Obama Lays Out Plans for High-Speed Train Travel

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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

Doesn't matter in the context of this REGIONAL train idea. You are taking a congestion argument which is a LOCAL issue to suggest REGIONAL is a good idea?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: 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.

The power grid would be fine if Congress wouldn't have messed with it in the first place. Just fix the way carriers bills power companies and it'll solve itself. Currently it's impossible for them to make anything more than revenue.

Congress thought electricity lines were like gas lines-- you run it from one side of the country to the other no problem. As usual, they were gravely misinformed.

 

[StageLeft]

This is great. I can spend three weeks on a train to California and then when I get there have no car. Fvcking genius. Yeah, train travel really is the future.

In fact, it makes sense in a very few cases. Very few, particularly in the US, which is not Europe and far more reliant on cars and far larger per capita.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 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.

18% of our power is generated by NG. The other 82% is much cheaper coal, nuke, or hydro. Electricity generated for locomotive power will be lightly influenced by volatility in oil or NG pricing.

 

[alphatarget1]

Sorry to burst your bubble but liberals who actually support this are... oh crap, can't use the r-word.

Here is why:

The population density in the US is so low compared to Europe. Germany for instance the entire country from west to east is only about 300km. In between there are many towns with sizable populations usually (on high speed train lines at least). Someone has already said it but Europe is build before the era of cars. We did our planning with the assumption of cheap gas, so the infrastructure is a car/road based model.

I'm not going to argue against the idea that something needs to be done about transportation in this country. I, however, don't believe that pushing for a "national" train system is the way to go provided that there are already so much spending commitments. A sensible approach would be to link up major metro areas with HSR in a cost efficient (Not going to happen with federal spending. Can you imagine all the congress people trying to have stations put in their districts even though it wouldn't be sensible? If you think defense spending is wasteful, this will be much worse)way, say DFW-Houston-Austin-San Antonio, all fairly close apart with a lot of cheap land for right of way acquisition. Doing so would get rid of regional jets, which would also reduce air traffic and help alleviate non-weather related flight delays.

DB (Deutsche Bahn) wants to be partially privatized, btw, for all you liberals who think Europe has it all figured out.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: 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.

:thumbsup: Agreed.

I mentioned in earlier posts that we should have electrical or magnetic trains, powered by renewable energy sources.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 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.

When you add passengers your efficency will of course increase. You can figure on another $30 (per day) if you desire to actually park said vehicle too. Don't forget tolls either.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 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.

When you add passengers your efficency will of course increase. You can figure on another $30 (per day) if you desire to actually park said vehicle too. Don't forget tolls either.

I would imagine that a good chunk of REGIONAL travel is not done alone. Yes, can't forget the trolls..uh i mean tolls. That adds a couple bucks each way.

 

[magomago]

Without reading what is probably 80% crap in this thread....


Is this a national system, or a regional system for areas where it can actually benefit? I may see the value in building good metro systems in big high density cities, or metropolis of multiple cities that isn't pure suburbia (if the cost is at least decent), but I totally am not willing to see something stupidly implemented that passes the a high speed trail through wyoming and iowa.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Awesome! :thumbsup:

The US has a lot of catching up to do regarding mass rail transit; we're way behind Asia and Europe.

We don't have much of a choice but to be behind them. We don't have the population density to take advantage of high speed rail except in some areas of the North East and a bit on the west coast. Everywhere else is too spread out for high speed rail to be cost effective.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: magomago
Without reading what is probably 80% crap in this thread....


Is this a national system, or a regional system for areas where it can actually benefit? I may see the value in building good metro systems in big high density cities, or metropolis of multiple cities that isn't pure suburbia (if the cost is at least decent), but I totally am not willing to see something stupidly implemented that passes the a high speed trail through wyoming and iowa.

regional, so the northeast, pacific northwest, midwest, florida and (wtf at this one) ft worth to little rock



as for light rail, houston built a line going from the football stadium to downtown, running through the med center, and a ton of luxury apartment complexes sprang up near the line.

 

[SergeC]

Originally posted by: her209

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?

Well the article states that its going to cost California $45,000 million. There are about 30 million people in California. So its going to cost about $1,500 per person.

$1500 for a high speed rail system in CA? Where do I sign??? That would be amazing.

 

[CRXican]

As mentioned briefly above, getting to the train and then from the train to your destination can be a PITA.

I take the Metrolink from the city I live in into Los Angeles Union Station daily. Lucky for me the local station is less than 5 min from my house.

Once I'm at Union Station, I have to walk just under a mile to get to work. Not terrible but there's traffic and bums to contest with two times a day. Again, I'm luck it's only about a mile. Numerous other riders have to hop onto additional public transport whether it be bus or another rail (underground to other parts of the city).

Two ladies on the Metrolink this morning said it takes them 1 hour and 30 min to get to work because they go from the Metrolink to the above mentioned underground rail line. They're going East just to head back West.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well what will probably happen is because you boosted capacity by 33%, the local roads free up too, but people aren't that stupid so it rebalances out. Thus in the end instead of 20mph, you might move at 30mph. Hey, 50% increase right?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Bend over because Obama's about to shove this train up everyone's ass. Ride that choo-choo! Woo Woo!

 

[Slew Foot]

Major cities in the US are too far apart for rail to be effective. Regional mass transit may be OK, but its much more efficient (and likely cheaper) to use air travel. A round trip ticket from Sacramento to NYC cost me $250 on Delta, on Amtrak, well, I just tried to search and Amtrak doesnt connect the two cities. Epic Fail. I can bet it would be more than $250 anyway.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Bend over because Obama's about to shove this train up everyone's ass. Ride that choo-choo! Woo Woo!

I'm sorry that Rush hasn't given you the talking points for why you are against this. Keep drinking the kool aid sheeple.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Major cities in the US are too far apart for rail to be effective. Regional mass transit may be OK, but its much more efficient (and likely cheaper) to use air travel. A round trip ticket from Sacramento to NYC cost me $250 on Delta, on Amtrak, well, I just tried to search and Amtrak doesnt connect the two cities. Epic Fail. I can bet it would be more than $250 anyway.

This will blow your mind, but simply having rail doesn't mean all the planes stop flying! ITS CRAZY. Who would have thought that something regional wasn't designed for crossing an entire country?

Have you people wondered why passenger rail sucks in this country? Maybe its because of something crazy like freight traffic having the right of way so passenger service is slow and inefficient.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Bend over because Obama's about to shove this train up everyone's ass. Ride that choo-choo! Woo Woo!

I'm sorry that Rush hasn't given you the talking points for why you are against this. Keep drinking the kool aid sheeple.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Major cities in the US are too far apart for rail to be effective. Regional mass transit may be OK, but its much more efficient (and likely cheaper) to use air travel. A round trip ticket from Sacramento to NYC cost me $250 on Delta, on Amtrak, well, I just tried to search and Amtrak doesnt connect the two cities. Epic Fail. I can bet it would be more than $250 anyway.

This will blow your mind, but simply having rail doesn't mean all the planes stop flying! ITS CRAZY. Who would have thought that something regional wasn't designed for crossing an entire country?

Have you people wondered why passenger rail sucks in this country? Maybe its because of something crazy like freight traffic having the right of way so passenger service is slow and inefficient.

The reason not to do this is so simple even a democrat could figure it out.

 

[StageLeft]

Two ladies on the Metrolink this morning said it takes them 1 hour and 30 min to get to work because they go from the Metrolink to the above mentioned underground rail line.

LOL, kill me now. Once you start using public transport for anything you can forget about getting to work in any kind of a short amount of time. I partially moved states because I was sick and tired of 45 minute commutes, and that was in my car (which is way better than public transport with the proles and the bums).

Have you people wondered why passenger rail sucks in this country? Maybe its because of something crazy like freight traffic having the right of way so passenger service is slow and inefficient.

Or maybe that it has no real future anyway so the money hasn't been spent to bring it up to the 21st century.

 

[Acanthus]

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 mean the already failing airlines?

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Bend over because Obama's about to shove this train up everyone's ass. Ride that choo-choo! Woo Woo!

I'm sorry that Rush hasn't given you the talking points for why you are against this. Keep drinking the kool aid sheeple.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Major cities in the US are too far apart for rail to be effective. Regional mass transit may be OK, but its much more efficient (and likely cheaper) to use air travel. A round trip ticket from Sacramento to NYC cost me $250 on Delta, on Amtrak, well, I just tried to search and Amtrak doesnt connect the two cities. Epic Fail. I can bet it would be more than $250 anyway.

This will blow your mind, but simply having rail doesn't mean all the planes stop flying! ITS CRAZY. Who would have thought that something regional wasn't designed for crossing an entire country?

Have you people wondered why passenger rail sucks in this country? Maybe its because of something crazy like freight traffic having the right of way so passenger service is slow and inefficient.

Yeah lets spend hundreds of billions of dollars connecting cities thousands of miles apart for passenger rail service that no one will use because it costs more than an airplane ticket. Whooooooo sign me up!

 

[Hacp]

More taxpayer money into something I'm probably going to use once or twice? Typical liberal behavior!

 

[CycloWizard]

:beer: If we're going to be blowing money, this is the kind of thing we should be blowing it on. Obama has done two things right now - this and releasing the torture memos.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Hacp
More taxpayer money into something I'm probably going to use once or twice? Typical liberal behavior!

How much taxpayer money has gone to the airline industry? How many times have you used it?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


Individualist and now used to the freedom of movement using our individual transportation vessel.

the airplane? seriously though, claiming individualism as a reason for not building a high-speed rail system is pretty ridiculous.

Minneapolis is 5 hours and chicago is 10 or so, and neither is worth flying to. furthermore, a real high-speed rail system would be significantly faster