Bullet trains, your thoughts?

[Wapiti]

What are your thoughts on the bullet train proposal?
CNN report. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Shauru]

Work It Harder Make It Better
Do It Faster, Makes Us stronger
More Than Ever Hour After
Our Work Is Never Over


Why the hell not. I'm convinced I'll never step foot on a plane. And a lot of trains are pretty slow. It would mean a lot to me personally to have that mode of transport available. Plus, hey at the very least it creates jobs.

[Angel1]

I want a bullet train from Atlanta's airport to Chattanooga's (Tennessee) airport (they should start here). Connecting these two airports could help alleviate some of the air traffic problems originating out of Atlanta.

[SShack]

Huge wastes of money that will never, ever pay for themselves let alone show a profit. The backers of the California version have been caught deceiving folks about their ridership predictions and are probably going to get the money anyway.

Also, amusingly, an example of corporate and union influence on government and yet, I still support the Citizens United decision.

[themuzicman]

150 is too slow. We need the 300MPH trains, and the networks need to be two way and connected.

[El Cas]

I can see this working but as TMM said, it has to go faster. At least 200MPH will make it worth having. I think it should be placed in heavely transited routes to alliviate some of the congested highways.

My proposal list for routes would be
NYC to DC
NYC to Phili
Phili to Chicago
Houston - Dallas
San Diego-LA
LA - San Fran

And if these panout like they expect then a cross country route may be worth creating, though I think cross country will probably be best met with Airplanes than trains.

[Warrior]

It's hard to know what to think with so little infromation provided. It would be good to see an analysis of alternative solutions that included cost and long-term ability to pay for itself.

I get the sense this is going to turn into a boondoggle that will never support itself and will continue to need infusions of tax dollars to keep it running. Short-term gain in jobs for a long-term money hole and general drain on the economy.

[Blse]

At this point, the money is better spent fixing existing infrastructure and expanding that first. These trains are not necessary and in this case I think it's best to let the market decide. If there is indeed enough demand to justify such an expensive project, then I'm sure someone will start investing and building it.

[Aronnax]

The effectiveness of high speed rail depends on the route and ridership, there's no fast and easy answer. It fits very nicely in certain transportation grids, supplanting commuter flights and displacing vehicle traffic. With adequate ridership high speed rail can reduce total transportation costs via reductions in road O&M and by removing the need for increases in highway capacity.

High speed rail also takes an enormous amount of start up capital, requires special right of way and has a long lead time before ticket sales allow it to reach a break even point. For these reasons it can translate into a colossal cluster fuck if it's done wrong. Road capacity, O&M and airport improvements don't happen on the dime of private investors so they don't have the same financial incentive that public entities do. The mountain of red tape and the wide variety of public and private property such a route would cross also discourages private investors.

There's no easy answer to this question: some of the routes are a good idea, some are not and you have to get into some messy analysis to get a decent answer. The fact that everyone wants to get their beak wet when this much money starts to move around makes getting a truly effective system even more difficult. Seriously considering high speed rail is a good idea but the entire process will have to be watched very carefully.

[Warrior]

The effectiveness of high speed rail depends on the route and ridership, there's no fast and easy answer. It fits very nicely in certain transportation grids, supplanting commuter flights and displacing vehicle traffic. With adequate ridership high speed rail can reduce total transportation costs via reductions in road O&M and by removing the need for increases in highway capacity.

High speed rail also takes an enormous amount of start up capital, requires special right of way and has a long lead time before ticket sales allow it to reach a break even point. For these reasons it can translate into a colossal cluster fuck if it's done wrong. Road capacity, O&M and airport improvements don't happen on the dime of private investors so they don't have the same financial incentive that public entities do. The mountain of red tape and the wide variety of public and private property such a route would cross also discourages private investors.

There's no easy answer to this question: some of the routes are a good idea, some are not and you have to get into some messy analysis to get a decent answer. The fact that everyone wants to get their beak wet when this much money starts to move around makes getting a truly effective system even more difficult. Seriously considering high speed rail is a good idea but the entire process will have to be watched very carefully.

I couldn't agree more. My biggest worry is that billions of dollars will be spent for what is ultimately an unused (or at least very underused) piece of infrastructure that never reaches a break even point. For each proposed route, a thorough analysis is needed. Routes that don't make economic sense should not be built. If the Broadband stimulus funding process is any guide to the process for evaluating high-speed rail, I think we are in for a rough ride.

[Kisai]

I am all for switching away from a wasteful and convoluted commuter airplane infrastructure to a bullet train one. I am also for using airships to move cargo away from trucking.

[ZincLysine]

I live in the UK. They introduced the new high speed trains where I live. It used to take me 1hr 20 mins, a change over and then another 20 mins on the Tube (Subway) to get from my town to an International Train Station. It now takes me 17 mins. Its so less stressful. The trains are bigger and more ergonomic too.

[Takeru]

I actually want a better Amtrak California....most of it run through the major cities (Sacramento, SF, SJ, LA, SD, and the central valley region.) Right now I rather have them make a better light rail system throughout all these cities supported by Amtrak than building a better bullet train system though. For one thing, the light rail system is only efficient for most of the people that live near them. Otherwise, to use them, you would have to take a bus to the nearest light rail and yada yada... which takes money. Not to mention, if I wanted to use Amtrak to go to SF or something I would have to drive all the way to downtown or take the bus along with the light rail >.>... either way it takes money. The only people who would actually benefit from this are the ones who lives in and around downtown, if you live closer to the suburbs, you are partially screwed.

Right now I rather have a lot more efficient light rail system than an efficient bullet train systems when the light rails only cover parts of the city. Make it easier to travel in the city first before making it easier to travel to another city. If the city needs funding for a better light rail system, fund that before funding a better bullet train system. Most might not even use it if they aren't close enough to it. After all... time is essential.

[Undead Bonzi]

America used to dominate rail transportation up until around WWII, after that we fucked ourselves. We took functional privatized rail lines and made them compete with a state/federally subsidized Interstate highway system. The motor car companies bought out all the light rail lines within cities and closed them down.

If you do the math in terms of land required, volume of cargo/passengers, and speed of travel a high speed railway beats any number of lanes of interstate highway in every metric I've listed...but not when the roads are subsidized by the state and federal government and the rail lines are not. Consider this, even without government aid private cargo rail lines moving trains they own on lines they lay and maintain still exist and make money in the US...and that is going head to head with trucking companies driving on what amounts to free roads.

The problem however is greater than just rails being in competition with subsidized roads, the problem is that most of the secondary inner city transportation grids within U.S. cities (light rail/subways/trolly cars/buses) are stunted or sometimes even nonexistant. To make heavy high speed trains work you need to be able to get people from the train stop to their desitination and that infastructure is also missing in the U.S. So to make trains work we face not only the infastructure of the main lines, but also the secondary lines. Now if we were to divert some of the massive government capital that we sink into the ever expanding trainwreck of our interstate highway system then this would be less of an issue. Hell...if we just stopped funding the interstate highway system and let private road compete with private rail the capital for such train projects would appear overnight from savvy investors who could do basic math. But this will never happen because while people scream bloody murder about gov funding of trains...they don't blink an eye at how much they pay in indirect taxes for the interstates and roads they drive on or for cars that cost them thousands of dollars a year in fuel/mechanical repair/insurance/ect which could become unnessesary with a comprehensive rail network. In other words, it won't work except in a few areas such as the Boston/Washington/New York corridor because the east coast cities have held onto some measure of their secondary transportation systems and urban density.

The bottom line is that highspeed rail represents a long term investmen coupled with good city planning. In the US we don't think or do 'long term' anything.

[Takeru]

I've actually proposed such a thing while doing a research project for a class about making the city a better place. If we could focus more on the light rails(considering my city uses light rails) and then create a better bullet train system for city-city transportation, it'll cut off a lot of the traffic for later years to come, Not to mention breathing all that CO2. It could even lessen the amount of car accidents that occur. With the amount of money used to make and fix roads... that money could be spent over a period of time to fund such a project.

Not to mention there is A LOT of people who travel from city to city through car... that is a lot of accidents that could possibly be prevented if there was a better system.

[kepstein8888]

I think it would be cool, and I'd love to be car-free. But I think we have large cultural and political obstacles. Americans are in love with their cars, and their identity and status is tightly linked to them. Without Beemers and trucks, the yuppies and rednecks will feel empty and castrated, and that will be translated at the voting booth.

[hulloworld]

I say go for it, at the very least, more jobs?

[boldbidder]

The current iteration being proposed makes little to no sense. Instead of launching 172 different projects simultaneously and giving them each $50, do a pilot project using bleeding edge tech (put a turbocharger on an Amtrak it could do 150), China has 250+ mph train networks in the offing. Advantages of the pilot include: actually get the thing built before the Sun turns into a blackhole, workout any domain related engineering complexities (reg train vs. bullet trains is light years apart), and give a chance to study benefits both economic and environmental. From what I understand the latest gen of bullet trains use a fraction of the fuel that planes do to move more people.

[ArtistTyrant]

the best lines would be New York-Chicago, D.C.-New York, and Houston-Dallas

[LaoTzu]

150 is too slow. We need the 300MPH trains, and the networks need to be two way and connected.

I totally agree. The speed needs to be 3 times what the 'unofficial' highway top limit is to make it attractive to most people.
The cost has to be less than half what a plane ticket would be.

[reb]

don't know if anyone else has been following the 'intelligence squared' debates on bloomberg. the most recent topic was 'is california the first failed u.s. state'. good discussion of the transportation and government issues.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

watching california, one can see where the growth paradigm goes when logistical planning does not keep pace. texas is next-but one would have thought that anywhere in the nyc/philly/dc area would have been enough example of 'we need some decent mass transit in this country'. another example of our foolishness for the past generations-no one thought of what letting the railroads basically die would do to the infrastructure.

buffett sees it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Aronnax]

I totally agree. The speed needs to be 3 times what the 'unofficial' highway top limit is to make it attractive to most people.
The cost has to be less than half what a plane ticket would be.

For most high speed rail the projected speed is in the low 200's. That's more than triple the mean speed in a normal high volume traffic corridor. You might be able to hit 100 mph in the middle of BFE but there's no way you can sustain that speed in a region with heavy traffic, which is the kind of place you want to build high speed rail.

Assuming there's reasonable transportation interface at the hubs you'll get people out of their cars as soon as ticket price approaches gas + $0.25/mile. A train ticket doesn't have to be half of an airline ticket to steal their customer, just significantly lower. On a commuter flight you don't spend much time at cruising altitude or speed, the average speed for those flights is around 350 mph. For intermediate trips (300-400 miles) total difference in travel time wouldn't be very large and trains typically load/unload much faster than aircraft. If it takes an additional 15 minutes to get on and off an airplane the shorter travel time isn't very significant.

[AnotherNormal]

The current iteration being proposed makes little to no sense. Instead of launching 172 different projects simultaneously and giving them each $50, do a pilot project using bleeding edge tech (put a turbocharger on an Amtrak it could do 150), China has 250+ mph train networks in the offing. Advantages of the pilot include: actually get the thing built before the Sun turns into a blackhole, workout any domain related engineering complexities (reg train vs. bullet trains is light years apart), and give a chance to study benefits both economic and environmental. From what I understand the latest gen of bullet trains use a fraction of the fuel that planes do to move more people.

Agreed. Spreading the money that thin, we might not have anything to show for it. It's not enough to finish anything. Put all that money into one leg, work out the bugs, at least one leg has a good chance of completion. Then build it out.

Throw some money out there to create jobs, will we have train tickets for show for the money.

It would be great to have bullet trains in the US but from the beginning it doesn't look good.

[Mader]

The President is not totally funding any of these proposed projects. Enough to get the work going but not enough to complete. Who is going to pay for the rest of it????

Amtrak is a failure here. Even the trains that allow us to take our cars with us are a failure. Why put more money into a failure just because it is faster.

I do agree with the East Coast city to city ideas.

The proposal includes a train from Tampa, FL to Orlando, FL. Tampa to DisneyWorld. Now really, how many folks from Tampa go to DisneyWorld? How do you get to the train? Luggage? Tickets? Rent a car when you get there? Not a good financial decision.

Another route proposed was from LA to to Los Vegas. Well, this is a rough drive, pretty, but rough, and long. But again, how many people travel from LA to Vegas?? Why pay for a train ticket, pay for parking your own car in LA, and then have to rent a car when you get there when you can just drive there yourself. Bad business decision.

Our President, bless his heart, is, financially speaking, dumb as a rock.

[LaoTzu]

Our President, bless his heart, is, financially speaking, dumb as a rock.

Not sure I agree with that, considering I don't think it's just his idea.

They're probably spreading the money out due to political pressure to "spread the wealth around" ( I know you JoePlumber types will love that one)

It would make more sense to target a region that they KNOW will make money, build it there first... prove that it is viable... and the private sector will be close behind to replicate it elsewhere.

I do like the idea, and think it is somewhat necessary... a boondoggle is not.

[Mader]

Agreed, the East Coast city to city route may work, there are folks who travel between cities weekly, even daily. But how much will this cost? Gotta' buy land, gotta buy the train and the tracks, and then price the tickets so it is less expensive than driving or flying - that is a pretty big order.

[Takeru]

Agreed, the East Coast city to city route may work, there are folks who travel between cities weekly, even daily. But how much will this cost? Gotta' buy land, gotta buy the train and the tracks, and then price the tickets so it is less expensive than driving or flying - that is a pretty big order.

It actually helps California a lot. A normal drive from Sacramento to LA is about 6 hours, which is on a ok/good day(shorter if you can somehow speed your way there or longer if congestion is just bad.) Some do rather fly over to LA though. Considering the population of California, more cars that go through longer distances, the more likely chance for a car accident to occur... which means wasted time for those who are caught in or around the accident.

Also, I don't know how big is the daily commute for places like NYC and such, but there is a daily rush from and to SF, Sacramento, Oakland, San Jose, and any other neighboring cities. It gets nuts. A daily 1hr30min commute from and too these places through car doesn't sound fun. AND, I have heard many people tell me they commute to Sacramento to work for the government while others commute to places like S.F and San Jose from Sacramento to work(such as technical jobs.) They don't use Amtrak because it isn't efficient enough yet. That is a lot of people you can put off this congested road if it was more efficient for them to use the bullet train over driving because it makes daily commute for people staying in the city a whole lot easier. A lot of them say that Sacramento has cheaper housing than SF does. It really does, so I don't blame them for living in Sacramento but working elsewhere.

To make matters worse, SF, San Jose, Oakland, and Sacramento are pretty much the major cities of Northern California.

[Aronnax]

Millions of tourists go to Vegas and Disney World every year, more would go if there was decent transportation from the major airport hub to their target destination. Amtrak is a "failure" because of proportional subsidies, the national highway system is packed full of tax dollars. If you're paying for maintenance it's in your best interest to try and direct as many people to a transportation system that costs less to maintain. Even if a rail line operates at an annual loss it's possible for the traffic offset to turn it into a net gain.

If the transportation is faster and costs less than gasoline people will get out of their cars. Right now it costs me less to fly than drive more than 300 miles from my home. Hopping a plane for intermediate trips is an easy decision. If I had the option to take a train that'd get me there nearly as fast for even less money I'd do that instead. Getting around a major city without a car isn't that hard: cabs/shuttles can get you (and your luggage) from the airport to your hotel and light rail, buses and walking get you around town.

I don't know the exact volume of tourist traffic from Tampa to Orlando but based on the number of foreign tourists I saw when I visited Disney World I imagine it's quite high. Interconnecting hubs isn't particularly complicated, you put a rail station right next to the airport. That would patch you into all the secondary transportation hubs that extend from the airport into the immediate city as well. Major hotels already provide shuttle services to and from Disney World, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same from the rail station to their hotel.

As far as Vegas goes, on top of foreign tourists who fly into LAX millions of locals from Southern California travel to Vegas. Those locals, who all own cars, either fly in or park their car and don't really use it until they want to leave. Lots of people get around on foot, shuttles and taxis so they can enjoy the free drinks casinos pass out.

The cost/benefit on high speed rail is pretty complicated, it's very hard to generalize.

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 06:36 PM ----------

Agreed, the East Coast city to city route may work, there are folks who travel between cities weekly, even daily. But how much will this cost? Gotta' buy land, gotta buy the train and the tracks, and then price the tickets so it is less expensive than driving or flying - that is a pretty big order.

The government already owns a lot of land in and around transportation corridors. It's easy to make a train cheaper than an aircraft, electricity is orders of magnitude cheaper than jet fuel and electric motors are far more efficient than jet turbines. The amortization period is on a train is much longer but operational cost and service life are much lower.

If there's adequate ridership a high speed train is the most cost effective method of transportation we've come up with. The catch is the initial investment and if secondary transportation systems conveniently connect with the rail so riders aren't inconvenienced.

[SShack]

Millions of tourists go to Vegas and Disney World every year, more would go if there was decent transportation from the major airport hub to their target destination.

I'm not sure of the truth of this. I have no evidence to the contrary, of course, but I just can't imagine people deciding against these two vacation spots simply because of the distance between the airport and the hotel areas. I suppose maybe they could be losing weekend getaway folks who just don't want to deal with the frustration. But Vegas has shuttles to all the major hotels, and it's so compact, you really need to just endure the shuttle to and from the airport and then just stay on foot on the Strip. For Orlando, it's often a big family commitment, and with all the issues that need to be dealt with, I'm not sure how much that particular travel element factors in.

As for Vegas, anyway, the strip is all of ten miles or so from the airport, so HSR wouldn't matter there. There have been proposed HSR projects from the LA area to Las Vegas. One was a private project, one was a crazy government-funded MagLev proposal that would cost billions. That one died, thank god (despite the support of the local conservative former mayor who praised it and then went around holding up signs protesting Obama at a tea party, with no sense of irony).

I supported the private project, but then after MagLev died they decided apparently to try to get some stimulus money, and I just threw up my hands at the whole thing.

I don't think that particular HSR route would succeed. Yes, there's quite a bit of traffic on the route from L.A. to Las Vegas, but actually most of the route is pretty clear. The big difficulties are leaving L.A. and arriving in Vegas. But the proposed trains start outside the L.A. area, requiring potential riders to deal with the worst part of the traffic in order to take the train in the first place.

It would also kill what little remains of our small town if it succeeds, so I have a little bit of a bias. A significant amount of our local revenue comes from travelers stopping along the way to buy gas, eat, and shop at our outlet malls. Proponents seem to think that folks would stop here from the train to shop, but if the whole point is that it's a much faster trip to Vegas, why would you bother stopping halfway there? That would just waste time.

[Takeru]

They would stop for local food? Then again I don't know what kind of local food you have :). But if it is good, I would rather eat at the local town before I actually get back on. I would rather eat something different than eat something from the train. Hey, I don't think, of all the times I went from Sacramento to LA, and from LA to Vegas, have I ever stopped to get gas/food during the trip to Vegas. Maybe during the trip from Vegas and back to Sacramento... but that is about it. 6 hours from Sacramento to LA and then 3-4 more hours to Vegas... that is a lot of pain staying in the car.

But typically, when I do go to LA, it sometimes turn into going to Vegas afterwords... which is funny actually, especially when it comes to relatives who aren't native to California that want to sight see. Like the snowy mountains during snow season, the bay area, L.A., and Vegas... even though it is Nevada.

It also depends on how many stops will the bullet train actually make though, if it won't make any stops until its destination. I can see where you are going though. I would hope that they make stops in between for LA-Vegas considering that area seems mainly a tourist attraction zone.

[Aronnax]

I think you misunderstood me, I worded that poorly. They'd be flying into LAX to visit Southern California or McCarran to visit Las Vegas. From there they have to decide if they want to add another trip to Las Vegas/So Cal. For short trips you want to use shuttles or light rail. It's the intermediate trips (200-500 miles) where HSR becomes attractive and can increase the draw of tourist areas by connecting them.

For LA to Vegas to be effective it'd have to start somewhere close to LAX, rail relies on interconnected transport systems to be efficient. John Wayne would probably be ok but LAX would be ideal. If they want to put the rail station in the middle of nowhere it's probably DOA.

I doubt the train would stop in your town unless it's far enough from the starting position to function as a secondary boarding area. Somewhere around San Bernardino might be worth a stop to pick up all the IE folks. The less stops HSR makes the more effective it becomes. An uninterrupted trip could take you from LA to Las Vegas in under 90 minutes.

[SShack]

I think you misunderstood me, I worded that poorly. They'd be flying into LAX to visit Southern California or McCarran to visit Las Vegas. From there they have to decide if they want to add a side trip to Las Vegas/So Cal. For short trips (like the airport to the hotel) you use shuttles or light rail. It's the intermediate trips (200-500 miles) where HSR becomes attractive and can increase the draw of tourist areas by connecting them.

For LA to Vegas to be effective it'd have to start somewhere close to LAX, rail relies on interconnected transport systems to be efficient. John Wayne would probably be ok but LAX would be ideal. If they want to put the rail station in the middle of nowhere it's probably DOA.

I doubt the train would stop in your town unless it's far enough from the starting position to function as a secondary boarding area. Somewhere around San Bernardino might be worth a stop to pick up all the IE folks. The less stops HSR makes the more effective it becomes. An uninterrupted trip could take you from LA to Las Vegas in under 90 minutes.

Right, it shouldn't stop in my town (pop. 25,000) in order to be a successful HSR. I acknowledge that, but of course, city leaders do not.

In fact, an HSR analyst in a piece I read a year ago speculated that HSR is doomed to fail in Cailfornia exactly because every city would use its influence to demand a stop along the way and there wouldn't be enough political restraint to say no to anybody.

Our city leaders are obsessed with trying to get some industrial development out here to bring in jobs and more people. What I suspect is that they have read reports about HSR in other countries (I have as well) and noticed that there typically is a growth of development where the trains stop. But, what they don't seem to grasp is that the trains were intended to bring people to jobs outside their residential cores and the development happened to serve those workers. They seem to be trying to reverse the process -- hoping that a train stop would encourage industrial development in our town because an HSR would give them access to a larger labor pool. I have doubts this concept would actually work.

[Aronnax]

That would only work if your industrial labor pool dried up because housing prices drove them out of the area. HSR can deliver labor but it's only effective if something is keeping labor from living there normally (housing prices or social reasons).

HSR can also stimulate growth by turning a stop into a suburb. If the town is pleasant and housing is depressed some may decide to buy a home in your town and commute to the city for work. Money earned in LA spends just fine in Barstow, it may not be the industry your mayor dreams of but they're still homeowners who shop in the local stores.

Everybody isn't going to be able to get a HSR stop in their town, it's just not practical. For intermediate sized towns it may be practical for lower speed light rail to be constructed between their city and a major stop. It really depends on the size of the town and the distance to a major hub.

[boldbidder]

The President is not totally funding any of these proposed projects. Enough to get the work going but not enough to complete. Who is going to pay for the rest of it????

Amtrak is a failure here. Even the trains that allow us to take our cars with us are a failure. Why put more money into a failure just because it is faster.

I do agree with the East Coast city to city ideas.

The proposal includes a train from Tampa, FL to Orlando, FL. Tampa to DisneyWorld. Now really, how many folks from Tampa go to DisneyWorld? How do you get to the train? Luggage? Tickets? Rent a car when you get there? Not a good financial decision.

Another route proposed was from LA to to Los Vegas. Well, this is a rough drive, pretty, but rough, and long. But again, how many people travel from LA to Vegas?? Why pay for a train ticket, pay for parking your own car in LA, and then have to rent a car when you get there when you can just drive there yourself. Bad business decision.

Our President, bless his heart, is, financially speaking, dumb as a rock.

Mader, no offense I think you misunderstand many of the proposed travel routes.

For one LA -> Vegas is HUUUGE. I go to Vegas 2-3 times a year and very often most of the people I meet are from LA and just visiting for the weekend. I could easily imagine promotions by area casinos with package deals (ala Orbitz, Expedia, etc..) that would include a hotel a with your bullet train ticket. No one rents cars in Vegas so that's a mute point.

The Tampa -> Disney route is also pretty huge. The difficulty in logistics is no different than if someone flew or drove, you'll still need luggage space and lodging. Although, this quicker form of travel would make day trips viable for some families. Instead of getting a hotel for a couple nights, leave early am on the bullet train and take in Epcot, Disney, and Sea World all in one day and be on the evening train back home. Come on, Mader, where's the imagination? Don't fall into the trap of thinking any idea floated by the administration is bad on GP.

In this case the implementation is woefully lacking, as I said earlier I'd much rather see a fully funded pilot program to serve as a proof of concept. In this case gubment would do well to take a note from the private sector; no one spends millions (or billions) of dollars on a new system of some kind without having properly proofed it out.

[AnotherNormal]

For one LA -> Vegas is HUUUGE.

Yep, I've gotten stuck in Sunday evening traffic coming back from Vegas.

Many people from S. Cali go to Vegas on the weekends to play. This is a major revenue stream for Vegas. Nevada would love a bullet train to bring all those folks to their casinos.

[Blse]

Yep, I've gotten stuck in Sunday evening traffic coming back from Vegas.

Many people from S. Cali go to Vegas on the weekends to play. This is a major revenue stream for Vegas. Nevada would love a bullet train to bring all those folks to their casinos.

If that's the case, then they should be able to cough up the funding. If there's enough demand, then there's a profit opportunity. True, as someone pointed out, roads are subsidized which distorts the market and barrier to entry is high, as someone else pointed out. Considering that perhaps a non-profit can be formed among those parties likely to profit. I'm still hesitant about tax dollars being used for such a project when there are more pressing issues that need to be taken care of first.

[themuzicman]

I totally agree. The speed needs to be 3 times what the 'unofficial' highway top limit is to make it attractive to most people.
The cost has to be less than half what a plane ticket would be.

I think if you could do NY-LA in 10 hours at the same cost, people would ride it. Especially if they had access to cell phones, the internet, and CNN/ESPN.

[SShack]

If that's the case, then they should be able to cough up the funding. If there's enough demand, then there's a profit opportunity. True, as someone pointed out, roads are subsidized which distorts the market and barrier to entry is high, as someone else pointed out. Considering that perhaps a non-profit can be formed among those parties likely to profit. I'm still hesitant about tax dollars being used for such a project when there are more pressing issues that need to be taken care of first.

Also, there's the issue of how the train would make money the rest of the week. I don't think a huge new piece of infrastructure that's primarily used only on the weekends is a fiscally sound model for either a private or government project.

[Aronnax]

Also, there's the issue of how the train would make money the rest of the week. I don't think a huge new piece of infrastructure that's primarily used only on the weekends is a fiscally sound model for either a private or government project.

If there was a direct rail line between LA and Las Vegas I doubt it'd sit idle during off peak times. Trains don't care if they're filled with people or cargo. A significant portion of the goods consumed in Las Vegas come from or through the greater LA area. HSR can supplant air freight for next day shipping and move perishables as well as more mundane cargo. It's not a given that there's sufficient demand to keep the train busy but it's not unreasonable to expect business to take advantage of low cost, high speed shipping.

[SShack]

If there was a direct rail line between LA and Las Vegas I doubt it'd sit idle during off peak times. Trains don't care if they're filled with people or cargo. A significant portion of the goods consumed in Las Vegas come from or through the greater LA area. HSR can supplant air freight for next day shipping and move perishables as well as more mundane cargo. It's not a given that there's sufficient demand to keep the train busy but it's not unreasonable to expect business to take advantage of low cost, high speed shipping.

There are already plenty of freight rail lines from L.A. to Las Vegas. They're one of our major employers here. And they're in the middle of expanding right now. I find it unlikely that sending freight in this fashion would be cheaper than existing rail and I doubt saving one whole hour of travel time is of any significance at all when it comes to goods shipping.

[Aronnax]

There are already plenty of freight rail lines from L.A. to Las Vegas. They're one of our major employers here. And they're in the middle of expanding right now. I find it unlikely that sending freight in this fashion would be cheaper than existing rail and I doubt saving one whole hour of travel time is of any significance at all when it comes to goods shipping.

Conventional rail is cheaper to operate so use cost is lower, provided that neither have excess capacity. However, if a shipping industry has excess capacity they drop rates since a large part of the costs associated with moving between hubs is a sunk cost unrelated to transport weight. During a reduction in passenger use a portion of carrying capacity can be converted to cargo. Airlines can take on additional belly cargo to offset a drop in passengers, there's no reason that the same practice can not to be extended to HSR. As far as aggregate use goes there are daily flights from LA to Vegas, the demand drops during the weekdays but it's always present.

Travel by HSR is about 1/3 of the travel time for conventional rail, or about a 3 hour reduction in travel time one way. The advantage comes into play in a "just in time shipping" system and how the carrier interfaces with other transportation systems. When the difference is a 3 hour turnaround vs a 9 hour turnaround this can easily makes the difference between cargo sitting for a day waiting to be picked up and it getting there that day.

[SShack]

Conventional rail is cheaper to operate so use cost is lower, provided that neither have excess capacity. However, if a shipping industry has excess capacity they drop rates since a large part of the costs associated with moving between hubs is a sunk cost unrelated to transport weight. During a reduction in passenger use a portion of carrying capacity is moved to cargo. This happens normally with airlines (they take on more belly cargo) there's no reason for the same practice not to be extended to HSR. As far as aggregate use goes there are daily flights from LA to Vegas, the demand drops during the weekdays but it's always present.

Travel by HSR is about 1/3 of the travel time for conventional rail, or about a 3 hour reduction in travel time one way. The advantage comes into play in a "just in time shipping" system and how the carrier interfaces with other transportation systems. When the difference is a 3 hour turnaround vs a 9 hour turnaround this can easily makes the difference between cargo sitting for a day waiting to be picked up and it getting there that day.

Where are you getting the travel reduction info from? I haven't looked up rail times, but it's a four-hour drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Traffic adds about another hour on weekends.

Your plan could conceivably work if the train stations were positioned so that they serve both human and cargo customers, like the airports, but that isn't what has been proposed out here so far. It's entirely passenger-focused and the stations aren't going to be positioned in ways that accommodate freight very well. It's one of the details that makes me very suspicious of the viability of the projects (both private and gov.-funded).

[Aronnax]

Where are you getting the travel reduction info from? I haven't looked up rail times, but it's a four-hour drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Traffic adds about another hour on weekends.

They're coming from envelope calculations. I'm using average speed of conventional rail vs projected speed for the California High-Speed Rail, figuring in acceleration and deceleration times and 250 miles of separation one way. I'm too lazy to scan and post a PDF but if your cruising speed is around 200 mph you're going to get there in about 1/3 of the time of the guy who's cruising around 60 mph. The difference comes in due to longer accel/decel times for the higher speed, I also rounded to make the fraction easier (I rounded the fraction up so it's slightly in favor of the conventional rail). I made the assumption of 15 minutes required to load and unload on either end. It takes longer to empty a container but you can compensate by using a switching station to load/unload cars while the train is in transit.


Your plan could conceivably work if the train stations were positioned so that they serve both human and cargo customers, like the airports, but that isn't what has been proposed out here so far. It's entirely passenger-focused and the stations aren't going to be positioned in ways that accommodate freight very well. It's one of the details that makes me very suspicious of the viability of the projects (both private and gov.-funded).

This is my fault, I'm looking at this from the perspective of "can it be made practical" rather than closely examining what's being proposed. I was assuming the engineers they've hired are competent enough to realize that all large scale transportation has applications for mixed use.

This is a design issue, if they've got the foresight to leave space in the hubs for switching stations and incorporate loading and unloading areas for trucks or a secondary conventional rail that connects the HSR station to a local shipping hub it shouldn't be a problem. If they don't incorporate those features they'll miss out on the opportunity for a strong cost offset/secondary revenue source.

[AnotherNormal]

If that's the case, then they should be able to cough up the funding. If there's enough demand, then there's a profit opportunity.

Some years ago Nevada was lobbying California, wanting them to widen Interstate 15. Nevada didn't want to pay for that, they wanted to mainline the income and have Cali pay for a wider conduit.

Nevada must be pleased with this LA --> Vegas bullet train idea.

They would need to plan for a very large parking lot to service the numbers of people that would ride that party train. Cruising across the high desert at 200+ ... they would sell lots of tickets.

How many gallons of gas would this one route save ?

How would it effect high desert towns like Barstow, Baker ... places where people stop to fill up on the way.

[Warrior]

How would it effect high desert towns like Barstow, Baker ... places where people stop to fill up on the way.

This is one of many questions that would have to be answered for any proposed route. Taking traffic from any existing route could have consequences for the towns that depend on that traffic. Maybe the train could stop in many of the towns, but of course that defeats the purpose of a high speed rail line between two places. The issue is not unsolvable and no doubt some places will have to find other means of support, but this shows how thorny the issue will be. Just finding two cities with a lot of traffic going between them is just the start of an analysis.

[Ytterbium]

I wonder why it hasn't been done before. Don't the US have high speed trains? Pretty much every other country in this world already have them.

[Aronnax]

I wonder why it hasn't been done before. Don't the US have high speed trains? Pretty much every other country in this world already have them.

The US has an incredibly low gasoline tax compared to other developed nations and the airline industry is heavily subsidized. With cheap gasoline and airports everywhere it's hard for high speed rail to appear cost effective or attractive.

It's difficult for most Americans to make accurate cost comparisons because most of them aren't aware what their current transportation system costs or how it's funded. Combine that with a cultural reluctance for large government projects and you end up in a situation where trains are primarily used for heavy freight instead of transportation.

[freeeekyyy]

If we need the government to fund it, that shows that it's not profitable. Lack of profit means lack of demand. Lack of demand means waste of money. Nobody wants or needs it. It's just a way to say "mine's bigger" on a national level.

[Aronnax]

If we need the government to fund it, that shows that it's not profitable. Lack of profit means lack of demand. Lack of demand means waste of money. Nobody wants or needs it. It's just a way to say "mine's bigger" on a national level.


The Federal Highway System and Federal Aviation Administration are funded through a mixture of gasoline and income tax, they consume billions of dollars every year. Local government routinely fiances airport construction and surface streets. If you're using anything to get anywhere the odds are the government paid for part of it.

Transportation access is a necessity for an effective economy (particularly one that relies on competition) and it's so horrendously complicated to manage as a "for profit" enterprise that it's expedient to have the government construct and maintain it.

[freeeekyyy]

The Federal Highway System and Federal Aviation Administration are funded through a mixture of gasoline and income tax, they consume billions of dollars every year. Local government routinely fiances airport construction and surface streets. If you're using anything to get anywhere the odds are the government paid for part of it.

Transportation access is a necessity for an effective economy (particularly one that relies on competition) and it's so horrendously complicated to manage as a "for profit" enterprise that it's expedient to have the government construct and maintain it.
So because one thing is already done by the government, we need more?

[Aronnax]

So because one thing is already done by the government, we need more?

If the government can reduce total expenditure by creating something new, should it?

[freeeekyyy]

If the government can reduce total expenditure by creating something new, should it?
I don't see how you can reduce overall transportation costs by an entirely new system of transportation. And yes, it would be entirely new. Most of the railroads in the US are incapable of handling high speeds. Multiple billions of dollars on something that is not needed makes no sense to me.

[Aronnax]

I don't see how you can reduce overall transportation costs by an entirely new system of transportation. And yes, it would be entirely new. Most of the railroads in the US are incapable of handling high speeds. Multiple billions of dollars on something that is not needed makes no sense to me.

Freeway and airport construction, expansion, operation and maintenance all cost money. If you can divert people from more expensive systems (roads and airports) to a system with lower operational costs (rail) you can save money.

There's a lot of analysis involved in determining which routes could be effective but there's an opportunity to save money in high traffic corridors and it should be investigated. Assuming something isn't worth consideration because "we never needed it before" is short sighted due to the long lead times associated with design and construction. Our population and economy is growing, the need for transportation will grow right along with it.

[freeeekyyy]

The cost of building a rail network is enormous. I'd like to see the data showing how it's preferable to expansion of existing systems. I find it very hard to believe that building a high speed train network is better than expanding and improving the freeway system.

[thod]

There are numerous arguments going on all at the same time.

Can hi-speed rail work? The answer is certainly 'yes' because it does so elsewhere. The biggest difference in the US is the distances between cities. Where you have lots of cities within 500km of each other such as in Europe or Japan it makes a lot of sense. The time taken to drive out to the airport, fly then drive back into the destination city must be added to travel times. It is quicker to jump on a train, much like jumping on a bus. The NY subway system works because of this high population density combined with high congestion on the roads. There are parts of the US which match this. A line from DC through Baltimore up to NYC would work. Such lines should be considered as local connections rather than national.

The speed of the lines being proposed is pathetic and do not qualify as hi-speed trains. The US spends lots of money on designing and building hi-tech solutions. Yet they are proposing speeds attained by steam trains 100 years ago. What is needed is to develop 500 mph trains. These systems can then be sold abroad for export earnings.

Then there is the economics arguments. The US has lots of unemployed people just rotting. Some could be put to work making concrete, others digging foundations, others building the lines. As an economic stimulus project it pretty good because it is not simply a "one man digs a hole, the next man fills it in" type of make-work project. The US gains something from it, a hi-speed rail network. What is important in this is that everything be US sourced. Ensure the steel is bought from Detroit and not China.

[freeeekyyy]

There are numerous arguments going on all at the same time.

Can hi-speed rail work? The answer is certainly 'yes' because it does so elsewhere. The biggest difference in the US is the distances between cities. Where you have lots of cities within 500km of each other such as in Europe or Japan it makes a lot of sense. The time taken to drive out to the airport, fly then drive back into the destination city must be added to travel times. It is quicker to jump on a train, much like jumping on a bus. The NY subway system works because of this high population density combined with high congestion on the roads. There are parts of the US which match this. A line from DC through Baltimore up to NYC would work. Such lines should be considered as local connections rather than national.

The speed of the lines being proposed is pathetic and do not qualify as hi-speed trains. The US spends lots of money on designing and building hi-tech solutions. Yet they are proposing speeds attained by steam trains 100 years ago. What is needed is to develop 500 mph trains. These systems can then be sold abroad for export earnings.

Then there is the economics arguments. The US has lots of unemployed people just rotting. Some could be put to work making concrete, others digging foundations, others building the lines. As an economic stimulus project it pretty good because it is not simply a "one man digs a hole, the next man fills it in" type of make-work project. The US gains something from it, a hi-speed rail network. What is important in this is that everything be US sourced. Ensure the steel is bought from Detroit and not China.
It also works in other countries because they were built up around the train. Americans have always preferrred cars. It's not like there's anything inherently bad about a train, but I just can't see it being worth it, from an economic standpoint. Sure, it gives people temporary employment, once the project is complete, they're right back out of work again. And from a macroeconomic standpoint, jobs are only useful when they're productive, there's nothing productive about a system that will never turn a profit, or will take years and years to do so.

[SShack]

Actually, apparently only two high-speed train systems in the world show a profit. It turns out a lot of them classify their government subsidies as "revenue," which inflates the numbers.

(I don't have a link for this at my fingertips. It's something I read elsewhere a couple of weeks ago or I'd link)

[Undead Bonzi]

It also works in other countries because they were built up around the train. Americans have always preferrred cars.

Historically inacurate. America developed and dominated the worlds rail networks up until the end of World War II. Until then we had the best, most comprehensive and most effective rail network in the world. All of it was built and run by private companies who made money at the buisness. Then after WWII, the government built the interstate highway system. A completely governmentally subsidized system against which the private rails were forced to compete. At the same time the emerging automotive companies bought out and closed many of the existing light rail and trolley lines to inflate the need/demand for their products.

As to costing equations of expanding an interstate vs rail. Consider this, a single rail line can carry more passengers and cargo faster than an average 4 lane interstate road. Now calculate the land area a 4 lane road occupies vs a double rail line. Now figure out the value of land per square foot in densely urban areas such as the Boston/Washington/New York corridor. The money saved in land costs alone offsets a fair portion of the cost. Then figure in the difference in maintenance costs over time (roads are far more expensive, especially in northern climates). The only place a highway is competitive is in valueless land...or if it is completely governmentally subsidized system competing against a privately owned and operated system...which is the case.

[freeeekyyy]

Historically inacurate. America developed and dominated the worlds rail networks up until the end of World War II. Until then we had the best, most comprehensive and most effective rail network in the world. All of it was built and run by private companies who made money at the buisness. Then after WWII, the government built the interstate highway system. A completely governmentally subsidized system against which the private rails were forced to compete. At the same time the emerging automotive companies bought out and closed many of the existing light rail and trolley lines to inflate the need/demand for their products.

As to costing equations of expanding an interstate vs rail. Consider this, a single rail line can carry more passengers and cargo faster than an average 4 lane interstate road. Now calculate the land area a 4 lane road occupies vs a double rail line. Now figure out the value of land per square foot in densely urban areas such as the Boston/Washington/New York corridor. The money saved in land costs alone offsets a fair portion of the cost. Then figure in the difference in maintenance costs over time (roads are far more expensive, especially in northern climates). The only place a highway is competitive is in valueless land...or if it is completely governmentally subsidized system competing against a privately owned and operated system...which is the case.
Can't undo the past. Roads dominate today, it doesn't matter how things were 80 years ago. And urban density isn't really relevant when you're talking about long-distance, across the country transport. There isn't much of an issue with that outside the cities. It's true rail lines require alot less maintenance, they don't get potholes, etc. But the cost of a new system, plus reduced independence, I believe outweighs the advantages.

[Aronnax]

Actually, apparently only two high-speed train systems in the world show a profit. It turns out a lot of them classify their government subsidies as "revenue," which inflates the numbers.

(I don't have a link for this at my fingertips. It's something I read elsewhere a couple of weeks ago or I'd link)

It's supposed to work that way, most public agencies try to operate transportation systems at or near cost. When a public agency creates a profit it's typically rolled into fare reductions or increased services, the public model is very different than the private model. Even operating at a slight profit to buffer against economic downturns (and the corresponding drop in revenue) causes pretty radical reactions. Typically when a public agency demonstrates a surplus the politicians reach for the checkbook and the voters demand a tax cut.

To answer you question freeeekyyy, HSR costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $20M-80M per mile, depending on performance requirements and terrain (I'm pulling this figure from various nations completed HSR projects). Highway costs around $1M-75M per mile per lane, again, depending on terrain and number of total lanes, with most projects coming in under $15M per mile, per lane (data pulled from PDFs from the GAO and US DOT).Two lane rural roads are cheap while elevated multilane highways through the middle of a city can become incredibly expensive so there's a huge variance in construction costs.

The big advantage comes in when you consider capacity, HSR moves the equivalent of 6 lanes of traffic so it becomes cost effective in urban settings with high flow demands. The cost advantage gets larger when you factor in O&M, steel tracks have better wear characteristic than asphalt. There are also some physical advantages, you can fit 2 rail lines in places where existing structures won't allow 12 lanes of traffic.

Obviously you have to fill the train up, otherwise the capacity advantage is meaningless. This is where all that boring analysis comes in, trying to determine ridership and total cost of construction. Fiat dismissal or acceptance is foolish but the possibility of substantial savings are very real and should be examined. The places where HSR is most likely to be effective are connecting the major cities along both coasts, due to the distance between them (it's in the sweet spot for HSR, 100-500 miles).

[SShack]

It's supposed to work that way, most public agencies try to operate transportation systems at or near cost.

I worded poorly. Most HSRs aren't self-supporting. Without infusions of additional government funding, they'd be operating in the red.

[freeeekyyy]

It's supposed to work that way, most public agencies try to operate transportation systems at or near cost. When a public agency creates a profit it's typically rolled into fare reductions or increased services, the public model is very different than the private model. Even operating at a slight profit to buffer against economic downturns (and the corresponding drop in revenue) causes pretty radical reactions. Typically when a public agency demonstrates a surplus the politicians reach for the checkbook and the voters demand a tax cut.

To answer you question freeeekyyy, HSR costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $20M-80M per mile, depending on performance requirements and terrain (I'm pulling this figure from various nations completed HSR projects). Highway costs around $1M-75M per mile per lane, again, depending on terrain and number of total lanes, with most projects coming in under $15M per mile, per lane (data pulled from PDFs from the GAO and US DOT).Two lane rural roads are cheap while elevated multilane highways through the middle of a city can become incredibly expensive so there's a huge variance in construction costs.

The big advantage comes in when you consider capacity, HSR moves the equivalent of 6 lanes of traffic so it becomes cost effective in urban settings with high flow demands. The cost advantage gets larger when you factor in O&M, steel tracks have better wear characteristic than asphalt. There are also some physical advantages, you can fit 2 rail lines in places where existing structures won't allow 12 lanes of traffic.

Obviously you have to fill the train up, otherwise the capacity advantage is meaningless. This is where all that boring analysis comes in, trying to determine ridership and total cost of construction. Fiat dismissal or acceptance is foolish but the possibility of substantial savings are very real and should be examined. The places where HSR is most likely to be effective are connecting the major cities along both coasts, due to the distance between them (it's in the sweet spot for HSR, 100-500 miles).
I suppose I can see how if these issues were taken care of, a rail network would be very beneficial. They won't be, though. Government never works in an efficient or logical manner. I just don't trust politicians to pull it off sensibly, even if theoretically it could be done.

[Ytterbium]

The US has an incredibly low gasoline tax compared to other developed nations and the airline industry is heavily subsidized. With cheap gasoline and airports everywhere it's hard for high speed rail to appear cost effective or attractive.

It's difficult for most Americans to make accurate cost comparisons because most of them aren't aware what their current transportation system costs or how it's funded. Combine that with a cultural reluctance for large government projects and you end up in a situation where trains are primarily used for heavy freight instead of transportation.
Why not stop to subside the airlines then? Such a wierd country. We have this train (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which were tested in the US ages ago aswell. They run on rather old infrastructure. Most of the rail infrastructure is over 100 years old. I can't see why the US could upgrade their, with electrification etc.

[freeeekyyy]

Why not stop to subside the airlines then? Such a wierd country. We have this train (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which were tested in the US ages ago aswell. They run on rather old infrastructure. Most of the rail infrastructure is over 100 years old. I can't see why the US could upgrade their, with electrification etc.
Same reason as upgrading for high speed. It's not worth the cost. Not everything that can be done should be done.

[Ytterbium]

Same reason as upgrading for high speed. It's not worth the cost. Not everything that can be done should be done.Unless you want to become China's toyboy I may suggest you to look at the trains.
There's always an initial cost. This however will be worth it quite quickly. Here for instance some flights can't compete with the train anymore. It's also cheaper and doesn't pollute that badly. Trains also go straight into towns and cities, instead of landing outside miles away. Railway infrastructure isn't that extremely costly to keep running after it's been built either.

[freeeekyyy]

Unless you want to become China's toyboy I may suggest you to look at the trains.
There's always an initial cost. This however will be worth it quite quickly. Here for instance some flights can't compete with the train anymore. It's also cheaper and doesn't pollute that badly. Trains also go straight into towns and cities, instead of landing outside miles away. Railway infrastructure isn't that extremely costly to keep running after it's been built either.

Air flight is much less expensive than trains. Fuel consumption may be greater, but the cost of rail, especially covering the long distances we have in the US, is huge. Besides that, people like speed. The only trains that come close to jet speed are maglevs. And I don't think anybody in their right mind would suggest a maglev for long-distance use.

[Ytterbium]

Air flight is much less expensive than trains. Fuel consumption may be greater, but the cost of rail, especially covering the long distances we have in the US, is huge. Besides that, people like speed. The only trains that come close to jet speed are maglevs. And I don't think anybody in their right mind would suggest a maglev for long-distance use.
Well that depends entirely on the path I would say. Ofcourse flying will always be more suitable for some distances or places. However as there doesn't seem to be any real rail alternative in the US. I don't think we can just say it will be so. It doesn't have to be maglevs. Just high-speed trains on ordinary tracks. No need to bank the curves either if the trains leans themselves.

[Warrior]

Unless you want to become China's toyboy I may suggest you to look at the trains.
There's always an initial cost. This however will be worth it quite quickly. Here for instance some flights can't compete with the train anymore. It's also cheaper and doesn't pollute that badly. Trains also go straight into towns and cities, instead of landing outside miles away. Railway infrastructure isn't that extremely costly to keep running after it's been built either.

Where is here? The cost for any type of transportation infrastructure is a function of many variables. Local zoning and other land use restrictions, terrain, etc. all play a part and whether it is worth it depends on usage, which could also be highly variable from place to place. There may be many viable high speed train routes, but it is not at all clear where or how many until a more thorough analysis is done.

[Eratosthenes]

I think that they are a good idea in theory, due to providing a cheap, reliable, and efficient form of transportation faster than cars. However, I think that the reason they don't already exist (in the US) is because they tend to be unprofitable. On the other hand, there may be some benefit to having fast connections between certain cities that would justify the government subsidizing them. That sort of benefit is hard to quantify, though.

[Ytterbium]

Where is here? The cost for any type of transportation infrastructure is a function of many variables. Local zoning and other land use restrictions, terrain, etc. all play a part and whether it is worth it depends on usage, which could also be highly variable from place to place. There may be many viable high speed train routes, but it is not at all clear where or how many until a more thorough analysis is done.
It's in my profile. Like I wrote it depends on exactly those things. Where I live, Sweden is quite sparsely populated. So these trains covered a relatively straight distance between the capital and the second largest city at first. Nowadays these trains are used on other stretches aswell.
The train has stolen alot of air passengers. So it's quite cost-effective and doesn't take ages. It's quite a distance aswell 600km or 373 miles. There's alot more to do on a train aswell, than on a plane.