High Speed Rail in the US

[Asher]

Except I'd bet our system pre-dates yours so who copied who?

You would lose that bet.

I am an expert in C-Train operations, you watch your mouth son!

[Asher]

Fact Fact Fact!

Calgary: 300,000 riders per day, 27.8 miles of track
San Diego: 118,000 riders per day, 51.1 miles of track

Which one of these systems is better designed, mother****er?

[Dinner]

That's because you ****ers are snowed in and can't drive 50% of the year while we drive or ride bikes with shorts on.

And then of course there is the fact that Amtrak picks off a lot of passengers on their Coaster and the new east west line in North county.

[Asher]

That's because you ****ers are snowed in and can't drive 50% of the year while we drive or ride bikes with shorts on.

Except C-Train ridership isn't up in the winter because people don't like standing outside in -40C weather to catch a bus to GET to the train -- SO THEY DRIVE in the winter.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tokyo-Shanghai

Via where? Pusan?

You might think it's a stupid idea, but a bridge will happen eventually.

For the record, I never said that Calgary-Edmonton was without benefits, just that the federal government has higher priorities.

Now provincially is a different matter. Once you've got HWY 16 and HWY 1 twinned all the way, with twinned lanes south to Montana, then we can talk about bullet trains between Edmonton to Calgary.

[Asher]

How about a Dallas <--> Colombia bullet train? The drug trade alone should justify it.

Or Sao Paolo <--> London, for all of the soccer hooligans.

[Dinner]

Don't you guys have indoor stations? That must suck standing outside in the snow.

[Asher]

Don't you guys have indoor stations? That must suck standing outside in the snow.

Yes, Oerdin, we build large indoor stations every few hundred meters in residential areas for the busses.

We're Canadian, we're used to it. It's why we're tougher and fitter than fat, lazy Americans like your typical San Diego fatass who is too out of shape to even make it to the "Trolley" station.

[Dinner]

I'm talking about your trains! Keep up.

[Asher]

I'm talking about your trains! Keep up.

Read what I wrote the first time and then in 100 words or less describe why your answer showed you didn't comprehend it.

[Dinner]

I'm getting off work. See ya.

[Asher]

The victory music is deafening.

[Ben Kenobi]

The stops being to close together is what is wrong with California's proposed route. Every city wanted to be connected to it and as a result the trains would have to stop every 5 minutes when really it should zoom between larger business centers and have local mass transit take people to the smaller areas.

Agreed. Hub and spoke models. The problem with high speed trains, is that they are really sensitive to density. I know asher keeps making fun of the argument, but honestly, he doesn't understand why.

Short trips, say under 10 miles, cars are really the only thing that works. They can go anywhere whenever you want wherever you want. From 10 to about a hundred miles, they work when going anywhere that's low density. They do not work that well from high density to high density areas under a hundred miles for a single driver. For multiple drivers or a family they are really the only option. Out past a hundred miles to 500, they hit another sweet spot, where they are very difficult to compete. For a family, it's really the only option. For a single driver, it becomes much easier past 500 to fly.

Bullet trains are competing with two niches. They compete with airplanes out past 500 miles, and they compete with cars under 250 to 500 miles. A bullet train is not going to be as fast as a plane. That's not the point. The advantage of the bullet train is to be slower then the plane, but cheaper. You should be able to haul more people over a distance, and the per person cost of transportation should be much lower. You want to be transporting families together over the train from city to city, rather then flying. Out past 500, you won't be competing as much with cars. Once the Bullet train is travelling between two cities over 500 miles, then it will compete effectively with planes, at a lower cost, and a faster speed then cars, without having to worry about the costs associated with cars out past 500 miles.

Under 500 miles, you are competing with cars. The point of stops at shorter then 500 miles, is to make the system have the volume necessary to work. You need to fill your trains and have them run often enough to make the track worthwhile. This is why density is so crucial to making the whole system pay off. If your density is too low, then your cost is going to be greater then planes for the short haul routes, and there will be no market niche for the bullet trains. The cost has got to be maybe twice that what it takes to drive a car, as you are saving wear and tear on your vehicle by taking the train. You will also be saving time.

The problem with the Calgary Edmonton route is that the route needs to have both the volume and the distance. It's short enough that you can drive from Calgary to Edmonton and back. If it's to be competitive, the bullet train would have to be fast enough to get you there in the morning, and then back in the evening. The second problem is the density. You have to fill the trains. There just aren't enough bodies, the system doesn't connect to anything else, and you don't get past that magical distance of about 500 miles to really compete effectively with planes, and get out of the market niche with the cars.

The Toronto-Montreal route doesn't have any of those other problems. It can be extended and chained to everything else. It has massive density. It would compete effectively with the planes.

[Drake Tungsten]

You might think it's a stupid idea, but a bridge will happen eventually.

No, it won't.

[Asher]

The problem with the Calgary Edmonton route is that the route needs to have both the volume and the distance. It's short enough that you can drive from Calgary to Edmonton and back. If it's to be competitive, the bullet train would have to be fast enough to get you there in the morning, and then back in the evening.

Hey Ben. How fast does a 300km/h train go 275km?

Hell, that trip would be faster than most people's commute to work inside the GTA!

The problem is that route IS very heavily travelled. YOU HAVE NO ****ING IDEA how Alberta's logistics works. Travelling between Calgary and Edmonton is basically a NORM in the business community. That's why the Calgary-Edmonton routes are VERY, VERY numerous every business day on airplanes. WestJet makes a fortune off it alone.

Right now it's 3 hours by car, in good traffic. You can't do that "there and back" in any reasonable day, that's 6 hours of a commute. If it was a bullet train, an hour each way, it's far more reasonable -- an hour each way or so. The bullet train would basically make Calgary and Edmonton connected cities in a more reasonable way -- they already are intimately connected economically. It'd be quicker to get from Calgary to Edmonton than it is to get from Scarborough to Etobicoke in Toronto. That's huge.

There's a very big reason why people FAR more intelligent than you have been looking at high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton for decades.

You demonstrably don't know **** all about the logistics or economy or culture or transportation networks in Alberta, so **** on off out of here and let the grownups talk.

If you want, continue talking about ridiculously stupid US train routes. That's more fun for everyone -- only a handful of us realize how ****ing stupid you're being with this Alberta talk, virtually everyone will recognize your stupidity if you keep it about America.

The Toronto-Montreal route doesn't have any of those other problems. It can be extended and chained to everything else. It has massive density. It would compete effectively with the planes.

Ben, you epic ****ing moron. No one is saying Toronto-Montreal would not work. IN FACT, EVERYONE is listing it as the #1 best route for a bullet train in Canada. You epic ****ing moron.

THIS POST WAS NOT MEANT TO BE INSULTING.
IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WAY.