Obama Lays Out Plans for High-Speed Train Travel

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

That's generally true for longer trips but for shorter haul regional travel in developed areas rail is definitely competitive (NE Corridor being a prime example).

I can give you the NE corridor because of the population density. But where else in the counrty do we have that kind of density between cities? One of the most traveled air corridors is Minneapolis to Chicago. Think a train up I90-I94 will be competitive with 49-69 dollar one way fares? Even if it managed to hit 110 mph it would still take 4 hours vs 45 mins in a plane. A lot of business travlers who do that run go down in the morning and are back by dinner without a problem.

California is the next obvious contender for service with their given population and the projected growth, the heaviest regional rail passenger traffic (outside the NE corridor) is in this area. The other two would probably be a Houstion-Dallas/FW - San Antonio system and a Chicago-Indianapolis-St.Louis-Milwaukee-Minneapolis-Detroit system.

I'd be referring to a true HSR not the faster conventional trains we're getting. 200mph + would take a limited stop service about 2 hours Chicago to Minneapolis. Plus it would drop you right into the business district instead of another 30-60 minutes outside.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

That's generally true for longer trips but for shorter haul regional travel in developed areas rail is definitely competitive (NE Corridor being a prime example).

I can give you the NE corridor because of the population density. But where else in the counrty do we have that kind of density between cities? One of the most traveled air corridors is Minneapolis to Chicago. Think a train up I90-I94 will be competitive with 49-69 dollar one way fares? Even if it managed to hit 110 mph it would still take 4 hours vs 45 mins in a plane. A lot of business travlers who do that run go down in the morning and are back by dinner without a problem.

California is the next obvious contender for service with their given population and the projected growth, the heaviest regional rail passenger traffic (outside the NE corridor) is in this area. The other two would probably be a Houstion-Dallas/FW - San Antonio system and a Chicago-Indianapolis-St.Louis-Milwaukee-Minneapolis-Detroit system.

I'd be referring to a true HSR not the faster conventional trains we're getting. 200mph + would take a limited stop service about 2 hours Chicago to Minneapolis. Plus it would drop you right into the business district instead of another 30-60 minutes outside.

How much of that growth is fueled by illegal aliens?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K1052

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.

That's generally true for longer trips but for shorter haul regional travel in developed areas rail is definitely competitive (NE Corridor being a prime example).

I can give you the NE corridor because of the population density. But where else in the counrty do we have that kind of density between cities? One of the most traveled air corridors is Minneapolis to Chicago. Think a train up I90-I94 will be competitive with 49-69 dollar one way fares? Even if it managed to hit 110 mph it would still take 4 hours vs 45 mins in a plane. A lot of business travlers who do that run go down in the morning and are back by dinner without a problem.

California is the next obvious contender for service with their given population and the projected growth, the heaviest regional rail passenger traffic (outside the NE corridor) is in this area. The other two would probably be a Houstion-Dallas/FW - San Antonio system and a Chicago-Indianapolis-St.Louis-Milwaukee-Minneapolis-Detroit system.

I'd be referring to a true HSR not the faster conventional trains we're getting. 200mph + would take a limited stop service about 2 hours Chicago to Minneapolis. Plus it would drop you right into the business district instead of another 30-60 minutes outside.

How much of that growth is fueled by illegal aliens?

Dunno but it doesn't look like we're going to have any tighter immigration control in the next 4 to 8 years so I'd rather have them on trains than driving around without licenses/insurance.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I was prepared to explain how hard (and how long) the folks in NC have worked on their high speed rail and intermodal projects but why bother?

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
The reason not to do this is so simple even a democrat could figure it out.

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!

mmm. What to say ...... ??? Maybe a picture is really worth a thousand words:

......................../´¯/)
....................,/ ¯./
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/ ´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../ ......./¨¯
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\ .................'...../
..........''...\ .......... _.·´
............\ ..............(
..............\ .............

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Yeah we know, every person that isn't a flaming liberal is an idiot.

Not hardly.

But in your case the IQ of 67 fits ...

















Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor: Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC
(and we are headed to Atlanta if we can tunnel under South Carolina)

Not only will we move our people faster, we are going to move our freight faster.

Don't be skeered. You will simply be Left Behind.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot ....

new england and the mid Atlantic are more densely populated than germany

What was formally called the *BosWash* Megalopolis in 1961 will become *BAMA* in the next 20 years ... Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Area

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

You have no idea what you're talking about. I do. I will have a MS degree in civil engineering when May rolls around.

LOL. You Fail.

 

[CRXican]

Building California's high-speed-train network from San Francisco-to-Los Angeles and Anaheim will cost from $32.8 billion to $33.6 billion, according to the authority's business report.

From the following:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/04/17/BA5Q173NC9.DTL

Not sure what Mr. O thinks $13 billion is going to do. The comments on the article are fun also. I tend to agree that it makes more sense to improve public transit (MORE BUSES!!!) within major cities rather than spend on some overpriced HSR that will be used only by those with extra cash to blow on weekend getaways.

I have no good reason to use a train to go up and down California especially when there are already plains that go back and forth.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Skoorb, Amtrak has an Auto-Train service in some areas. You drive to the train station, and they put your car and you on the train so you have your car when you get where you are going.

Just thought I'd mention that. I don't know much more about the service.

HSR is a joke and a money pit, imo.

It's just a makework project, imo.

The Autotrain is very limited.

You must load in Mannass (South of Washington DC)

You must unload in Sanford (NE or Orlando)

No other options.

They should allow for connections to Tampa and Miami in the south
They should allow for a depot in Charlseton, Baltimore, NYC area and Boston areas.

The Orlando allows for tourists to Mickey Mouse to have their own vehicles; but to only have on stop to load the vehilce is a waste.
People have to drive 4-12 houors to get to the train; pay the cost of an extra ticket for the vehicle and then sit another 12 hours on the train.


If the HSR has its own set of tracks built along the right of ways, then the cost of land would be neglible.

The high density regional corridors is where the benefit will be.
As others have stated, putting in efective mass transit (light rail or busses) will have an effect on the economy of areas. Reduced traffic/wear on the roads/ less wasted time, etc.

Many cities have a spoke system for their light rail. Yet they also have a beltway running around with access roads into the city. Put light rail along the rim/beltway connecting the spoke stations that already exist.

Boston could run along the Rt 128 corridor
DC could use the 495/95 loop
Atlanta has the 20 loop

I am sure that some of the other cities have a rail system that is hub/spoke with no rim.

Without a rim, someone coming in from one direction has to waste time going into to the transfer hubs and then back out. Businesses have already built out at the locations where the spoke would intersect the rim; Run rail along the rim; right of way land already exist.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

LOL. I Fail.

Corrected.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CRXican

Building California's high-speed-train network from San Francisco-to-Los Angeles and Anaheim will cost from $32.8 billion to $33.6 billion, according to the authority's business report.

From the following:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/04/17/BA5Q173NC9.DTL

Not sure what Mr. O thinks $13 billion is going to do. The comments on the article are fun also. I tend to agree that it makes more sense to improve public transit (MORE BUSES!!!) within major cities rather than spend on some overpriced HSR that will be used only by those with extra cash to blow on weekend getaways.

I have no good reason to use a train to go up and down California especially when there are already plains that go back and forth.

The problem is that many times buses run into the same congestion issues that cars do. Grade separated (or even lane separated in the case of BRT) mass transit is the way to go even though it's more expensive then simply buying more buses.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

You have no idea what you're talking about. I do. I will have a MS degree in civil engineering when May rolls around.

LOL. You Fail.

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

LOL. I Fail.

Corrected.

Well Little Man, seeing that as a member of the ICMA and the APA with over 10 years experience for 3 different Metropolitan Planning Organizations my professional advice to you is to engage your brain before inserting your foot in your mouth.

Feel free to Google MPO and explain to the members of our community its status over the last 45 years in urban area transportation planning.

This should be good ....

 

[piasabird]

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

Hardly anyone rides the buses and the trains now. Train travel is only efficient if the trains are full.

 

[OCGuy]

PLEASE cut us off China. PLEASE.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

Hardly anyone rides the buses and the trains now. Train travel is only efficient if the trains are full.

The Middle East can fix that, if oil doesn't keep flowing from it then no one will be driving cars.

In general I support an extensive rail infrastructure, though I do worry about the cost.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Well Little Man, seeing that as a member of the ICMA and the APA with over 10 years experience for 3 different Metropolitan Planning Organizations my professional advice to you is to engage your brain before inserting your foot in your mouth.

Feel free to Google MPO and explain to the members of our community its status over the last 45 years in urban area transportation planning.

This should be good ....

My specialty is not transportation planning, but I know something about it. I know what an MPO is. Every city/metro areas are different. HSR is for inter-city travel, NOT intra-city travel. How do you explain the low ridership of public transit in many, many suburbian areas? Most people, given the choice, will drive rather than take mass transit in the US. Fact of the matter is that you can plan all you want within your own community and still run into opposition from the public. Sure, you can build a big train station in the middle of downtown for HSR, but if you don't have a well established transportation system locally people still won't use it. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that it's the public (of many metropolitan areas) who oppose mass transit very vocally.

One can rezone the city so that high-density development for residential areas are built instead, but that itself takes quite a while. The "consensus" amongst mass transit supporters is that if you build it, people will ride it. I think that's very far from the truth and it takes collaboration and a real dialogue to figure out what's worth doing and what isn't. Judging from the politics in this country in the past 20 years I have no faith that it is something that the federal/state governments can execute well.

If you really want to reduce system cost/congestion/etc, put a big surcharge on gas/roads/whatever, and then the public will vote the politicians out.

As someone has pointed out before: is inter-city travel on the interstate really congested? I would say for the most part no from my experiences. If gas prices go back up to $4 a gallon maybe people would opt for carpooling/buses. Incentives could be given to people to carpool when gas prices go back up. Investment for trains is very big and it's probably something that would never break even. Where are you going to build your tracks? Underground? I suggest you read up on the Boston Big Dig and how much trouble that project was.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor: Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Fantastic link - very informative, and it shows a solid case for expanding rail service both for passengers and freight in the South-East.

And from the map, it looks like two of the designated HSR corridors link up with Vancouver and Montreal? That would be awesome to finally have cross-border HSR connections - it would really boost tourism and drastically reduce border lineups.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor: Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Fantastic link - very informative, and it shows a solid case for expanding rail service both for passengers and freight in the South-East.

And from the map, it looks like two of the designated HSR corridors link up with Vancouver and Montreal? That would be awesome to finally have cross-border HSR connections - it would really boost tourism and drastically reduce border lineups.

110mph with an average of 85-87mph is not "high speed". The report cited the need for improvement of rail infrastructure as due to congestions in intercity travel due to airport delays (build more runways), particularly in metropolitan areas (intracity transportation), at and around airports(intracity transportation), and during weekend, holiday and bad weather periods (so you're building an expensive system for a few days per year?)

I'm not arguing against HSR per se, but people have such high hopes for it and don't really see the reality that, well, the US *is* a lot bigger. Spending $2.5 billion to get an average speed of 85-87 mph from diesel trains (if I read correctly) and not the cool TGV or ICE electrified trains in Europe, that's not what most of you wanted to hear/expected isn't it?

Ultimately the public must be willing to embrace rail travel, which requires supporting transportation infrastructures in all of the metropolitan areas.

 

[OCGuy]

:music: Where were you
when he built the train to nowhere :music:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy ~~~~

If the HSR has its own set of tracks built along the right of ways, then the cost of land would be neglible.

The high density regional corridors is where the benefit will be.

~~~~

In North Carolina the State has maintained ownership over the old 'NCRR' rail corridors that were initially planned in the 1820's.

The HSR plans (essentially in place for over 15 years) have closed over 40 rail crossings and built several new bridges for 'grade separations' with roadways - most of which (including track improvements) are funded through lease payments made by Norfolk-Southern and CSX for use of the NCRR rail lines. The NCDOT also partners with the private sector for designated improvements along the corridors.

In order to 'upgrade' the movement of people and freight to HSR status the corridors are being 'double-tracked' with additional sidings to account for passing 'priority' trains.

Planning today is mostly centered around the establishment of your 'hub' (or what is called a 'Transit Center') in the central urban core. From the transit center a regional traveler may access local mass transit (buses, light rail, subways, trolleys, etc).

On the 'outer loops' is where you will most likely find new intermodal facilities (though, of course, in the older urban centers 'rail yards' undertake design improvements for improved freight movement) - and in the case of Charlotte's new intermodal (primarily by Norfolk-Southern) it is associated with airport freight infrastructure and something called 'inland port' status. Containers are shipped/trucked directly to the intermodal in Charlotte from NC ports. The airport/intermodal facilities are located on the urban 'loop'. Freight can then be distributed locally, or nationally, by air, truck (and hopefully high-speed) rail.

Norfolk-Southern claims they may classify nearly 30,000 containers a day at the new intermodal.

That's all well and good but I'd like to see how many of those containers a day they can fly, truck and 'rail' outa there -

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor: Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC

Fantastic link - very informative, and it shows a solid case for expanding rail service both for passengers and freight in the South-East.

And from the map, it looks like two of the designated HSR corridors link up with Vancouver and Montreal? That would be awesome to finally have cross-border HSR connections - it would really boost tourism and drastically reduce border lineups.

A great deal of effort over the last 15 years has been made regionally in North Carolina and Virginia for interconnection to the 'BosWash' HSR. The ultimate goal is to move people and freight between Charlotte and DC in less time than it would take to drive/truck. Throw in consistent broadband access along the way (and a few Club Cars - LOL) and utilization is anticipated to be very significant.

Most folks don't realize the scale of urbanization - now and what is anticipated in the next 20 years - from Charlotte through the 'Piedmont Triad' and the 'Research Triangle'.

And southeastern Virginia is not far behind - there are 3 million people in Richmond/Norfolk/Virginia Beach area today (sheesh - who'da ever seen that coming 30 years ago ... )

 

[lupi]

The idea does have some merit, but the details given so far are abysmal and if run by government...well we already have one proud national rail service failure.


Outside of along the western seaboard, the population density is just too light to run national service west of the mississippi and unless it was a helluva lot cheaper than a plane ticket, a 40 hour cross country trip (assuming it stays close to a 100+mph max speed) does not seem appealing for business or vacation given the amount of time it eats up.

East of the big river, you could have most of the major pop centers connected as well as running service amongst the metro areas. Besides cost and government bloat, the first major problem here is that most metro areas currently have horrid public transit running, which means in order to get people to the trains you must improve/build that system also. Yeah if you just connect boston, nyc, philly, dc you'd have enough current infrastructure in place once you built the high speed lane, but that's not really a national service given the limited area of scope and that's also one of the few routes already with something that resembles mass transit.

A japanese bullet train network traveling over the countryside and through the cities sounds rather nice, but I don't realistically see such a system before other things like mass marketed all electric or hydrogen powered transportation have matured and are in use.

 

[night]

a houston/dallas/san antonio triangle doesnt seem like a bad idea.
but gov plans never go as planned. too many idealists with someone elses money.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Regarding high-speed rail, Slate's got an interesting article about it. The fact it's called "Wrong Track" should clue you in to thier take.

Originally stated by: Barack Obama

no taking off your shoes.

why do we think that we would't have to take off our shoes? a bomb on a train is less likely than an airplane? ok, sure. if so, it's only because the tracks are vulnerable.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
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.

well, considering that our rail wasn't blown to sh!t in ww2 (where are the places that have high speed rail?), it's not surprising at all that what we've got is an antiquated system of tracks laid out with mid 1800s tech in mind (which is probably about what europe was before ww2). it wasn't really until after ww2 that high speed of 120 mph+ was really capable anywhere. considering the fact that the system we have is fine for freight (often at 80+ out west), and high speed rail didn't really come into it's own until after the 707 had been in service for several years (and also after eisenhower started the interstate system), it isn't at all shocking that the US decided to spend infrastructure money on airports and highways.




110 isn't fast enough. we need a buck-eighty.

 

[2dt Drifter]

Necro post. Here's the number: 8 Billion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9672336

"Still, high-speed rail experts say that if the administration spreads the $8 billion among more than a handful of projects, none of the projects will get enough money to get up and running."

Every region that wants high speed will have to acquire it's own funding with the help of the stimulus package. Not the other way around.

 

[rudder]

Awesome! :thumbsup:

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

Then why is private industry not chomping at the bit to build high speed rail lines between Chicago, New York. and Atlanta? Because it would cost a shit ton of money to create the infrastructure and never be viable financially.

Blah blah but the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for highway contrsuction and Airports!!! I am heading off this argument before it starts. Highway costs are paid by you and I as well as companies that transport goods over the roads. Gas taxes, permit fees, etc. Except for the bridge to nowhere... these roads get a lot of use and that use generates tax revenue.

Airports are funded by taxes as is the infrastructure which would (despite the airlines losing money) probably be self sufficient via these taxes and usage fees if congress did not steal from these funds for the last 50 years.

 

[Jaskalas]

Necro post. Here's the number: 8 Billion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9672336

"Still, high-speed rail experts say that if the administration spreads the $8 billion among more than a handful of projects, none of the projects will get enough money to get up and running."

Every region that wants high speed will have to acquire it's own funding with the help of the stimulus package. Not the other way around.

The "stimulus" package would be a HELL of a lot more useful if it was actually used to COMPLETE such projects entirely. Then you'd see both jobs during the construction and a nice rail system afterwords. If you're going to blow $750 Billion, this would have been a place to do it.

 

[rudder]

PLEASE cut us off China. PLEASE.

hmmmm China has cut way back on buying U.S. treasuries in the last few months.