Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could We See 48 State High Speed Rail Svc By 2035?  
User currently offlineGEsubsea From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 183 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

A California group envisions a national high-speed rail system that could transport a person from any major city to another in hours. And this vision has Austin, TX as a major train connection hub.

California Rail Map has unveiled its vision for a national high-speed rail system. Its map (see below link) features color-coded rail routes with speeds of 220 miles per hour. The map connects almost every major U.S. city and even goes international, with stops in Quebec, Tijuana, Juarez and Vancouver.

The map puts Austin smack-dab in the center of all the southern lines. In Twu's concept, it's only 6 hours to Los Angeles, 7 to Chicago, and 1 hour to Dallas, San Antonio and Houston.

President Obama has continued to push for high speed rail funding, and outgoing Department of Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood has recently said that 80 percent of the country will be connected by high speed rail in the next 25 years, “because this is what the American people want.”

So, my question would be HOW would this affect the current as well as future landscape of our domestic air travel industry if we do decide to incorporate a high speed network similar to the European continent? Could this be good for the American people as an option to the high cost of air travel in this country right now? How many of us would actually prefer to ride a high speed train as opposed to a 2-5 hr flight (with connections) across the country?

http://www.kutnews.org/post/map-coul...tin-be-high-speed-rail-city-future

[Edited 2013-02-11 14:04:17]

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
? How many of us would actually prefer to ride a high speed train as opposed to a 2-5 hr flight (with connections) across the country?

Not a 2-5hr flight. Make that a 1.5hr flight

I flew often between ORD and MSP (1.5 hr block time - but really 1hr) for businesses - sometimes back and forth the same day. I would rather spend 3hrs on a train than1.5hr on the plane +1.5hrs checking in and going thru security + weather + ATC delays..sigh..

I am sure that three are plenty of city pairs for which it could work. MIA-LAX would be just plain silly.

I do think that HSR has a place in the US; a very targeted place - but a place none the less.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8844 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

If the last 50 years is an example, I do not hold out much hope. We are still in the stone age here. Too many special interests to deal with as usual. Politics will continue to kill most of it.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2143 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Frankly I don't see this ever happening. While I understand how nice high speed rail would be it seems like a pipe dream. The cost to build the infrastructure is enormous and we just don't have the money sitting around to accomplish it. That doesn't even mention the fact that some politicians love it, and others will do everything in their power to block it. For whatever reason, outside the northeast corridor, people in America just don't think about rail travel. Even as someone who grew up in the northeast I never took the train until I was 19 years old. That was only because it was my option to get where I needed to be. Would I love being able to grab a train in Fargo and be in Minneapolis in 2 hours for a reasonable price? Heck yeah, but I don't want it if billions upon billions of dollars we don't have is being pumped into a network that we don't have a guarantee will be used. I would rather it be spent on the air traffic infrastructure that desperately needs it and that is the primary source of transportation Americans use over long distances.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

I'll take the    any day. It's faster, more exciting, plus the views from 30,000'+ are much better than from 3'! I've never been inconvenienced by airport security or bad weather yet.

If you want unbiased opinions, you should ask this question on a website that has nothing to do with aviation or railroad.


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

For a country the size of the United States, a hybrid system of high-speed and conventional trains may be a better starting point from a financial perspective. The system could even be put together piece by piece, starting with urban corridors and filling in the more rural stretches until the national system is complete. Once popular routes like Chicago-Minneapolis or San Francisco-Los Angeles are complete, the more 'empty' stretches like Minneapolis-Seattle could be converted. There will be millions of people dead-set opposed to infrastructure development, but if we put down 40,000 miles of freeways, then we ought to be able to push this through too.


A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
California Rail Map has unveiled its vision for a national high-speed rail system.

Do they have any visions regarding how much this might cost and who will pay for it?

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
Tijuana, Juarez

Thank God for that. We need more drugs faster.

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
So, my question would be HOW would this affect the current as well as future landscape of our domestic air travel industry if we do decide to incorporate a high speed network similar to the European continent?

It won't because we'd have to be completely stupid to let this happen.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
I would rather spend 3hrs on a train than1.5hr on the plane +1.5hrs checking in and going thru security + weather + ATC delays..sigh..

Because Amtrak has an impeccable on time record? Not to mention that rail is both very expensive and less flexible than other forms of infrastructure in terms of destination. If you build high speed rail from Chicago to Minneapolis, it's pretty useful for people going from Chicago to Minneapolis. Maybe also for people going to a couple of places (maybe Madison, for instance) in between, if the train stops there, but each stop makes high speed rail less high speed.

Interstate 90 is also useful for the Chicago to Twin Cities journey, but unlike high speed rail it's also useful for getting to many places in between and beyond. It helps me if I'm coming from Gary or Milwaukee and going to Rockford, or La Crosse, Fargo or Rochester.

There's also the false notion that a downtown train station is some sort of transportation holy grail, when in reality many businesses and homes are not in downtown areas. Most high speed rail proposals seem to be afflicted by the fallacy that everyone is going to or coming from a downtown area.

Expanding airports is a mixed bag. It's of great use for going to any destination big enough to have flights. More gates or security lanes doesn't help me get to Rockford or St. Cloud, but is just as useful for journeys to Minneapolis as it is going to Munich.

The way I see it, high speed rail is only possibly useful in very limited corridors and possibly not even that. A national network is a nonstarter. It's just carries too much cost and too little utility.

Interstates can be built and expanded more or less as they have been, nothing is fundamentally broken there.

The rail lines that should be developed to help nationwide transport are ones that go to relatively far flung airports. I love Heathrow Express and with cost and NIMBY pressures future major airports should be similar to Denver: large, expandable, and not near anything. Of course people and businesses will encroach but nothing will stop that. Rail lines can provide much more flexibility to place other infrastructure away from city centers where it can expand more easily.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

I saw that map and honestly still don't understand why they made Austin the major connection point instead of the much more reasonable DFW.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6528 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

Well China has done it so it's possible. Even pressurized trains for high altitudes !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
A California group envisions

"A California "group" envisions"...........that should pretty well answer your question right there ! "Groups" in California have been "envisioning" all sorts of needles things, for as long as I can remember ! ( "Preserving" dead people by reducing their temperature to near absolute zero, for hundreds, even thousands of years comes to mind  what they NEVER seem to "envision" is who's going tp pay for all of their kooky "visions" ! ( This sounds like more Obamanomics to me )

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6278 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

I could only wish but it will not happen. Even if it did I feel fairly certain the same cattle car seating would arrive along with a useful rail system.


Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11528 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
So, my question would be HOW would this affect the current as well as future landscape of our domestic air travel industry if we do decide to incorporate a high speed network similar to the European continent?

It won't. This country is so caught up in oil and cars there is no way any reasonable rail connections will be made. They are having a hard enough time trying to link SFO and LAX. Even SAN-LAX is there but no way it will ever be high speed. The best that will ever happen, even after oil starts drying up, will be between select cities. It is a nice dream, but it will never happen.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3938 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
Could this be good for the American people as an option to the high cost of air travel in this country right now?

Why don't you go and price a NYC - BOS or NYC - WAS round-trip on the Acela and compare it to how much flying costs, and then come and talk to me about how much money I am going to save with high-speed trains?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):

Are you going to power these trains with pixie dust? That third rail doesn't electrify itself.

As peak oil occurs, which by the way we probably won't know until well after it happens and certainly may not be a clean cut notion at that point either, various things will start to shift away from oil to other energy sources, starting with low hanging fruit and things people won't pay a premium for.

Cars may well be one of those things, if the technology gets better, but the shift won't be to trains but more likely just electric cars. Those can, after all, use the exact same roads that fossil fuel cars use and have all the same advantages that cars in general have over train travel. It won't change the fact that all these railways would have to be built at massive cost. And what is it that powers most construction equipment?

And for what it's worth, when did rail become some sort of utopia? Do train travelers shower more than flyers? Less likely to have screaming babies? No lines in train stations?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6528 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1946 times:

Well if children are taken into account it can be nice. I still remember the playground car of a train I took as a child, with a climbing net and other games, it was great !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1941 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Why don't you go and price a NYC - BOS or NYC - WAS round-trip on the Acela and compare it to how much flying costs, and then come and talk to me about how much money I am going to save with high-speed trains?

Sure thing.

New York to Boston:

United F/C: $504
United Y: $224

Amtrak F: $374 (Acela)
Amtrak C: $214 (Acela)
Amtrak Y: $98 (Northeast Regional)

Acela has no economy class so I included the cost of the Northeast Regional for comparison sake. Of course you could probably find cheaper airfares if you shop around, but that's another benefit of Amtrak - no need to do that.

----------------

Acela is operationally profitable to the tune of $100-$200 million a year, and it's not even really high speed, with an average speed somewhere in the low 80's I believe. It's a good indicator of what can happen when you properly invest in high(er) speed rail. Opponents of high speed rail always point to the unprofitability of most Amtrak routes as an example of rail not working, yet the only route that is actually "high" speed is the one that is the most profitable. What this tells me is that if you invest some money to bring other worthy routes up to the 21st century then they too can be profitable.

One big problem with high speed rail is the unnecessarily high cost. It doesn't cost near as much per track mile to build high speed rail in Europe or Japan. That needs to be examined and regulations need to be changed.


User currently offlineaf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks ago) and read 1915 times:

Before cities jump on building high speed rail they need to have good local transportation (bus, light rail, commuter rail) and a transit hub in the downtown area to connect it all together. For example if someone in Chicago wants to go to St. Cloud instead of dealing with the airlines they can take a high speed train to Minneapolis and then connect to a commuter train to St. Cloud.

Even as fossil fuel cars are replaced with electric cars or cars running on a different type of energy, that won't stop traffic congestion on the freeways. No matter how much you expand a road there will always be congestion, which is where high speed rail and other types of public transport come in to relieve some of the congestion.

Only a few corridors in the U.S. should be upgraded to high speed rail, but a large network of high speed rail connecting the east coast and west coast doesn't make sense.



It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

I don't see it by 2035...there's too much infrastructure involved, too much money, too much that would have to be built and demolished (especially in urbanized areas). I'd say for a map like that, 2050-2100 would be more realistic. Any shorter time frame than that, it'd be dependent on trackage owned by UP, BNSF, etc., and getting rights to share them. That's the problem Amtrak has outside of the Northeast Corridor.

In the interim, we should just link existing systems together. For example, there's a proposal with NJTransit to bring service back to the station in West Trenton (really Ewing, NJ), which would be a link with SEPTA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Trenton_Line_(NJ_Transit) ).

That's just my    .

Marc


User currently offlineaflyingkiwi From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
It won't. This country is so caught up in oil and cars there is no way any reasonable rail connections will be made. They are having a hard enough time trying to link SFO and LAX. Even SAN-LAX is there but no way it will ever be high speed. The best that will ever happen, even after oil starts drying up, will be between select cities. It is a nice dream, but it will never happen.

It is worth noting that these HSR projects are shockingly expensive. The California HSR is expected to cost around $100 billion & will probably be higher.

IMO California would do much better spending the money on transportation projects within the big cities where most trips are taken. LA has terrible transit & aside from San Francisco, the Bay Area's transit options are pretty sparse.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3938 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):

United F/C: $504

Nobody pays to fly Shuttle in First Class so that is a mute comparison.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
Amtrak Y: $98 (Northeast Regional)

Not sure what dates you looked at, but if you actually manage to find Northeast Corridor trains for $100 return at times someone sane would actually want to travel in I will buy them off you.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):
Acela has no economy class so I included the cost of the Northeast Regional for comparison sake.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The difference for the Northeast Regional is not the comfort (which is actually pretty acceptable in both trains) but the time it takes (and the departure times).

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 15):

Acela is operationally profitable to the tune of $100-$200 million a year, and it's not even really high speed, with an average speed somewhere in the low 80's I believe. It's a good indicator of what can happen when you properly invest in high(er) speed rail. Opponents of high speed rail always point to the unprofitability of most Amtrak routes as an example of rail not working, yet the only route that is actually "high" speed is the one that is the most profitable.

Acela operates in tracks that have been around for centuries and have basically $0 depreciation, and it is along the most densely traveled route in the U.S. Amtrak should be trying to compete with the buses (over which they should have a cost advantage every day of the week, if they weren't government run) to reduce congestion on the I-95, decrease pollution and increase safety but instead they try to make money by competing with the airlines so they can subsidize loss-making routes elsewhere (as would fir sure happen with a high-speed rail).



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Just another pipe-dream but it sounds cool.
Too many NIMBY's and environmentalist in the way along with the fact that the US can't afford it.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11528 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting aflyingkiwi (Reply 18):
California would do much better spending the money on transportation projects within the big cities where most trips are taken. LA has terrible transit & aside from San Francisco, the Bay Area's transit options are pretty sparse.

Most of the Bay Area has BART which is very good. We, in the North Bay, are getting a rail line: SMART, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit. In 2015. Any additional funding would go to the board of supervisors, I'm sure. They had to cut out five additional stations just to open in 2015. However, Novato added a lane each way to 101 for 2 miles in six months. Northbound goes from four lanes to two. Great planning! And BART is adding three additions at the same time. So, any additional funding would just go to waste in the North Bay...



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7197 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Never going to happen. The US is too large and DL, UA, AA, and WN are too large and inexpensive (relatively) and efficient (can't believe I'm saying this) to be able to support this....another thing I see as an issue comes from the OP:

Quoting GEsubsea (Thread starter):
A California group envisions a national high-speed rail system that could transport a person from any major city to another in hours. And this vision has Austin, TX as a major train connection hub.

California.

Austin, TX...

Democrats.

I'm not being partisan here, I'm being realistic- there is NO way that republicans will ever get behind such funding. Such a large interstate project will need federal funding, which reps will never give.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11528 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 22):
there is NO way that republicans will ever get behind such funding. Such a large interstate project will need federal funding, which reps will never give.

That too. Right wingers want God in everything and women out of everything. If high speed rail were to succeed, the right wing would have to connect church to church and have baby making factories on every train /sarcasm

The right hates anything where they have to deal with other people.

Again: I can see corridors: YVR-EUG, LAX-LAS, PHX-TUC, MCI-STL, etc... But, cross country? Nope. Never gonna happen.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
The right hates anything where they have to deal with other people.

Damn right. If I'm going across the country or into a city I'd much rather not have to sit between a smelly backpacker and a screaming toddler. It's much nicer in my car and at least planes are much faster. And if I could have a private plane, you better believe I would.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 22):
Such a large interstate project will need federal funding, which reps will never give.

Yes, because 'Republicans' are just a front for the Oil and other corporate lobbies. Clean up the dysfunctional political system in the US and many things will become possible.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7197 posts, RR: 17
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 25):
Yes, because 'Republicans' are just a front for the Oil and other corporate lobbies. Clean up the dysfunctional political system in the US and many things will become possible.

Wait a sec here, I cant tell if youre being facetious or serious.

I'm a libertarian-leaning republican on my way over to the train capital of the world-Japan.

People have questioned why Japan's shinkansen can't be installed in the US and it's simple- Japan is not the size of America. We don't need these trains.


I agree with the corridors idea posted above though....may prove to be a good idea.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 26):
People have questioned why Japan's shinkansen can't be installed in the US and it's simple- Japan is not the size of America. We don't need these trains.

But nobody with any influence is advocating for a shinkasen-like network connecting every city in the country. There are certain corridors that do however have the density to warrant high speed rail. The Northeast Corridor and SF - LA are probably the only two that warrant 180+ mph service. Many others, particularly around the Chicago-hub, are worthy of 125 mph service. In most cases 125 mph service doesn't require new rolling stock, just track and crossing improvements.

One problem with high speed rail in this country is the absurd regulations of the Federal Railroad Administration. This is a good article explaining all the issues with the FRA regulations. (hey, something Republicans should be able to get behind that would help passenger rail)
http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html


User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Perhaps better would be to create higher speed freight rail systems, so that a freight load of perishables, could get from Florida to New Jersey or Chicago in 24 hours and across the USA in 48 hours taking millions of truckloads off the roads, 1000's of flights, saving energy as well as saving from more from 'just in time' inventory.

User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
Damn right. If I'm going across the country or into a city I'd much rather not have to sit between a smelly backpacker and a screaming toddler. It's much nicer in my car and at least planes are much faster. And if I could have a private plane, you better believe I would.

This is why we as Americans can't have nice things. If it benefits too many people, there's just a very large contingent of the population that'd be dead set against it. Frankly, I hope this is a recent attitude that's on its way out--I'm convinced if it were around in the 1950s we wouldn't even have the freeways. It's like a country run by Alex Keatons.

I say, there's no harm in testing HSR in California and urban corridor. If it's fruitful there--not profitable, for no infra project should be expected to be profitable--then we ought to work down the list. The nation's population is only going to go up, and barring a sudden rush to the fields most of this growth will be in one of several developing corridors. We simply cannot keep adding lanes to freeways in our urban centers. Time and time again in Atlanta, we've built a ridiculous amount of lanes on a road, only to see traffic come back in 5 years.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2990 posts, RR: 37
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

That map is all pipe-dream, little fact, some of those lines are pure fantasy and would be nothing but massive money pits...

There are a very few corridors that could support HSR in North America:

Boston-NYC-Washington is the obvious
Kansas City-St. Louis-(Chicago)
Indianapolis-Chicago-Milwaukee-(Madison)
Detroit-Grand Rapids-Chicago-Madison-MSP
(TIJ)-San Diego-LA-Fresno-SanFran/Fresno-Sacramento-Reno/SanFran-Sacramento
NYC-Albany-Rochester-Buffalo-(Toronto)
Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh
Houston-SanAntonio-Austin-Dallas-Houston (Triangle)
Portland-Seattle-(Vancouver)
Windsor-London-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec
Atlanta-Charlotte-Greensboro-Raleigh/Durham
Miami-FtLauderdale-WestPalm-(Melbourne)-Orlando-Tampa
Colorado Springs-Denver-Cheyenne


All those have had at a minimum studies done, some are moving beyond studies now... but outside those there just isn't enough potential use...
Now FAST Speed Rail (100-125MPH) is a potential option in many many short distance corridors, and can be done with less capital investment, but is also less benefit in saved time for travelers, though it may woo longer distance commuters off the highways.

Quoting af773atmsp (Reply 16):

Before cities jump on building high speed rail they need to have good local transportation (bus, light rail, commuter rail) and a transit hub in the downtown area to connect it all together. For example if someone in Chicago wants to go to St. Cloud instead of dealing with the airlines they can take a high speed train to Minneapolis and then connect to a commuter train to St. Cloud.

That really depends on the city and demand. HSR must be thought of like air travel, not as train travel as it is now. Should there be transit interconnect sure, but the truth is I would expect anyone in your example that was going to pay $250 for the CHI-MSP portion to drive to St Cloud in a rental car or have a car/ride waiting.

Some cities, like Chicago, NYC, LA, Washigton DC, Boston, Toronto, Montreal, San Fran, etc already have decent connection nets in place. Others never will be able to, and linking heavy transit upgrades as a pre-requisite to HSR means you have a money pit 4/5 times the cost of HSR alone in many cases.

[Edited 2013-02-12 07:41:58]


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

While it seems like a "nice idea" the reality is that it won't happen in the midwest & western states. That leaves the north east, where commuter trains are logical. Invest there on tracks & stations. Spend money where needed on new rolling stock.

As for the rest of the country, invest in maintenance on the Interstate System and upgrade traditional rail where needed.

Overall I can't see investing significant funds for a national high speed rail system when that same money is needed for maintenance and growth of existing systems.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29):
This is why we as Americans can't have nice things.

That's an odd definition of "nice things." I'd have to get to a station that may or may not be nearby and deal with the crowds. And then sit on a train that will have the same awful cast of characters air travel has: cell phone yelling guy, ill behaved kids, screaming baby, showers-kill-whales guy, drunk-at-eleven fratboys, and so on. And I have to endure this environment for longer since trains aren't as fast as flying and I'd end up at a station that may or may not be near where I actually want to go and be without a car.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29):
I say, there's no harm in testing HSR in California and urban corridor.

As long as California pays for it.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29):
If it's fruitful there--not profitable,

No, it has to be profitable. And actually profitable, not "profitable if someone else pays most of the costs."



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
As long as California pays for it.

Fortunately, our nation doesn't work this way. Several states out there would have no shot at all if they had to pay for all their development and local needs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
No, it has to be profitable. And actually profitable, not "profitable if someone else pays most of the costs."

Nonsense. Infrastructure projects very rarely earn a profit; at best they will break even. It's absurd to expect them to do anything more than facilitate commerce, trade, and transport.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

The simple: no, not in the current political system.


Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 33):
Fortunately, our nation doesn't work this way.

...which is exactly how we end up with ghost airports and bridges to nowhere.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 33):
Nonsense. Infrastructure projects very rarely earn a profit; at best they will break even. It's absurd to expect them to do anything more than facilitate commerce, trade, and transport.

If making a profit isn't going to happen they should at least lose as little money as possible. Railroads are not the answer to that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1644 times:

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 30):
Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh

That service currently exists on Amtrak. Philadelphia-Harrisburg trains run fairly frequently, and Philly-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh trains, there's one direct train each way. The problem is that the direct line, going by Amtrak's website is 7 hours, 23 minutes. While it's cheaper than flying (it's $54 each way), it takes longer than driving.

Marc


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
...which is exactly how we end up with ghost airports and bridges to nowhere.

We are definitely getting off topic, but I wonder how many large ghost airports and bridges there really are. I am sure there are a few dubious projects here and there, but (again no hard data here) I would assume most projects are genuinely needed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
If making a profit isn't going to happen they should at least lose as little money as possible. Railroads are not the answer to that.

This is why the target for HSR should be highly traveled corridors. St. Louis-Chicago-Milwaukee or San Francisco-Los Angeles are proving grounds. In the current financial and demographic climate, even the most ardent rail supporter understands that building 250mph trains from Pierre to Fargo isn't necessarily top priority.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
If making a profit isn't going to happen they should at least lose as little money as possible. Railroads are not the answer to that.

To be realistic, rail takes some of the burdens of the highways and, in that view, it worth the investment. Especially when we already have right of way for most of the rails needed.

Cutting back on commuter rail in the north east is only going to over stress the road systems, requiring more in vestments there.

Same with freight. Long haul freight is a natural for trans-country rail.

In terms of profits, that needs to be compared to alternatives. If rail reduces long term maintenance costs of roads then we need to recognize that.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 37):
St. Louis-Chicago-Milwaukee or San Francisco-Los Angeles are proving grounds.

Then the people who are actually going to use the thing should pay for it. My guess is that they'll get real quiet if they see the cost.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 37):
In the current financial and demographic climate, even the most ardent rail supporter understands that building 250mph trains from Pierre to Fargo isn't necessarily top priority.

Of course they have no problems asking the people from Pierre and Fargo to help pay for it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38):
To be realistic, rail takes some of the burdens of the highways and, in that view, it worth the investment.

I haven't seen the numbers, but if they're talking $100,000,000,000 for the California railroad then even more roads will be far cheaper.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29):
-I'm convinced if it were around in the 1950s we wouldn't even have the freeways. It's like a country run by Alex Keatons.

I very wish the Interstates were not built! They destroyed many cities and resulted in huge sprawl.

When I look at houses, I try to look pre-1930. Much of the highway induced sprawl should be incinerated and returned to nature.

So in that frame of mind, you might think I favor high speed trains. Like my grandfather rode on, a huge train network covering this nation. But the truth is, trains are an inferior solution for many of these journeys. Even NYC-WAS is not a slam dunk for the train. A taxi to Laguardia is usually quite easy. The plane trip is quick.

I like trains, and we should have _slightly_ more of them. But they are a far from perfect solution. Guess who burns more fuel per passenger mile... Amtrak or Delta? Amtrak!! Delta is actually more environmentally friendly than passenger rail. And cheaper to operate. And capital cost of basically zero. And so on.

To get trains full of people in the US, you would need to cuff people at the airport and drag them to the train station involuntarily. You would need to hold a gun to their head. That's because trains are less flexible and way more expensive than flying. This is a solution looking for a problem!


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
I haven't seen the numbers, but if they're talking $100,000,000,000 for the California railroad then even more roads will be far cheaper.

When I look at alternatives for most of the country I vote for rail for longer haul freight. Pulling long haul trucks off the interstate is, IMO, a good thing. And it doesn't need to be high speed.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 40):
I very wish the Interstates were not built! They destroyed many cities and resulted in huge sprawl.

I took enough vacation trips with my family as a kid to remember the 2 lane highways. You really want that? You want significantly increases in freight costs because of the increases in travel time? 2 land highways would deliver some major changes in the way we live - and not in a good way.


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Of course they have no problems asking the people from Pierre and Fargo to help pay for it.

Folks in Pierre and Fargo may be getting corn subsidies and a host of other benefits from me right now. You can keep the streets in Fargo nice and neat or you can put something in place that will in some way or another make life easier for millions of people. This is how everything gets funded, and there's no point in singling out rail. I think what we have is a political difference that transcends anything the railways would care about.  Silly

[Edited 2013-02-12 15:09:09]


A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 40):
They destroyed many cities and resulted in huge sprawl.

Urban sprawl is wonderful. There is just no substitute for space. You can have a house with plenty of room, a big yard, three plus car garage, etc. and still be only a short distance from a Walmart and a mall, all with sufficient parking of course.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
When I look at alternatives for most of the country I vote for rail for longer haul freight.

The votes that count are those of the shippers and carriers. How some company gets their goods from point A to point B isn't really a governmental problem.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 42):
Folks in Pierre and Fargo may be getting corn subsidies and a host of other benefits from me right now.

Those should go too.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 42):
you can put something in place that will in some way or another make life easier for millions of people.

If those millions of people want to have their lives improved then they can do it with their money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Of course they have no problems asking the people from Pierre and Fargo to help pay for it.


You mean people from recipient states? The ones that already receive more federal dollars back than they pay in? Unlike California, Illinois, New York, and basically every other state where HSR is proposed? The federal government collects money from the more populated states and hands it out to the less populated states. Where is the Republican outrage over that? Oh, right, it's because they represent the less populated states so redistribution of wealth is fine in this case.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 44):
Oh, right, it's because they represent the less populated states so redistribution of wealth is fine in this case.

No it's not. If I had my way, I'd kick Mississippi and Alabama out of the country tomorrow.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 44):
Unlike California, Illinois, New York, and basically every other state where HSR is proposed?

Well if these places have so much money floating around with their huge populations they should be able to build railroads themselves. Oh, wait, they can't. Especially California and Illinois which have budgets that could charitably be called basket cases.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
How some company gets their goods from point A to point B isn't really a governmental problem.

Companies generally cannot function without the infrastructure provided to them by various levels of government. Even city streets employees use to get to work are financed by taxpayers and were developed by the cities.

It's sort of like when Obama said that you don't do it on your own.

Moving goods from point A to point B on a national level is a government issue, be it with rails or roads or airports. Maintaing that infrastructure is a government problem as much as it is a taxpayer problem.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Urban sprawl is wonderful. There is just no substitute for space. You can have a house with plenty of room, a big yard, three plus car garage, etc. and still be only a short distance from a Walmart and a mall, all with sufficient parking of course.

That is a strange position for someone who is supposedly fiscally conservative to hold. The cost to build the infrastructure for every tom, dick, and harry to have 3 acres of land, a big house, three car garage, etc. is unsustainable and will come back to haunt us when the past 10-20 years of suburban and exurban infrastructure needs to be replaced.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1521 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
Well if these places have so much money floating around with their huge populations they should be able to build railroads themselves. Oh, wait, they can't. Especially California and Illinois which have budgets that could charitably be called basket cases.

One reason they don't have money floating around is because they are forced to spend it on infrastructure projects in Alabama and Arkansas.


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
No it's not. If I had my way, I'd kick Mississippi and Alabama out of the country tomorrow.

Real mature   I can see we won't have much to agree on (or discuss), so I will leave it at that.

Getting back on track (if you'll pardon the pun): Amtrak has been working to increase the speed of several heavily traveled corridors to 90-110 mph. They have also picked up control of the Hudson line in New York state, so there's potential for increases and capacity improvement there. It's not nearly as fast as true HSR, but it's a start. I do not know if any of the lines in the Northeast are really worth converting to HSR though--they are all at least a century old and it may be time to start anew.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlinetz757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2867 posts, RR: 6
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1491 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Urban sprawl is wonderful. There is just no substitute for space. You can have a house with plenty of room, a big yard, three plus car garage, etc. and still be only a short distance from a Walmart and a mall, all with sufficient parking of course.

As an urban planner, I will bite my tongue, but must ask, do you realize how much money sprawl costs? It's not cheap in the short or long term.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 47):
is unsustainable and will come back to haunt us when the past 10-20 years of suburban and exurban infrastructure needs to be replaced.

Everyone remember how all of the bridges in this country are structurally deficient? It's already haunting us.



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 46):
Even city streets employees use to get to work are financed by taxpayers and were developed by the cities.

Because they find it economically viable. If a city needs a road, the city should build a road rather than ask the next city over to build it for them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 46):
It's sort of like when Obama said that you don't do it on your own.

Except that it's disingenuous for him to use that as an excuse to pick on those who are more successful.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 47):
That is a strange position for someone who is supposedly fiscally conservative to hold.

Not at all.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 47):
The cost to build the infrastructure for every tom, dick, and harry to have 3 acres of land, a big house, three car garage, etc. is unsustainable

Of course there's a cost. That's why you don't usually see ghettos in the suburbs, they can't afford it. If you have money, you can have nice things like three car garages and the toys to fill them. If you don't have money, you can't.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 48):
One reason they don't have money floating around is because they are forced to spend it on infrastructure projects in Alabama and Arkansas.

Exactly. Now you're getting it. It's redistribution of wealth and that's why redistribution of wealth is a problem. And, while I'm thinking of it, aren't we about due for another study that concludes that people in those states tend to be fat and stupid?

Apparently in the liberal mind, rich states subsidizing poor states is bad but rich people subsidizing poor people is good. Somehow they don't make the connection between the two.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1468 times:

To be fair, California won't even be done by then. They are talking LA to SF and it may not even be a full HSR system at that point.

Problem number one is cost. Everyone wants to build it, but no one wants to set aside a fund to ensure long term economic viability (much like the airport and airways trust fund for aviation or the highway trust fund for highways). This is a monster problem that no proposed system is addressing. Sure you can cover the operating cost assuming ridership projections arent grossly inflated, but what about the capital cost? Show a more responsible business model before you set down a single foot of track or you're building an unsustainable system. Stations should have facility fees to cover their costs and ticket taxes should be charged for an infrastructure bank. Otherwise stations will look like Amtrak stations do (a mess) and there won't be a fund to renew the system. That and don't raid that fund for other stuff.

When I see this happen, I'll get on the rail bandwagon. Until then forget it because HSR will never solve someones commute to work. HSR is a sub 500 mile air service solution, not a 20 mile commuter problem. You get outside any major US city and it all falls to two or three uncongested highways with truckers and a bunch of families going on vacation. Sure, there is the occasional commuter at that distance, but at that length the cost of HSR is too high to make the swap and there are so few of them it won't make a dent in highway use.


User currently offlineaf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):

I can see that you love the suburbs, and to be honest I love the suburbs too. Large roads, large houses, large yards, etc. is great, but there has to be a limit. I'm seeing suburban expansion happening 30 miles outside of downtown Minneapolis, and that will probably increase unfortunately. And the suburbs closer to Minneapolis are facing the reality that we need public transport. Unfortunately there are still some NIMBYs that don't want that to happen. So much so that a commuter rail project proposed to serve the southern suburbs from Minneapolis was put on a legislative ban, which means no discussion or studying of this commuter rail project can be done.

Small suburban expansion is okay in my opinion, but we all need to use land more efficiently, which public transport will help do.



It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11528 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
Damn right. If I'm going across the country or into a city I'd much rather not have to sit between a smelly backpacker and a screaming toddler. It's much nicer in my car and at least planes are much faster. And if I could have a private plane, you better believe I would.

If we all were right-wingers with huge amounts of disposible income, that is great. But, the rest of us live in the real world. Even if we are right-wingers with no disposible income.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Quoting af773atmsp (Reply 53):
I'm seeing suburban expansion happening 30 miles outside of downtown Minneapolis, and that will probably increase unfortunately.

That assumes that everyone does business downtown, but that just isn't true. It's not just people that moved out of the cities and into the suburbs, it's businesses too and for the same reasons plus all of the businesses and services that follow the population base.

The model of having the city where everyone works downtown and the suburbs where the rich, white people go to live just isn't really applicable anymore.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 54):
But, the rest of us live in the real world. Even if we are right-wingers with no disposible income.

...which means making the choice between slow journeys in the comfort of solitude or quick ones with others. High speed rail has most of the disadvantages of both driving and flying. It is marginally faster on short trips than cars but far slower than flying at any significant distance and I'm still deprived of my car at my destination, have to go to a central terminal, pay cost that is usually not much, if any, cheaper than flying, and deal with crowds.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
High speed rail has most of the disadvantages of both driving and flying. It is marginally faster on short trips than cars but far slower than flying at any significant distance and I'm still deprived of my car at my destination, have to go to a central terminal, pay cost that is usually not much, if any, cheaper than flying, and deal with crowds.

This is what you need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzv4q5EEy1k



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineaflyingkiwi From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 40):
I very wish the Interstates were not built! They destroyed many cities and resulted in huge sprawl.

Well, the US has received huge economic benefits from the interstate system so for one am happy that they were built.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
When I look at alternatives for most of the country I vote for rail for longer haul freight. Pulling long haul trucks off the interstate is, IMO, a good thing. And it doesn't need to be high speed.

The thing is, America already has one of the best rail freight systems in the world & it's entirely private sector unlike in many other countries. Around 40% of total freight tonnage is carried by rail in the us compared to about 15% in Europe.

One danger of building a big HSR network is that it can displace freight as the passenger & freight will share tracks.

Here are some further thoughts on this issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
It is marginally faster on short trips than cars but far slower than flying at any significant distance and I'm still deprived of my car at my destination, have to go to a central terminal, pay cost that is usually not much, if any, cheaper than flying, and deal with crowds.

There is a butterzone of between 200-500 miles where HSR works well. I'd imagine that car rental facilities would be available at the stations just like you get at airports. I admit there are only a few corridors where HSR is really neccessary in the US but it does fill a niche & would be a good idea in places like the Northeast Corridor.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1413 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
If a city needs a road, the city should build a road rather than ask the next city over to build it for them.

I haven't seen Tulsa ask Oklahoma CIty for some money to build or re-surface a street here.

We have city streets paid for by the cities, county roads paid for by the counties, etc.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Except that it's disingenuous for him to use that as an excuse to pick on those who are more successful.

You're looking at the wrong side of the coin. He was talking about successful people owing some of their
achievements to infrastructure facilities and other (public and private) organizations. It's pretty hard to be successful without the total environment provided by the country.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Of course there's a cost. That's why you don't usually see ghettos in the suburbs,

Think not? I've seen apartment complexes on the edge of a nice, moderate priced, neighborhood that turns into public housing. Guess what happens to those homes on the edge of that complex?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
That assumes that everyone does business downtown, but that just isn't true.

When I look at cities with strong public transport (like Sydney or Perth) it's easy to see how that transport is a huge factor in maintaining a central business district (downtown area). In a lot of cities in the US we are not faced with lot of empty buildings (or now parking lots) and third rate public transport.

Quoting aflyingkiwi (Reply 57):
One danger of building a big HSR network is that it can displace freight as the passenger & freight will share tracks.

Which is one major reason why HSR isn't a winner for us. You really don't need true high speed rail in the north east and if freight needs to move fast in other parts of the country there is various forms of air freight.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
I haven't seen Tulsa ask Oklahoma CIty for some money to build or re-surface a street here.

No but you do see federal money going to Alaska for EAS subsidies while the state cuts a royalty check to each citizen every year.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
He was talking about successful people owing some of their achievements to infrastructure facilities and other (public and private) organizations.

They don't owe anybody more than anyone else. As I've said before, the difference between the guy using a road to commute to his minimum wage job and the guy who uses the same road to become a millionaire in the trucking industry isn't in the road.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):
I've seen apartment complexes on the edge of a nice, moderate priced, neighborhood that turns into public housing. Guess what happens to those homes on the edge of that complex?

That's why public housing is generally a bad idea. It should be a combination of personal preference and the market determining who lives where.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 58):

Ref city streets...

The formula on this is that the developer puts the road in then recovers that cost on the sale of the homes. The city then uses property taxes and fuel taxes to maintain them. If they aren't maintaining them, then what is the city doing with the money... Just a point on the whole who pays for streets thing that is often misconstrued.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1332 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Urban sprawl is wonderful. There is just no substitute for space.

It depends if an actual architect was hired or not. There are many substitutes for space, such as building up, digging down, transit, landscape architecture etc.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 61):
It depends if an actual architect was hired or not. There are many substitutes for space, such as building up, digging down, transit, landscape architecture etc.

There's always a price to be paid for that sort of thing. Building a parking lot is cheaper than a garage, for example.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

I would hate to see the US further destroy itself by building a high-speed, life-size train set in every contiguous state.

When it comes to high speed trains, i enjoy travelling on them and appreciate the technology. But if the private sector can't justify building them, then the public sector should probably not be doing it either.

Trains are wonderful at moving moderate to heavy items at medium speeds. They are not very good at moving very light items (humans) and fast speeds.

Here in England we're building a high speed rail line to the Midlands. The whole thing is costing £30bn and it'll improve transport times to a few northern cities by a very menial amount.

Can you believe it, from a government that says we're doing austerity!

Of course they tell the northerners that it'll boost jobs in their area. Will it heck, it'll just give companies another excuse to be even more London-centric, drain the northern economy even more and tax them for the pleasure.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 63):
When it comes to high speed trains, i enjoy travelling on them and appreciate the technology. But if the private sector can't justify building them, then the public sector should probably not be doing it either.

   If all of the terrible, greedy corporate entities of America don't think it's a worthwhile idea, why should the government? It all comes down to a policy of "I don't wanna spend my money on it, but I think it's a great use of your money."



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
If all of the terrible, greedy corporate entities of America don't think it's a worthwhile idea, why should the government? It all comes down to a policy of "I don't wanna spend my money on it, but I think it's a great use of your money."

Love the part where they say private industry lacks sufficient capital to build a long distance rail line without government funds. Really? They did it 150 years ago just fine. When customers needed it, and were willing to pay for it, it got done.

But this is totally different. HSR is not really needed and passengers would not willingly pay for it. The idea is that it will be more or less a free benefit available to all, paid for by China.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
If all of the terrible, greedy corporate entities of America don't think it's a worthwhile idea, why should the government? It all comes down to a policy of "I don't wanna spend my money on it, but I think it's a great use of your money."

Indeed, the four ways of spending money.



That said, the playing field should be level, all cost associated with building airports or roads etc should be borne by air and road users respectively.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 65):
They did it 150 years ago just fine. When customers needed it, and were willing to pay for it, it got done.

Well the transcons got a heafty bit of subsidy hence the extremes rail companies would go to to claim they were building in mountainous terrain (which commanded higher payments).

Personally i would justify that as it was more about consolidating the US West Coast from the threat of Mexican or British appetites. Without such a threat, the West could have been left to grow at its own pace.

The ethics of how the west was won in the first place, are for another thread.   


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 65):
They did it 150 years ago just fine. When customers needed it, and were willing to pay for it, it got done.

To be fair, it was a bit cheaper back then.

That said, you've hit on one of the major inconsistencies and fabrications liberals promote. On the one hand, they never miss a chance to preach about how greedy and exploitative corporate America is. These guys don't care about anything but money, they'd sell their mother if they could make a dollar.

Then in the next breath, the liberals say that we should build high speed rail or bail out GM because it's a good investment, despite the fact that none of the shamelessly greedy corporate entities are willing to touch it.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 66):
Indeed, the four ways of spending money.

Indeed. Liberalism is often summed up as "solving problems with other people's money" and it's hard to disagree. Some of what Democrats say makes me want to beat them over the head with Milton Friedman.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4364 posts, RR: 19
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1129 times:

I wish. Train travel in Europe is simply one of the most pleasant ways to travel. Spacious, comfortable and a nice stable ride with very high speed to boot.


Flying domestically in this country is generally a miserable experience from arriving at the airport to finally being 'liberated' at your destination.


I do think high speed rail could work in this country but I can't see the money ever being raised to support it.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
No but you do see federal money going to Alaska for EAS subsidies while the state cuts a royalty check to each citizen every year.

EAS comes money comes from the trust fund, so its really airlines subsidizing airlines, not the government subsidizing cities.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 66):
That said, the playing field should be level, all cost associated with building airports or roads etc should be borne by air and road users respectively.

The cost of building airports is born by the airports in the US. "Federal Grants" are actually grants taken form the Airport and Airway Trust fund which gets it's money from fuel taxes and ticket taxes. Such grants are usually limited to airfield projects, security projects and FAA mandated projects. The rest of the project is financed with bonds which are paid down with airline and non-airline rates and charges. The only kind of "General Fund" expenditures in US aviation are to fund the bloated FAA non-operating expenses (which is roughly the same amount of money the FRA gets for rail from the general fund). Everything else is self sustaining as it should be. In fact, I'd like to see a small increase in taxes to cover all FAA costs making the entire industry self sufficient, but politicians like purse strings and mass transit supporters (the same politicians) love to claim that aviation is subsidized as an argument to justify the massive and irresponsible subsidization of mass transit.

As for road in the US, the Highway Trust Fund (which gets its money from fuel taxes) was used to build the highway system in the US and it ran a surplus until the mid 1980's when it was decided that there was so much money in the trust fund that it would be a good idea to raid it to pay for mass transit. Now it doesn't run a surplus anymore and roads aren't what they used to be. It was the biggest flush of money down the toilet in transportation history.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sweet! Another High Speed Rail Route On Line posted Mon Oct 25 2010 22:42:34 by geekydude
Amtrak Releases High-speed Rail Plan For 2040 posted Fri Oct 1 2010 11:46:06 by BOStonsox
California High-speed Rail Dream! posted Wed Feb 24 2010 17:46:15 by boeingfever777
Louisiana Says "No" To High-Speed Rail posted Sat Aug 22 2009 14:07:39 by MSYtristar
High Speed Rail posted Sat Feb 28 2009 08:31:49 by Seb146
High Speed Rail Win In California - America's 1st! posted Wed Nov 5 2008 17:09:02 by Aaron747
CA High Speed Rail Gets Thumped posted Wed May 9 2007 00:55:38 by Boeing7E7
Proposed High-speed Rail Lines In Arg., Brazil posted Wed May 2 2007 04:48:24 by PPVRA
Montreal-NYC High Speed Rail Line (4 Hour Trip) posted Mon Jan 13 2003 04:05:21 by STT757
Check This Out-High Speed Rail IN USA posted Mon Mar 4 2002 06:56:52 by PanAm747