Obama Lays Out Plans for High-Speed Train Travel

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: her209
Can't wait until its implemented here in California.

And how much are you willing to pay for it to be built per citizen? 50,000 dollars? 250,000?

Is that the per capita cost for people currently alive, or costs over the lifetime of the system?

How much will that reduce congestion on roads? Reduce consumption of fuel? Reduce pollution?

Mass transit is a great infrastructure investment.

Build more airports then. People prefer air travel and have since the 60s. Hence why Amtrak went belly up and is nationalized.

air travel is also heavily subsidized by the government, and amtrak was run into the ground and then kept there.


I would love to be able to hop on a train and be in Minneapolis or Chicago a few hours later.

From where? I can be in Chicago in 5 and Minneapolis in 3. A train isn't going to beat that when you take into account that I have to deal with their schedule - not my own. Hell, I can hop in my car on a whim and be there in a few hours.

5 hours assumes absolutely zero traffic in the metro Chicago area going through the Hillside strangler....lolz

Well, no matter where you go you are going to have that issue. Hell, it's 4 hours to a specific place in minneapolis. just under 6 to the waterfront in Chicago every time I've made the drive. Is a train going to get me to those exact destination in the same timeframe even if it could do 200 miles and hour on the flats? Do I not have to jump a cab or train to get closer to my end destination(more time and $). Hmmm... no thanks, I'll keep my car for regional travel.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Drako
Plane travel is simply much more flexible, and much cheaper.

Not in the long term it isn't. Air travel prices are dependent upon highly volatile fuel prices, similar to vehicles.

We need to stop thinking about short-term cost savings, and more about long-term economic and ecological sustainability.

Oh, I forgot. Fuel prices don't affect train travel :disgust:

Not if you use electrification.

Even still, moving pretty much anything by diesel rail is more efficient than cars.

Off topic but "heavy rail" trains are diesel only via the fact that they have diesel generators. Trains aren't direct drive like cars are. Just wanted to note that there is a difference in actual mechanics.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, no matter where you go you are going to have that issue. Hell, it's 4 hours to a specific place in minneapolis. just under 6 to the waterfront in Chicago every time I've made the drive. Is a train going to get me to those exact destination in the same timeframe even if it could do 200 miles and hour on the flats? Do I not have to jump a cab or train to get closer to my end destination(more time and $). Hmmm... no thanks, I'll keep my car for regional travel.

Such a train would drop you within a 10 minute walk of the lakefront here.

Plus you don't get ass raped on our parking fees. Even the metered parking in the Loop has hit $3.50 an hour.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

Dirigible?
Submarine?
Ultralight aircraft?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Drako
Plane travel is simply much more flexible, and much cheaper.

Not in the long term it isn't. Air travel prices are dependent upon highly volatile fuel prices, similar to vehicles.

We need to stop thinking about short-term cost savings, and more about long-term economic and ecological sustainability.

Oh, I forgot. Fuel prices don't affect train travel :disgust:

Not if you use electrification.

Even still, moving pretty much anything by diesel rail is more efficient than cars.

Off topic but "heavy rail" trains are diesel only via the fact that they have diesel generators. Trains aren't direct drive like cars are. Just wanted to note that there is a difference in actual mechanics.

I believe most people understand that distinction.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, no matter where you go you are going to have that issue. Hell, it's 4 hours to a specific place in minneapolis. just under 6 to the waterfront in Chicago every time I've made the drive. Is a train going to get me to those exact destination in the same timeframe even if it could do 200 miles and hour on the flats? Do I not have to jump a cab or train to get closer to my end destination(more time and $). Hmmm... no thanks, I'll keep my car for regional travel.

Such a train would drop you within a 10 minute walk of the lakefront here.

Plus you don't get ass raped on our parking fees. Even the metered parking in the Loop has hit $3.50 an hour.

Not at 200 mph it wouldn't. I would imagine if it were actually a regional train it wouldn't go that deep into the city. It'd likely be somewhere near the airport but the other consideration is land - how the hell would you get another layer of transport that deep? Even if you did, could you maintain the "high speed" once you hit "city"? But yes, it does cost me to actually park there.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of other (sustainable) sources for electricity - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be generated using fossil fuels.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

Dirigible?
Submarine?
Ultralight aircraft?

From this response I can only assume you live is some altered reality, or you're just stupid .

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, no matter where you go you are going to have that issue. Hell, it's 4 hours to a specific place in minneapolis. just under 6 to the waterfront in Chicago every time I've made the drive. Is a train going to get me to those exact destination in the same timeframe even if it could do 200 miles and hour on the flats? Do I not have to jump a cab or train to get closer to my end destination(more time and $). Hmmm... no thanks, I'll keep my car for regional travel.

Such a train would drop you within a 10 minute walk of the lakefront here.

Plus you don't get ass raped on our parking fees. Even the metered parking in the Loop has hit $3.50 an hour.

Not at 200 mph it wouldn't. I would imagine if it were actually a regional train it wouldn't go that deep into the city. It'd likely be somewhere near the airport but the other consideration is land - how the hell would you get another layer of transport that deep? Even if you did, could you maintain the "high speed" once you hit "city"?

It would end up in Union Station. At that speed the Federal gov mandates grade separation so probably on unused freight rights of way (which we have a number of).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Drako
Plane travel is simply much more flexible, and much cheaper.

Not in the long term it isn't. Air travel prices are dependent upon highly volatile fuel prices, similar to vehicles.

We need to stop thinking about short-term cost savings, and more about long-term economic and ecological sustainability.

Oh, I forgot. Fuel prices don't affect train travel :disgust:

Not if you use electrification.

Even still, moving pretty much anything by diesel rail is more efficient than cars.

Off topic but "heavy rail" trains are diesel only via the fact that they have diesel generators. Trains aren't direct drive like cars are. Just wanted to note that there is a difference in actual mechanics.

I believe most people understand that distinction.

Ooops - you mean efficiency of moving freight - not actual efficiency of the vehicle. I misread your post to mean you trying to compare mechanical efficiencies.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of other (sustainable) sources for electricity - solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be generated using fossil fuels.

I agree 100%.

Here's an idea: let's first spend some money on getting this power infrastructure built up instead of wasting it on a rail system that will serve very few people.

 

[theeedude]

I'd rather not put all my eggs in the air/car travel basket. Let's face it, those ultimately depend on fossil fuel availability and prices, which makes our economy vulnerable long term. Trains run on whatever you use to generate electricity, which can be nuclear, hydro, solar, etc. Plus we already have plenty of airports and highways, and if we are going to expand overall infrastructure capacity to deal with population growth, I think it's a lot better that we use it as opportunity to diversify it instead of doing more of the same.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, no matter where you go you are going to have that issue. Hell, it's 4 hours to a specific place in minneapolis. just under 6 to the waterfront in Chicago every time I've made the drive. Is a train going to get me to those exact destination in the same timeframe even if it could do 200 miles and hour on the flats? Do I not have to jump a cab or train to get closer to my end destination(more time and $). Hmmm... no thanks, I'll keep my car for regional travel.

Such a train would drop you within a 10 minute walk of the lakefront here.

Plus you don't get ass raped on our parking fees. Even the metered parking in the Loop has hit $3.50 an hour.

Not at 200 mph it wouldn't. I would imagine if it were actually a regional train it wouldn't go that deep into the city. It'd likely be somewhere near the airport but the other consideration is land - how the hell would you get another layer of transport that deep? Even if you did, could you maintain the "high speed" once you hit "city"?

It would end up in Union Station. At that speed the Federal gov mandates grade separation so probably on unused freight rights of way (which we have a number of).

It would be fine if they wanted to tie it into Union Station but I just don't see that happening but you never know.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Good luck though. Remember that Bay Bridge that was supposed to be completed last century? And the Benicia Bridge that ran 400% overbudget? LOL I'd love to see this get built. Has anyone done studies to show how much reducing congestion would help the economy? We waste millions of man hours waiting on roads in traffic. If we simply widened every road (I know congestion will still exist because more people will hit up the roads with more lanes), but at least capacity increases, and overall waiting times should be reduced because fewer people clog up detours and it all balances itself out after you add new arteries.

Traveling on a 3 lane highway at average 20 MPH will take the same amount of time as on 4 lane highway at an average 20 MPH.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, no matter where you go you are going to have that issue. Hell, it's 4 hours to a specific place in minneapolis. just under 6 to the waterfront in Chicago every time I've made the drive. Is a train going to get me to those exact destination in the same timeframe even if it could do 200 miles and hour on the flats? Do I not have to jump a cab or train to get closer to my end destination(more time and $). Hmmm... no thanks, I'll keep my car for regional travel.

Such a train would drop you within a 10 minute walk of the lakefront here.

Plus you don't get ass raped on our parking fees. Even the metered parking in the Loop has hit $3.50 an hour.

Not at 200 mph it wouldn't. I would imagine if it were actually a regional train it wouldn't go that deep into the city. It'd likely be somewhere near the airport but the other consideration is land - how the hell would you get another layer of transport that deep? Even if you did, could you maintain the "high speed" once you hit "city"? But yes, it does cost me to actually park there.

Last year while traveling, I took a high-speed train (160 mph) into the central station in Berlin. It slowed down to about 85 mph when it was a few minutes outside the station. From there, I caught an U-Bahn train (subway) to my destination in the city. Numerous S-Bahn (elevated) trains and buses also connect directly with the station, taking you all over the city within about an hour radius.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

It would be fine if they wanted to tie it into Union Station but I just don't see that happening but you never know.

Union is the logical hub of any such regional HSR system, just as it is for existing regional train traffic.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Drako

I agree 100%.

Here's an idea: let's first spend some money on getting this power infrastructure built up instead of wasting it on a rail system that will serve very few people.

Both are worthwhile projects. But I could agree that the power infrastructure should be built first (or at least partially completed).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Europe benefits from their train system because their road system sucks.

Absolutely false. There are excellent road systems throughout Europe, especially Western Europe. I presume you've heard of the autobahns?

However, these countries have their road systems in addition to excellent rail systems, which North America does not.

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Most of those cities, nay the whole continent was colonized and cities built before the advent of the car.

True. But this is more an argument as to why light rail and rapid transit within cities works so well in Europe. It would be more difficult to introduce in North American cities, which were built around private automobile usage, but I feel intra-city light rail would also be a worthwhile investment. However, that deserves its own thread.

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
We chose to spend the money on a road system, which our entire country benefits from. We don't need to spend more on infrastructure. You won't realize increased GDP through things like a new rail structure. Our road system is already great.

Yes, the US did choose to spend infrastructure funds on road systems, at the expense of other options. It's now being shown to be a poor long term decision as roadways are less time and energy efficient than rail, and they drastically increase vehicle use. The latter is the reason why the US is among the world leaders in per-capita oil usage - not a sustainable long-term pattern.

If anything, now is the perfect time to invest in rail and mass transit infrastructure. Infrastructure spending creates jobs and growth (remember the New Deal?), and in this case, it is also a chance to build more environmentally sustainable alternatives.

Think about all of the auto workers who have lost their jobs recently - new, domestic mass transit-related infrastructure work could potentially fill the void. Instead of bailing out the dinosaurs, we should be taking alternative steps forward.

Great post.

It could also be worthwhile to invest in a power grid to run on nuclear, solar, hydro, wind, etc. and have it be completely independent of coal and oil powered plants.

Any steps that move us away from fossil fuels and dependence on foreign oil are positive ones IMO.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: RedChief
But actual cost when it comes to rail systems have been 60-100 % more then projected costs if you look at recent examples in Denver and Seattle.

Additionally, these systems will require government subsidies as long as they operate; cost which are not part of projected costs.

Finally, if the Europe and Japan high-speed rail models are so good then why have they lost market share by 50%?

One last point. High Speed rail wont get people out of there cars as much as getting people off planes. Do we really a bloated overpriced government subsidized system to compete with a cheap, cost effective private system (the airlines)?

You might want to check out how much the government subsidizes air travel. If passenger rail received the same amount of money as the airlines, I'm sure it would be a booming industry as well. But obviously it can't currently compete with air travel because it receives a fraction of the funding.

That said, I just don't see the point of HSR. If we want to invest $8 billion dollars in transportation, I'd rather it be used for improving roads/decreasing congestion, R&D for low/zero pollution cars, etc. Just my $0.02, though, obviously HSR is an attractive idea for quite a few people. In certain parts of the country I think it could be a success, but it definitely doesn't make sense everywhere.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: her209
Can't wait until its implemented here in California.

And how much are you willing to pay for it to be built per citizen? 50,000 dollars? 250,000?

Is that the per capita cost for people currently alive, or costs over the lifetime of the system?

How much will that reduce congestion on roads? Reduce consumption of fuel? Reduce pollution?

Mass transit is a great infrastructure investment.

Build more airports then. People prefer air travel and have since the 60s. Hence why Amtrak went belly up and is nationalized.

air travel is also heavily subsidized by the government, and amtrak was run into the ground and then kept there.


I would love to be able to hop on a train and be in Minneapolis or Chicago a few hours later.

From where? I can be in Chicago in 5 and Minneapolis in 3. A train isn't going to beat that when you take into account that I have to deal with their schedule - not my own. Hell, I can hop in my car on a whim and be there in a few hours.

That's because you live in bumblefuck nowhere.

Those of us who live in real places have traffic and other drivers with cars to deal with

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

Dirigible?
Submarine?
Ultralight aircraft?

From this response I can only assume you live is some altered reality, or you're just stupid .

Implying that coal or uranium prices are anything close to volatile relative the alternatives could be called stupid too.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drako

Yeah, apperantly electricity is free, so it is unaffected by fuel costs :disgust:

Are you driving the Time Machine which runs on plutonium or a coal fired car?

LOL, no but my electricity is generated using natural gas.

edit: And I never mentioned cars anywhere in my previous posts, so flame on.

Dirigible?
Submarine?
Ultralight aircraft?

From this response I can only assume you live is some altered reality, or you're just stupid .

Implying that coal or uranium prices are anything close to volatile relative the alternatives could be called stupid too.

I bolded it for you.

Your the only one implying anything, so carry on in your own little fantasy world.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

It would be fine if they wanted to tie it into Union Station but I just don't see that happening but you never know.

Union is the logical hub of any such regional HSR system, just as it is for existing regional train traffic.

Sure, but you posted the reason I don't see it happening. Keep in mind this is Chicago. If they could do it and use existing abandoned rail corridors then sure, go ahead and do it. However, it still should be paid for locally/regionally - not nationally.

Also it's ~350 miles via roads (train might shave a couple miles off...maybe) from Des Moines to Chicago. So IF they go 200 mph the whole way(which they won't) it'd going to take you almost 2 hours on the train itself and then atleast a half hour each side so you're at 3 hours bare minimum. And how much will a ticket cost? Less than a tank of gas(15 or so gallons depending on vehicle)? So $30 to drive(at the moment) and how much to ride? Also, I usually have 1 or two people with me....

But sure, put the hub there. I would be fine with that.