[alephnerd]

> First-class passenger trains are much more comfortable, roomier, and less expensive, but as long as they're so wildly slower, they have a hard time competing with air travel.

Maybe, but around a third of all tourism spend in the US is business travel related [0]. You cannot justify spending an overnight train ride from NYC to Chicago when you can reach there within 2 hours by flight.

The US is MASSIVE - much larger than most countries, and population centers are extremely spread out once you leave the Northeast. Outside the NE, the math (time wise or financially) doesn't play out well for rail based public transit.

You see the same dynamics in China as well - the overwhelming majority of medium-long distance public transit is along the extremely dense coast.

Expecting a French style TGV is unrealistic as long as San Francisco to Los Angeles is the same distance as Paris to Berlin - except with almost no major population centers in between, and plenty of massive mountain ranges. Same for the rest of the US outside of the NE. Similar extent with NY to Chicago as well (roughly the same distance as Berlin to St Petersburg)

[0] - https://www.statista.com/topics/1832/business-travel/#topicO...

[seabass-labrax]

I don't see why it's a problem for a potential rail service for San Francisco and Los Angeles that there are no heavily populated areas between the two cities. There's no reason why you couldn't fill up a train with passengers at the start and travel non-stop to the destination, just as the vast majority of airlines operate.

Trains still have all their usual benefits including better passenger comfort and higher energy efficiency, and there is the option to build intermediate stations if the demand increases in the future.

I would also question the claim that overnight trains cannot be justified for business travel. If the cost is comparable to a hotel room - which is a big 'if', granted - this allows employees to be better rested and therefore work more effectively during the day.

[jeffbee]

The proposed CAHSR business plan calls for 2 peak hourly trains plus 2 additional trains per day stopping nowhere between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. 2 of these are suggested to be actual non-stop SF to LA Union Station, even though bypassing San Jose is pretty crazy. But anyway you are right: it's no problem at all.

There are also plenty of population centers between SF and LA which is why trains are going to stop in Fresno and Bakersfield (combined pop: 2.2 million). Also Palmdale. If Palmdale is nowhere then Brightline West is also a train to nowhere.

Alephnerd is making the same mistake that many nerds have made. They are arguing about the existing passenger, while the point of the project is to serve the next ten million Californians.

[0_____0]

Infrastructure can also drive development in places that it reaches. If you work in SF but fancy living in Hollister, and the train only takes 30 minutes to get there, why not?

[alephnerd]

Yep, but that does not need to be justified by a HSR expansion.

You could justify a San Benito County expansion as part of a Caltrain electrification and expansion project for a fraction of the cost and headaches.

And do the same for San Joaquin County to the Bay+Sacramento, San Bernardino County to LA, and Imperial Valley to San Diego.

In fact, this is what the CA government has been doing after treating the HSR as de facto moribund.

[alephnerd]

> between the two cities. There's no reason why you couldn't fill up a train with passengers at the start and travel non-stop to the destination, just as the vast majority of airlines operate.

This isn't flat land. There are expansive mountain ranges that make it difficult to build and any flat land that is buildable is ALSO prime agricultural land that is worth millions.

Just to recoup the cost you end up with ticket prices comparable to a flight.

> I would also question the claim that overnight trains cannot be justified for business travel. If the cost is comparable to a hotel room - which is a big 'if', granted - this allows employees to be better rested and therefore work more effectively during the day.

Yeah no. I don't want employees to come in unshowered, and they still need a place to keep their luggage. Furthermore, plenty of people like maintaining their daily routine or spending time with their SOs. Flying a couple hours, staying at a hotel overnight, getting work done, and immediately bugging out back home is the norm.

[yongjik]

> This isn't flat land. There are expansive mountain ranges that make it difficult to build and any flat land that is buildable is ALSO prime agricultural land that is worth millions.

Japan's Shinkansen started service in 1964, and the country is known for its mountains and earthquakes. Hell, forget Japan, California's mountain ranges somehow didn't stop America from building I-5, I-10, I-80, and what not, back in the 80s.

"Prime agricultural land" is non sequitur - those lands are sold by acres.

[seabass-labrax]

> This isn't flat land. There are expansive mountain ranges that make it difficult to build and any flat land that is buildable is ALSO prime agricultural land that is worth millions.

Flat land is convenient of course, but I don't think mountains are a make-or-break factor. It looks like the Interstate 5 already takes a viable route through the Tejon Pass, and as the land will already be publicly-owned it is a candidate for cut-and-cover or an elevated railway. A 5-mile tunnel to bypass Gorman would eliminate the tightest curve along the route.

Alternatively, for a detour of an hour or so the railway can be routed eastward through Los Angeles and through the Cajon Pass instead, thence following the path of Route 58.

But all of this doesn't negate my original point - that regardless of the feasibility of a railway, a lack of intermediate stops is not necessarily a disadvantage.

> Yeah no. I don't want employees to come in unshowered, and they still need a place to keep their luggage. Furthermore, plenty of people like maintaining their daily routine or spending time with their SOs. Flying a couple hours, staying at a hotel overnight, getting work done, and immediately bugging out back home is the norm.

The on-board facilities are among the easiest challenges to address. There are plenty of examples of showers on long-distance trains, and it's not much cost to build a few at the terminus station. Luggage can be sent ahead and lockers can be provided at stations.

Spending time with family? Those 'couple of hours flying' can add up: that's time that could have been spent with family, too!