| 0 |
Subject: High Speed Rail and U.S. Transportation
Posted by: Tree
- [41371322] Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 18:01
this topic comes up now and then, and it always amazes me that the US just isn't on board yet.
i was reading this article about High Speed Rail, and it reminded me of my interest in the topic.
in light of all the real ugly discussions going on on this message board, i'm hoping this topic is less likely to be filled with venom and bile, and was curious as to what others thought... |
| 1 | jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 21:18
|
Do I think it would be nice to get on a train and get to Los
Angeles in 2 1/2 hours? Depends on how much it costs
compared to flying or driving. I can get to LA from my place
halfway between SF and Sacrament in about 7 hours and flying is
about 4 total elapsed time.
If the cost was double a plane, I wouldn't do it. I'm not a great
person to evaluate, because I don't make that trip much for
business purposes, I usually drive because I am staying for an
extended period.
Given the state of California's economy currently, I think there
are much higher priorities on where to spend money, despite
the many advantages high speed rail would provide. Until
California is running at least break even with it's budget, I think
this is definitely a want, not a need.
|
| 2 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 21:19
|
I'm skeptical that high-speed will ever be economically feasible in most areas of the country. There are certain areas (the Northeast, possibly in California) where it falls somewhere between a good idea and something that will work with some economic subsidies (which are probably worth it due to secondary benefits as described in the article).
For a vast majority of the country, it ain't gonna work.
|
| 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 87112421
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 22:11
|
One of the core differences, which is often overlooked, between "here" and "there", in terms of public transportation, mail delivery, etc etc...is the size. Back when I was in the Army in what used to be W Germany, for a fee, you had same day mail delivery anywhere in the country. Thing is, the country, was about the same size as Utah. Not at all sure, that a "bullet train" is viable in this country. (Not even to bring up the differences in American vs European driving skills/habits. I cant see where an elevated system, cross country, would be feasible.)
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 22:14
|
But that's true about all large scale transportation methods, DW. Freeways and airlines don't make a ton of money for the users between the vast western spaces (for example). But both are subsidized to make it a nationwide system.
California doesn't have much money, so they are better off spending their transportation monies in ways that'll get them more bang for the buck. For some things, trains might be that bigger bang.
|
| 5 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 23:01
|
Sure they are. But there's two factors at work against that:
1. You're introducing another system which will be in direct competition with those other areas you mentioned. Which means we're either going to have to reduce other subsidies (presumably because we think high speed rail is more efficient than those methods), or devote a higher percentage of budgets to transportation subsidies. I happen to think that for most areas, those other transportation methods are more efficient. I'm prepared to hear arguments to the contrary.
2. Achieving a critical mass of usage in MOST areas of the country is going to be difficult or impossible. Again, I think something like the Acela line in the Northeast can work in certain areas. But, for instance, would a Chicago to St. Louis high-speed line get enough usage to make any amount of subsidies relevant? I doubt it.
I'm prepared to consider that there are certain areas which could use a good high-speed system which don't currently have one. California might be a good example of that. What I'd hate to see is a massive national-level system thrown together either because we don't want to "leave out" certain areas of the country, or because something is useful for some areas and the only way to make it work is to push it on the rest of the country.
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 23:17
|
1. Actually, I think we need to have a better mix of subsidies. Highways are already too subsidized, in my opinion, so this point isn't a bug it is a feature. Getting more people to ride trains (and/or getting more stuff shipped on rails) is a good thing.
2. My point above is that only some areas of the transportation systems in the air or road are already "money making" on its own (just as current rail areas are). We subsidize the entire system because there are benefits over and above the limited areas which make money (indeed, if we only were to look at those areas we wouldn't need subsidies at all). Otherwise, need to get from Sioux City to Cedar Rapids? Good luck!
Most of the infrastructure (including rights of way) already exist for high-speed rail, unlike adding airport space or highway lanes. So the cost, relatively speaking isn't altogether high.
|
| 7 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 23:26
|
I would (and do) ride a train if it took less than 5 hours. I love trains. They are relaxing and social, and you get to meet and talk with all slices of America. They remind you that people are, by and large, good.
Pretty much the opposite of all other modes of transportation.
|
| 8 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 23:28
|
One of the core differences, which is often overlooked, between "here" and "there", in terms of public transportation, mail delivery, etc etc...is the size. Back when I was in the Army in what used to be W Germany, for a fee, you had same day mail delivery anywhere in the country. Thing is, the country, was about the same size as Utah. Not at all sure, that a "bullet train" is viable in this country.
i don't buy that.
China's got 4,000 miles of high speed rail. Japan, 1,500 miles. France, Spain, Germany, and England all have over 800 miles of high speed rail.
it's very doable.
the problem for me, would be the cost. Rail travel is very expensive for some reason, and i don't see it working unless it's less expensive than flying.
|
| 9 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 23:33
|
You just have to do it where there is density. Don't build a bullet train in the midwest. You don't have the density. Build them on the coasts.
|
| 10 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 23:55
|
Riding the trains in Europe the past few years has been one of the great eye opening experiences of my life. They won't be feasible here (or there) without significant government investment and subsidy- and I can't think of a better use of my tax money.
|
| 11 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 09:31
|
China's got 4,000 miles of high speed rail. Japan, 1,500 miles. France, Spain, Germany, and England all have over 800 miles of high speed rail.
You are comparing apples to oranges. while china would be the closest to the US, its high density cities make it ideal for trains.
I personally like the idea of trains, but I am not sure we could get them to work.
|
| 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 17681812
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:03
|
re 8:
Texas alone, could easily eclipse those miles combined, in needed track.
The 1,500 miles of track in Japan, would approximate Chicago to Miami.
The 4,000 in China, would cover NY to LA and maybe NY to Miami.
Those 800 mile tracks? Austin to Dallas alone would be almost 1/2 that.
To elevate the tracks, means either running them only in the deep south, or incorporating de-icing into them.
Not elevating the tracks, means incorporating road crossings. The American driver, by and large, is not anything remotely close to attentive enough; to contend with road crossings where trains are running at bullet train type speeds. (Why does no speed limit work on the autobahn and not here? HUGE reason, is the difference in attitudes towards driving. Germans practice an almost unique level of lane discipline. A practice about which most Americans have no grasp.)
AMTRACK is pretty much a failure, because Americans would rather drive their cars from "here" to "there" than take a train.
I think to begin to work, passenger costs would have to be lower than flying and the time to make the trip would have to be closer to the time to fly than to drive. Meaning bullet train speeds, and the dilemmas (amongst other ones) that I point out above.
|
| 13 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:17
|
The biggest problem IMO is that even if you take a train to your destination, you still need a car to get around your destination. Very few cities have decent, let alone, adequate public transportation once you get there. American cities are designed for cars, not for walking. That also factors into the weight issues Americans have, I wonder if any has the average miles walked per day of various countries.
|
| 14 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:26
|
Sarge - Who the heck is suggesting you cross the country? If there are such people, they have brain damage.
Bullet trains are meant for things like LA to SD, POR to Sea (which already is comparable in time to driving), Sea to Van, NY to Bos, NY to DC.
Miami to Chi. Stupid.
|
| 15 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:28
|
The biggest problem IMO is that even if you take a train to your destination, you still need a car to get around your destination.
how is this any different than taking an airplane to your destination?
|
| 16 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:36
|
It's different in that trains can travel right into the heart of cities, and into the heart of their transportation systems.
The cities that are most likely to see bullet trains, such as NY, Boston, DC, Chi, SF, Por and Sea, have more than adequate transportation systems to get around town.
|
| 17 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:47
|
It is not, other than airports already have existing infrastructure to provide transportation, either car rentals, public transportation or possibly your destination will provide it.
What distance would you want to take a train for? I don't see most people wanting a trip to take more than 12 hours (even that is an extreme). If I have the choice between a 6 hour train ride and a 12 hour car ride I'm probably picking the car ride. Granted I have 3 kids to the tickets for all 5 of us would be cost prohibitive compared to the cost of gas for the car ride. Plus the argument about not being able to walk once you got there.
What I could see working would be high speed train lines to specific destinations (Las Vegas, Disney). Where it is very possible to get around without a car.
How long would a train ride from Chicago to Orlando be?
|
| 18 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 13:51
|
I wouldn't bother with anything more than 5 hours, in general.
The highway corridors are jam-packed between a number of major cities. If you ever had to drive from LA to SD, you would likely agree that a train would be a much more pleasant alternative.
Except LA's transportation sucks.
|
| 19 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 14:34
|
I'm not familiar with this expensive train travel you guys refer to. It's 28 bucks to get to Portland from here. a quarter the price of a plane, and about the cost of gas. For a single passenger, it's a no-brainer.
|
| 20 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 14:36
|
I also should add that the trains between portland, seattle and vancouver are nearly always full. Plenty of motivation to drop some extra cars on.
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:00
|
if I have the choice between a 6 hour train ride and a 12 hour car ride I'm probably picking the car ride
Just did this twice in the last two weeks. I would have vastly preferred a train ride instead.
I'm surprised, though, that in all this talk about how long rides are, that it should be pointed out that High Speed Rail, by its nature, will get you to particular destinations a lot faster. And will get you a lot farther in the same amount of time. So if your limit is 5 hours on the train, you can get pretty darn far at 220 mph--probably a third of the way across the country, with a stop or two.
|
| 22 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:01
|
bili - part of that is because of the environment. People in the NW were basically raised to understand the importance of public transport, of biking, and so forth.
it's a mindset thing.
but certain corridors. the one you mention, DC to Boston, D/FW to Austin and Houston, LA to SF, and a few other pockets would work.
|
| 23 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:10
|
No doubt. If I could get to SF by train in less time than it currently takes to get to Portland, I wouldn't go any other way.
|
| 24 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:14
|
Tree - that's not particularly true.
Seattle has been talking about transit for a hundred years. I've seen maps of subways going under my house, from 1920.
We actually did have a fantastic regional rail system that was the primary mode of transportation for 20 years or so, in the early part of this century.
They paved it all over.
Until last month, we had essentially no public transit besides buses. Now we have light-rail to nowhere.
|
| 25 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:23
|
Also, very few people who live in Seattle were raised in Seattle. Maybe 30%.
And from my experience, that 30% is the least transit conscious.
People move here because they are often progressive and smart, and want to be around other smart, progressive people.
|
| 26 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:41
|
that progressive attitude is one of the reasons why Seattle is on my short list if i have to leave NYC.
Along with Portland, Austin, and Santa Fe, it's at the top of the list that if i were able to find a job there before moving, it would seal the deal. for that particular city.
|
| 27 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Aug 25, 2009, 15:49
|
Cool. There are probably a lot of outfits where you would fit in with your skills here. Unfortunately, that's not the crowd I generally run with.
|
| 28 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Dec 22, 2009, 21:52
|
while searching for another thread, i came across this one. Interesting that within a month of my post #26, I had made the decision to leave NYC and head to Ft. Worth, TX.
While the public transport system here is not great, i believe that is temporary.
i blogged a bit about some of the changes that apparently are coming not only to Ft. Worth, but to the entire state of Texas.
Texas became the first state top adopt new "smart street" rules for urban growth, and Ft. Worth looks to be on track for a Streetcar project, which has me very excited, as it will run down a street about 8 blocks from me.
and, finally, it looks like on the national scene, there are new federal laws being put in place, to help design roadways to better accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.
|
| 29 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 14:01
|
...because you never know when the Yellowstone Caldera will blow.
|
| 31 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 08:17
|
Re: California HS rail:The highly indebted, cash strapped state has commitments of $3.3 billion of federal money in hand against the roughly $100 billion that the train is now estimated to cost (the price will certainly go even higher). Voters authorized almost $10 billion in bonds in a referendum, but that was when the train looked much cheaper and more federal funding was available. Since then the cost estimates more than doubled to $99 billion, ridership estimates have been slashed indicating that the completed system will require unending subsidies, and Congress has stopped voting new funds for high speed rail. - Meadia, Walter Russell Mead He further points out that the two highest officials in the project have just up and quit so you know the party's over. AFAIK this was the most likely high speed rail project in the works.
NY:
Amtrak dreamers keep vigorously stirring the pot for a HS NY-Washington route which may have the local support but not the national support to get traction. The recent budget deal drastically limited HS rail funding but also included a great deal of funding for infrastructure upgrades to this current route. I believe this route is America's current speed leader but which is required to slow on many unimproved curves. I think that was a good compromise.
---
Anyway the bottom line is that cooler heads have prevailed and killed all the bloated HS rail projects around the country much to my relief.
|
| 32 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 09:01
|
If they get all the needed improvements, the Acela Express NY-Was route will run at 160 MPH [up from 135] with the current tech in use. Without spending over $100B.
|
| 33 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 09:25
|
Yeah, the local NW lines have been seeing double digit annual ridership growth, in spite of single-track bottlenecks, rough track and more than 30 closures due to landslides last year.
We desperately need funds to improve a popular service to merely adequate.
|
| 34 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 17:55
|
If I had been slightly more comprehensive I would have next mentioned Portland-Seattle and Milwaukee-Chicago.
---
Scott Walker is actually applying for Milwaukee-Chicago-Madison-Minneapolis federal funds after nixing the commie-bullet train between Milwaukee-Madison. Instead of a bullet train super-high speed which costs over 100B for a short length, he is working towards a 110 MPH route between Milwaukee-Chicago-Madison-Minneapolis.
Up to 110 mph commercial and passenger can work together. Beyond that you need dedicated passenger lines and higher speeds take much much more precise and extreme engineering.
---
You want to update us on the Seattle-Portland route HSR initiatives, you NW gurupies?
|
| 35 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Mon, Jan 16, 2012, 23:02
|
We snagged some money for the NW from the fools in Florida and Wisconsin who fell prey to small-minded thinking. We will add some double track, and bypass Tacoma on a passenger-only dedicated inland route (personally, going along the water in Tacoma was my favorite part of the trip), which should cut 30-60 minutes off the trip to Portland to get us under 3 hours. Very competitive with the car for 26 bucks.
Though we have added a second train north to Vancouver, the over-development of high-rent properties (and lack of regulations) have destabilized the hills above, causing chronic landslides that cover the tracks and make the trip unreliable in winter and spring. There is neither money nor political will to fix this problem. The freight carriers clear the tracks and run their big trains through within 24 hours of the slide, but claim it isn't safe from Amtrak for 3 days, letting them have an open track to catch up on their runs with impunity.
We have not money, ridership nor plans for true HSR, but dream of getting the Seattle to Portland run up over 100 mph and under 2 hours despite that. The billion or so we have scavenged from the anti-government fools will barely keep us moving forward and improving our speed moderately on existing track.
|
| 36 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 11:00
|
We snagged some money for the NW from the fools in Florida
Best thing to happen to Florida, yeah they decided not to take the money but spending it on a train that no one was going to use that would have ended up just costing the state was good thing.
|
| 37 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 11:08
|
Yeah, taking the $3billion federal bait and getting sucked into building a $120billion boondoggle that runs in the red forever is no achievement.
|
| 38 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 11:10
|
We have not money, ridership...
Why not dream of responsible state budgets instead?
|
| 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 11:42
|
We can go a long way toward that by funding transportation more efficiently.
How about holding roads to the same standards as you would hold rail?
|
| 40 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 12:10
|
If you knew anything about washington state, you would know we aren't bringing in enough revenue, not too much. We have recently lost an appeal of a ruling that we we are failing to adequately fund our schools; the paramount duty of the state according to the constitution. And that was before cutting billions more the last couple years. We have no income tax, and our overall tax structure is the most regressive in the nation, with our revenues being collected from the poor instead (19% of income) the rich (3%).
The only money going toward track work is federal, even though the demand is there. Instead the governor is floating billions in new taxes to build roads, even though miles driven has been declining since the 90s, whole rail, transit and human transport has been shooting up.
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 13:06
|
Passengar rail, is probably the coastals best bet to cut down massive transit times. I have friends in Jersey/NY, who regularly commute 2-3 hrs EACH way, daily. By providing HS rail, you cut down on auto traffic, lessening traffic demands, and split the carriage/transport of personnel. Seems to me, a very sound and practical approach to take. (When you further realize, that many people in major metro areas, dont have cars in the 1st place. As I learned in the Army when I had to teach a 24 yr old from NYC, how to drive a Jeep.)
|
| 42 | Boldwin
ID: 43492714
Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 16:30
|
High speed rail approved by California in 2008 has seen a sea change in opinion and now Californians of all stripes would like to see the project terminated.
|
| 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Jun 06, 2012, 18:03
|
That'll happen when budget concerns make for tough choices. I, too, would rather see money for public education over new high speed rail if I had to make a choice.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: High Speed Rail and U.S. Transportation
|
|