IIRC the Auto Train is the only long-distance route Amtrak runs that is net profitable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Train

It's possible other corridors could be identified that could run something like that, though it probably needs to be about 800-900 miles to make it "worth" it time wise - shorter and it's simpler to just drive.

It’s mostly the Northeast Corridor from Boston to DC where Amtrak makes the majority of its profits though—which it then mostly loses in the rest of the country.

The auto train to Florida is sort of a special case. That’s not people traveling for a long weekend or even a week. It’s historically been people going south for the winter.

If they really run that train every single day year round, and it almost always sells out, it can't just be people going south and back, or the winter trains would be empty.

I think it's just a common trip and the train is cheap/convenient enough.

I stand corrected. I thought it was a less frequent thing. Assume a lot of families do the theme parks that you really need a car for but they don’t want to do the long drive from the mid-Atlantic. Don’t know if it makes money though.

I am not sure it is useful to transport 2000 kg of metal occupying a half of a rail car, just to move 80kg meatbag for a distance of 173 miles.

It's useful because the rail doesn't go to your exact destination. You will need to drive there. It is expensive to have a separate car in both cities instead of just taking a single car with you.

That depends a lot on how the cities on either end are designed, in particular how easy it is to get around without a car in each. Also, car rentals exist.

Well, we’re talking about the US…

I think it'd be useful to have a cute little helicopter hat, like in the Inspector Gadget cartoons.

If we're talking about high speed rail into Seattle, then you have pretty solid public transit options from the city center to where you would most likely be traveling to.

So how do the millions who fly each year manage?

It's useful for the dozen people you're transporting, but transporting a dozen people isn't exactly worth building a train system for.

The economics only make sense if you're hauling around masses of people, and you can't do that if all those people want to bring their cars with them.

People find a similar thing (with boats rather than trains) quite useful for smaller distances (see the Washington state ferry system), so it is not obvious that it would not be useful with trains.

If done right the stations will be in locations where having a car is more of a liability than a convenience (i.e. downtowns with lots of traffic and expensive parking).

Yeah see this is the problem - urbanist aesthetics demanding everyone live a very particular lifestyle, which includes a lot more than just urban living hamstringing projects.

> urbanist aesthetics demanding everyone live a very particular lifestyle, which includes a lot more than just urban living hamstringing projects.

You’re literally just describing how most of the population lives and has lived for the past 1000 years. Your “urbanist aesthetics” predate the invention of cars.

The small towns and farmsteads of history look a lot more like suburbs than modern high-rises. Even in large cities, every house would have significant garden to meet everyday needs.

A very small percentage of the population lived in "urban" cities, with houses back-to-back. Rome was an anomaly in that regard, made possible by significant farmsteads held by the nobility outside the city and grain bribes paid out by them.

Respectfully, suburban guys want to use urban cores rent free. If people with cars actually paid anything close to market rates for the precious real estate they take up with their cars, then most of them would just walk/bike/bus in the city. Car drivers have the government on their side, so they get heavily subsidized real estate (roads, parking).

I don't think this treatment is very equal or fair. Keep your house and your car (SUV?), but pay real tolls and real parking fees.

The US managed to build cities and suburbs fine before car drivers got government priority.

How do ambulances work in city cores if not roads?

With no street parking, ambulances pass right through.

Also, you don't allow through-traffic of cars.

The only vehicular traffic are taxis (supply limited with licenses), delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and those rare people willing to pay $60 to drive into the city to pick up a box or furniture.

I live in a big city like this. Ambulances pass through just fine. The only traffic jams are tolled highways in/out of the city. And those highways are capped at 4 lanes wide with demand moderated with tolls.

If you do a return-on-asset, where asset=sqft of space in a city, you really want to kick out car drivers b/c they are the most space intensive with least return (economic boost/tax revenue). They are like moochers in cafes that buy the cheapest coffee and sit for 5 hours.

Similarly, however - urban cores want suburban business without having to deal with the low tax revenue of actual bedrooms. The city of Chicago is instructive, the city is (very slightly) subsidized by suburban consumers and tax revenue. The big trick here is making suburbs without allowing the endless continuation of exurbs

From the article:

And Whittington says the designers must also ensure the rail remains dedicated to its high-speed route and that people have the ability to get to the rail through other means of public transportation. “There are going to be a lot of communities you want to serve,” Whittington said, “but you want to find a way to bring those communities to the routes as opposed to bringing the route to the communities.”

There’s a little problem with that. You want people who live close but not directly near one of the stations to also drive and park and take it. So you do need stations continently outside of the super dense metro area.

Buses will probably link up from day 1, places with Metros will extend them to the stations (see Taiwan for instance).

You don't need a high-speed rail station for that; you just need one of the park-n-ride lots at a light-rail station. You drive to the transit network, then use the local train to reach the regional train.

One of the obvious problems with this, at least in the California metros, is going to be that these stations are watering holes for people who engage in car breakins.

Interesting. I haven't heard of that as a significant problem with the existing Sound Transit park-n-rides; I wonder if that is a regional difference, or whether it is a function of system size.

There are (at most) 2 of those locations in the entire US PNW... downtown Seattle and Downtown Portland. And frankly I'm not sure Portland counts.

Downtown Portland definitely counts. I would include Vancouver BC. Traffic is really draining up there, more so than downtown Seattle.

Use a bike instead of a car and you'll be there. (Ideally you can even have your bike be foldable for maximum convenience)

A bike is too slow. It would mean just driving to the destination without a rail would be faster.

In urban conditions with trafic, a bike is faster than a car, even without dedicated infrastructures.

What does that matter if your destination isn't in an urban area?

Single, childless 20 year old's ideas. You will get zero traction with this mentality.

I'm 35 with two kids, too bad for your ageist argument. (And you don't even need a special kind of bike to carry two kids on a single bike: you can put both a front and back mounted seats on litterally any bike, even foldable ones!)

If the infrastructures are adapted, even carrying 4 children on a single bike isn't too big of a deal, especially with e-bikes (you can either use a cargo bike or a trailer and two seats).