a look at Interstate 5 or the 99 through the central valley. Interstate 15 East, or 80 North as well. Traffic is not at all common unless you're in proximity to commuters near one of the major cities...and when you're in a major city, you need way more than one lane of highway to clear up some of those traffic nightmares. However, if you can take a high-speed rail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, that one lane of high speed rail will be a godsend. The I-15 will no longer be a parking lot on holidays as you're leaving LA or getting close to Vegas, and you won't have to spend an hour or more going through security at an airport just for a 45-minute flight. You get on the train, relax for two hours, and you're there.

There's the impasse. I'm thinking mostly local to "long distance (+/-100 Miles) but still considered local" routes, or routes to places I'd want to go that would make much more sense flying. Really, I don't think there's anywhere worth going that is within the distance threshold for HSR to make sense from me. Maybe Canada? But again, that route probably isn't cost-effective to build because there aren't that many people that would use it.

Don't try to think of HSR replacing any other form of travel completely. It can't, and it won't. Just think of high speed rail as a middle ground between air travel and driving for long distances and it will make a lot more sense. Here's a great article on Wikipedia explaining how HSR is actually FASTER than air travel on trips of up to around 500 miles due to the hassle of going through security alone.

I understand how quick it is to get through security (does that change when more people use trains/trains start being targets for terrorism like aircraft are?), but the places I've successfully ridden HSR had nearly 20x the population density of the PNW. You need to hit a certain population threshold for the things to make sense, and I'm not sure we're there up here. CA probably has a few valid routes, but it sounds like they are for holiday travel and not the bulk of day-to-day commuter travel; which is what I'd prefer to spend money solving.

Also, the original post that I disagreed with supporting HSR was one that I read as implying it was a one-size solution to do away with traffic/air travel.

[Borgholio]

Western Washington, where it is mountainous and our freeways are jammed everyday for 25+ miles north and south of Seattle.

Ah yes, been there. Beautiful country, but yeah the traffic sucks ass. That would be totally the wrong place for HSR. Rather, HSR going out of Seattle to other major cities would still be useful.

Much of the trek down to and through California is also pretty rugged

Well if you drive down the coast or through the Sierras then yeah it's some of the most rugged terrain on the continent. But the valley is one, long, flat, boring slice of Nebraska that someone transplanted. The largest hills are measured in inches.

Sure, but those two cities alone have more than half the population of the entire state of Washington. Rail isn't a one-size solution.

Nobody said it was, but you just proved my point. With such a large population, a HSR system that offers an alternative to an 8 hour drive or going through the airport is going to be a very welcome solution.

the length of the takeoff/landing cycle is a moot point if you're stopping the train 1-2x per state.

It's not moot at all. The takeoff / landing cycle is easily several times longer overall than the amount of time it takes a train to pull up to a station. For a good 20+ minutes arriving and departing the plane will be at about half it's full cruising speed, then you have tarmac traffic to deal with AND security if you want to leave the airport. Trains are much quicker to get in and get out.

Agreed, but it also is not a train for which infrastructure exists. What would building such a thing cost? How many people would use it? How frequently could it run? Once per day? Twice? Can it only go one direction each day? How much more does it cost per additional rail?

Those issues have already been considered by many European nations and found to be a fair trade. Several air routes across France have been fully replaced by bullet trains, for instance. Then look at Japan which is typically the stereotype nation for bullet trains. In the right conditions, it's a very useful form of transportation.

A shortish run between large cities makes much more economic sense than making one huge run across the middle of the country, where there aren't many stops to make and when transportation that does that same trip faster already exists.

Which is why, as I have said repeatedly, HSR will be a good middle ground between plane and car. How many more times must I repeat myself?

IF it costs less. With Amtrak already being subsidized, that's a big if. Sure the cost of the project can be amortized, but it's still such a huge cost, and the energy to run that fast at sealevel isn't insignificant. Maybe we need to be talking about solar railways instead of roadways.

Amtrak trains typically run slower than freeway speed and cost more than a plane ticket for longer routes. They are useless for anything but commuting in the highest-density parts of the country or if you want the "luxury" of a train trip. A proper HSR system will be fast enough to compete with short air routes and provide a must faster longer-distance alternative than driving, AND they are cost-effective compared to flying.

For long-distance treks, it'd need to be fast to be worthwhile. It's 2700 miles from LA to NYC, probably the best route to even consider. At 200 MPH, that's a little over 13 hours as you said earlier. If all it takes is building faster trains to run on existing/shored up tracks, that'd be a good deal. But if it's going to cost much to build better tracks, I'm not sure that is worth the cost compared to cheap ($600 as of right now leaving this week) flights that take less than half the time.

Using a dedicated line of rail will cost more as an initial investment but will save a great deal of headaches when it comes to sharing the existing rail with road crossings and freight trains. If existing lines must be used then they can be straightened and improved section by section to make them adequate for high speed rail.

There's the impasse. I'm thinking mostly local to "long distance (+/-100 Miles) but still considered local" routes, or routes to places I'd want to go that would make much more sense flying. Really, I don't think there's anywhere worth going that is within the distance threshold for HSR to make sense from me. Maybe Canada? But again, that route probably isn't cost-effective to build because there aren't that many people that would use it.

Just because YOU have nowhere to go doesn't make it worthless to everybody else. If you can drive somewhere in an hour or two by car then that's fine, I probably wouldn't take the train for that either. But going to Las Vegas? Train. San Francisco? Train. Seattle? Probably plane, but train would be fun. New York? Definitely plane unless it was a vacation.

I understand how quick it is to get through security (does that change when more people use trains/trains start being targets for terrorism like aircraft are?)

It probably won't change much since a bomb on a train will do less damage than a bomb on a plane, and you can't drive a train into a skyscraper.

You need to hit a certain population threshold for the things to make sense, and I'm not sure we're there up here. CA probably has a few valid routes, but it sounds like they are for holiday travel and not the bulk of day-to-day commuter travel; which is what I'd prefer to spend money solving.

No, even in LA there's not enough density for HSR to work as an alternative to your daily commute. You'd be better off widening freeways or adding more trains to existing Metrolink lines. HSR would serve not just holiday travel but also business travel, and it would interestingly open up new kinds of commutes where you could live in Bakersfield and work in San Diego, for instance, and commute by HSR and local metro.

[Me2005]

I think we're completely in agreement here, but here's my response to a few of your points:

Agreed, but it also is not a train for which infrastructure exists. What would building such a thing cost? How many people would use it? How frequently could it run? Once per day? Twice? Can it only go one direction each day? How much more does it cost per additional rail?

Those issues have already been considered by many European nations and found to be a fair trade. Several air routes across France have been fully replaced by bullet trains, for instance. Then look at Japan which is typically the stereotype nation for bullet trains. In the right conditions, it's a very useful form of transportation.

This is where the density problem comes in. The UK uses HSR (been there, done that, enjoyed watching the sheep go *WHOOSH*), but the UK is only almost the same area as Oregon and has ~20x the population. Density is the governing factor on whether or not it makes sense, and the Western US is comparatively sparsely populated. Higher density means shorter routes with more passengers, which means more bang for the buck.

IF it costs less. With Amtrak already being subsidized, that's a big if. Sure the cost of the project can be amortized, but it's still such a huge cost, and the energy to run that fast at sealevel isn't insignificant. Maybe we need to be talking about solar railways instead of roadways.

Amtrak trains typically run slower than freeway speed and cost more than a plane ticket for longer routes. They are useless for anything but commuting in the highest-density parts of the country or if you want the "luxury" of a train trip. A proper HSR system will be fast enough to compete with short air routes and provide a must faster longer-distance alternative than driving, AND they are cost-effective compared to flying.

And on this side of the country, they'd need to be very short routes to be reasonable to build. LA-Vegas is ~250 miles with basically nothing in between (I believe?), Edinburgh-London is ~400, with many other cities along the way (One route shows York, Sheffield, and Cambridge nearby, just to name a few recognizable cities).

There's the impasse. I'm thinking mostly local to "long distance (+/-100 Miles) but still considered local" routes, or routes to places I'd want to go that would make much more sense flying. Really, I don't think there's anywhere worth going that is within the distance threshold for HSR to make sense from me. Maybe Canada? But again, that route probably isn't cost-effective to build because there aren't that many people that would use it.

Just because YOU have nowhere to go doesn't make it worthless to everybody else. If you can drive somewhere in an hour or two by car then that's fine, I probably wouldn't take the train for that either. But going to Las Vegas? Train. San Francisco? Train. Seattle? Probably plane, but train would be fun. New York? Definitely plane unless it was a vacation.

I misspoke. I don't think there's anywhere worth going from western WA. Spokane is 300 miles, so maybe there. Portland already has a train service but it costs enough that driving makes more sense for more than 1 or 2 people. I'd probably take one to BC, but I think most of western WA is far enough north that it wouldn't make sense for them. Other than that, there aren't many major cities within 500 miles that would merit HSR service. I've conceded that there are likely destinations in/around CA that HSR would make sense.

You need to hit a certain population threshold for the things to make sense, and I'm not sure we're there up here. CA probably has a few valid routes, but it sounds like they are for holiday travel and not the bulk of day-to-day commuter travel; which is what I'd prefer to spend money solving.

No, even in LA there's not enough density for HSR to work as an alternative to your daily commute. You'd be better off widening freeways or adding more trains to existing Metrolink lines.

And that is my original point

If it's not helping the bulk of travel (day-to-day commuting), it's not helping that much. Add a surcharge to pay the cost of the project if it's for tourism or distant business. If it doesn't come close to competing with the available options with the surcharge, it's not worth building (Long-term, it might make sense to build anyway, but it'd need to be reasonably close to competing with other options to do that).

HSR would serve not just holiday travel but also business travel, and it would interestingly open up new kinds of commutes where you could live in Bakersfield and work in San Diego, for instance, and commute by HSR and local metro.

That would be good if it worked. I don't know those markets well enough to know if it'd make sense to build between those cities without the commuter travel being a consideration, as (I imagine?) few commute like that presently and it'd take years to build up a base of people doing so to validate the HSR. Kind of a 'chicken-egg' situation.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

And that is my original point

If it's not helping the bulk of travel (day-to-day commuting), it's not helping that much. Add a surcharge to pay the cost of the project if it's for tourism or distant business. If it doesn't come close to competing with the available options with the surcharge, it's not worth building (Long-term, it might make sense to build anyway, but it'd need to be reasonably close to competing with other options to do that).

This line of thinking is the source of much of the opposition to CA HSR, and while it seems reasonable on the surface, it is specious. A project like this takes many years to be approved, funded, designed, built, commenced, and supported. If we wait until it's needed, we're screwed and our entire state's transportation system will have horrendous bottlenecks for years to a cost of potentially trillions of dollars of wasted time and energy. While it's true that we can get by just fine without HSR in 2014 with our current population and fuel prices, we will absolutely not be fine in the 2030's and 40's given most projections. Our highways cannot accommodate the projected increases in traffic without expansion, which would cost many times the asking price of HSR, especially when you take into account that every single bridge or elevated section would need to be significantly retrofitted or replaced to add more lanes. While most projections of a HSR train ticket are similar to the cost of a plane ticket today, this will not be in the case in 20 years after decades of ballooning fuel prices cause the cost of a plane trip to skyrocket. Most people do not understand this dilemma, and the continuing failure of the pro-HSR people to get the word out frustrates me to no end, and makes me think that the project will probably be cancelled as soon as there is another budget crisis, leading to the continued stagnation of the state.

You are correct, however, that none of this is remotely relevant to the Seattle area.

[madd0ct0r]

I think we're completely in agreement here, but here's my response to a few of your points:

Agreed, but it also is not a train for which infrastructure exists. What would building such a thing cost? How many people would use it? How frequently could it run? Once per day? Twice? Can it only go one direction each day? How much more does it cost per additional rail?

Those issues have already been considered by many European nations and found to be a fair trade. Several air routes across France have been fully replaced by bullet trains, for instance. Then look at Japan which is typically the stereotype nation for bullet trains. In the right conditions, it's a very useful form of transportation.

This is where the density problem comes in. The UK uses HSR (been there, done that, enjoyed watching the sheep go *WHOOSH*), but the UK is only almost the same area as Oregon and has ~20x the population. Density is the governing factor on whether or not it makes sense, and the Western US is comparatively sparsely populated. Higher density means shorter routes with more passengers, which means more bang for the buck.

I think you could find a fairer comparison then one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and one of the least densely populated states.

[Me2005]

I think you could find a fairer comparison then one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and one of the least densely populated states.

I could! But my whole perspective is WA-OR, so I'm comparing something that I know works (I've ridden HSR in the UK) to something that I know needs fixing but HSR won't fix (Traffic along the I-5 corridor in the Western WA area). I also used the UK example on CA, where there's plenty of population but it's still super spread out, so you'd need more rails for less stops serviced, which equals more money for less usefulness.

The point there is what makes loads of sense in the UK/Europe/Japan/Eastern US doesn't make nearly as much sense when put in the (comparatively sparsely populated) Western US.

This line of thinking is the source of much of the opposition to CA HSR, and while it seems reasonable on the surface....

I've got that caveat at the end of my post that "if it makes sense long-term, and it'll cost out appropriately...", and I think it sounds like a few CA routes fit the bill. Ideally though, little or no public money (if perhaps public land) would need to be given up to do it and someone would come around and figure it out. As the topic is solar roads perhaps someone would build a solar rail and sell the power to the hungry CA market to offset the operating cost long-term. Way fewer problems with putting solar cells between rails than there are putting them on roads IMO.