Obama Lays Out Plans for High-Speed Train Travel

[Throckmorton]

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=7351798&page=1

Holly shit. Ya know I was pretty close to agreeing with this guy... But damn. Don't we need to fix the economy and do some other stuff before going off on a spending spree of tax payers money for a new train set?

Sheeesh.... Am I the only one that thinks the money could be better spent? Oh well... What's next I wonder?

There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else, beyond our borders," President Obama said today in laying out the new transportation plans. "Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already over-burdened aviation system, and everybody stands to benefit."

I guess I'm not "all aboard" with this plan. Ought to be an interesting 4 years.

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before people get it. Spending money stimulates the economy, regardless of whether it's individuals or government doing the spending!

In any case, we need a rail network. We can't wait until fossil fuel is too expensive to overuse planes, because by then it will be too late.

 

[ElFenix]

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before people get it. Spending money stimulates the economy, regardless of whether it's individuals or government doing the spending!

In any case, we need a rail network. We can't wait until fossil fuel is too expensive to overuse planes, because by then it will be too late.

yeah but whose economy? giving money to people so they can buy TVs from china or trains from ze germans is just handing taxpayer money to foreigners. of course, we get shiny things and they get pieces of paper that continue to be worth less and less.

 

[Throckmorton]

yeah but whose economy? giving money to people so they can buy TVs from china or trains from ze germans is just handing taxpayer money to foreigners. of course, we get shiny things and they get pieces of paper that continue to be worth less and less.

You're right, government spending stimulates OUR economy MORE than consumer spending.

 

[Steeplerot]

Public transit works simply, more infrastructure = more riders.
It is foolish to look at our network and expect such a falling apart/unconnected system to be profitable.
And yes, ze germans trains are nice, but we are capable of building better, this is USA, we have been doing long distance rail for ages.
Well some of us think this way.

 

[ElFenix]

You're right, government spending stimulates OUR economy MORE than consumer spending.

maybe you missed the 'trains from ze germans' part.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

HSR is great but uselses without a true metro/subway system or some sort of public transportation system that allows people to move around easily.

What you're essentially doing is competing against planes ... Southwest and Virgin America, etc. Maybe cars. The auto is what you STILL need to get to your train station.

And when you charge exorbitant prices where the price barely evens out against gas, you make a case for 1 person travel. The minute you talk about road trips and packing 4-5 people into a car, cost goes out the window. HSR is too expensive.

So you train from SF to Anaheim to go to Disneyland. Now what? Just like flying, you will go rent a car because as America is built, you can't get ANYWHERE without a car. So you curbed the traffic on I-5 or SR99. Great job. Did we have major congestion issues there to begin with? Certainly not as bad as Bay Area traffic or LA traffic.

 

[Steeplerot]

HSR is great but uselses without a true metro/subway system or some sort of public transportation system that allows people to move around easily.

What you're essentially doing is competing against planes ... Southwest and Virgin America, etc. Maybe cars. The auto is what you STILL need to get to your train station.

And when you charge exorbitant prices where the price barely evens out against gas, you make a case for 1 person travel. The minute you talk about road trips and packing 4-5 people into a car, cost goes out the window. HSR is too expensive.

So you train from SF to Anaheim to go to Disneyland. Now what? Just like flying, you will go rent a car because as America is built, you can't get ANYWHERE without a car. So you curbed the traffic on I-5 or SR99. Great job. Did we have major congestion issues there to begin with? Certainly not as bad as Bay Area traffic or LA traffic.

The subway is the key to urban public transit, and long distance high speed rail working and replacing autos.

Driving is much slower and a lot more hassle then taking a subway and bypassing lights/surface activity.

Plenty who have local transit infrastructure in their community never have had a license in their lives. Nor needed one.

But then redeveloping the archaic 1950s era auto-centric suburban USA is a huge infrastructure job, but will have to be done sooner or later.

It would be a great time to upgrade our water infrastructure also, which is dated from early-mid 20th century and crumbling.

And of course stimulating the economy and all that boring stuff.

 

[juiio]

PLEASE cut us off China. PLEASE.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/70...ly-seeking-very-indiscriminate-treasury-buyer

 

[Ozoned]

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=7351798&page=1

Holly shit. Ya know I was pretty close to agreeing with this guy... But damn. Don't we need to fix the economy and do some other stuff before going off on a spending spree of tax payers money for a new train set?

Sheeesh.... Am I the only one that thinks the money could be better spent? Oh well... What's next I wonder?

There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else, beyond our borders," President Obama said today in laying out the new transportation plans. "Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already over-burdened aviation system, and everybody stands to benefit."

I guess I'm not "all aboard" with this plan. Ought to be an interesting 4 years.

I think that High speed rail would serve the east very well. Also California.

What would Nebraska get for the investment of these tax Dollars?

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't mind if they spend the $8 billion in the stimulus bill for this, but I am opposed to any more spending on it besides what is pre-committed by way of the existing stimulus bill. We cannot afford additional expenditures right now, no matter how small. If he wants to pay for the extra $5 billion with spending cuts or taxes, I suppose that is OK. But really, I'd prefer that any new taxes or spending cuts go to deficit reduction. High speed rail is a decent idea. Maybe we can revisit it in 10 years after the budget is balanced, or never, if it never gets balanced.

- wolf

 

[Genx87]

You're right, government spending stimulates OUR economy MORE than consumer spending.

Ever heard of the broken glass fallacy?

 

[sportage]

Europe benefits from their train system because their road system sucks. Most of those cities, nay the whole continent was colonized and cities built before the advent of the car.

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.

Still living in the stone ages?
People would use mass transit if it were mass transit.
Example? Minn rail system between mega mall and downtown.
Ultra modern, all electric, efficient.
And... the people LOVe it!
So much so that MN is expanding the system as we type.
A proven winner.

This country has to start thinking "clean" mass transit, and NOT one car one person.
We can never maintain the costs of repairing roads, let along our dependency on foreign oil.
You will need to figure in the billions in costs of fighting wars to protect our oil interest if your cost formula is to be realistic.
Remember... we are talking billions, and American lives, in that cost !!!

Everyone else gets it... Now American's needs to "get with it".
So many goals could be achieved. Reducing air pollution, oil dependency, reduced infrastructure maintenance cost.

Lets grow up and get with the program for a change, and stop hanging ourselves with the rope of stupidly.

 

[ebaycj]

Europe benefits from their train system because their road system sucks. Most of those cities, nay the whole continent was colonized and cities built before the advent of the car.

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 you will.

It costs significantly less to ship anything by train than it does by truck (economies of scale). It also uses significantly less fuel (foreign oil, etc). Since 99.9% of goods are shipped in some way or form, reducing the cost of that shipping provides a cost benefit for the consumer on almost all goods.

 

[ebaycj]

Still living in the stone ages?
People would use mass transit if it were mass transit.
Example? Minn rail system between mega mall and downtown.
Ultra modern, all electric, efficient.
And... the people LOVe it!
So much so that MN is expanding the system as we type.
A proven winner.

This country has to start thinking "clean" mass transit, and NOT one car one person.
We can never maintain the costs of repairing roads, let along our dependency on foreign oil.
You will need to figure in the billions in costs of fighting wars to protect our oil interest if your cost formula is to be realistic.
Remember... we are talking billions, and American lives, in that cost !!!

Everyone else gets it... Now American's needs to "get with it".
So many goals could be achieved. Reducing air pollution, oil dependency, reduced infrastructure maintenance cost.

Lets grow up and get with the program for a change, and stop hanging ourselves with the rope of stupidly.

Chicago suburbs <--> City also has a really good train system. I live 45-50 miles from chicago. I can get to my train station in 3 minutes from my house. I can take a 40 minute long express train (3 stops, then express to city, runs every 20 minutes during rush hours) and be in the loop in 50 minutes. The only thing preventing this from working better is the speed on the rails. I would love it if we could get that train up to 150mph, instead of the ~60-70 that it goes right now.

Driving to the same destination takes the same amount of time at 3am (no traffic to speak of on the highway), or about 80-90 minutes with any kind of traffic on the highways (rush hour).

 

[Bateluer]

Ever heard of the broken glass fallacy?

I have now, very interesting read.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Yes you will.

It costs significantly less to ship anything by train than it does by truck (economies of scale). It also uses significantly less fuel (foreign oil, etc). Since 99.9% of goods are shipped in some way or form, reducing the cost of that shipping provides a cost benefit for the consumer on almost all goods.

Yup.

I didn't (and still don't) understand the fixation with the passenger aspect of HSR in this thread. 'Commerce' is by far the big winner with HSR in efficiency and productive use.

Let them whine, complain and be left behind when commercial freight moves up and down the eastern seaboard in less than a day; from 'port-to-market,' or 'manufacturer-to-manufacturer' or 'manufacturer-to-port'.

One would think the protesters in this thread could grasp the 'just-in-time' aspect of the free market these days.

That's alright, though, we'll take all the jobs that come with the HSR infrastructure.





--

 

[ElFenix]

I think that High speed rail would serve the east very well. Also California.

What would Nebraska get for the investment of these tax Dollars?

obviously the manufacturing plant would have to be located there. and new orleans would have to be the trans-shipment point for any materials brought in from outside the US.

Yup.

I didn't (and still don't) understand the fixation with the passenger aspect of HSR in this thread. 'Commerce' is by far the big winner with HSR in efficiency and productive use.

--

i think for the most part freight would be better served by better north-south trunk lines than an HSR system.

 

[Steeplerot]

Modern passenger rail, banking a turn at 270 mph and owning the hell out of the cars traveling alongside the train. Silky smooth ride.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-54gBLwK3s

 

[soccerballtux]

Yup.

I didn't (and still don't) understand the fixation with the passenger aspect of HSR in this thread. 'Commerce' is by far the big winner with HSR in efficiency and productive use.

Let them whine, complain and be left behind when commercial freight moves up and down the eastern seaboard in less than a day; from 'port-to-market,' or 'manufacturer-to-manufacturer' or 'manufacturer-to-port'.

One would think the protesters in this thread could grasp the 'just-in-time' aspect of the free market these days.

That's alright, though, we'll take all the jobs that come with the HSR infrastructure.





--

Our freight lines are already fine?
The high speed rail was initially planned as a "train to nowhere" between Detroit (lol) and Chicago. There was never any talk of "commerce" or manufacturer shipping, but it's nice how now that it failed everyone's trying to redefine it and so "oh no no no it was for commerce not passengers to ride".

California has been subjected to the economic whims of the crazy government-supporting spend happy types that think we just need more more more stimulus.

We have reached the point of no return on the declining usefulness of debt.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Modern passenger rail, banking a turn at 270 mph and owning the hell out of the cars traveling alongside the train. Silky smooth ride.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-54gBLwK3s

And planes go twice as fast as that, don't require tracks, and have the ability to go to almost every major city in the world!

But seriously. That is kind of cool, but how is that even remotely applicable to applications in the United States? The U.S. is not Shanghai.

 

[ElFenix]

And planes go twice as fast as that, don't require tracks, and have the ability to go to almost every major city in the world!

But seriously. That is kind of cool, but how is that even remotely applicable to applications in the United States? The U.S. is not Shanghai.

HSR is going to have to happen in the northeast. there simply isn't enough space for more airplanes. congestion around new york is ridiculous and only getting worse.

 

[Modelworks]

I don't think HSR is the answer. Instead fix the tracks we already have and re-open some of the closed stations that are already in place. Where I live I am within 500ft of train tracks. Here it is only used for freight.

The station for passengers has been closed for about 15 years. The tracks connect about 125 miles of small towns to two large cities, all with their own stations. These stations closed because people moved to live closer to where the jobs were, lately though with lack of jobs we have been seeing a lot more people moving into the area. They come here because it is cheaper to live. The downside is the drive to work is about 35 miles each way. Trains could help these people and it doesn't have to be high speed. Cost could be much cheaper than any other form of transportation if it is done smart. Mix and match freight with passengers and it could be very profitable.

For freight there is no cheaper way to move large amounts from one destination to another. The train here runs twice a day, an average of 30-40 cars loaded down with grain . That engines consumes about 1 gallon per mile. To run its route of 48 miles it uses 48 gallons of diesel @ $2.80 /gal = $134 fuel to move around 8,000 tons of cargo 48 miles, no other method can come close.

Traveling long distance by train for me was a lot more enjoyable than any plane trip. I had plenty of leg room, could get up and walk around, go to my room to sleep, look at all the scenery, and it made the trip fun , not something that I had to endure. To run a train from FLA to CA over 3 days uses about 10K Gallons of fuel so the cost to run the train the distance is $30K and could provide service to 10K+ people along the way.

There is no reason rail cannot be profitable, the problem has always been poor management. I doubt this is something the government can improve .

 

[Fear No Evil]

HSR is going to have to happen in the northeast. there simply isn't enough space for more airplanes. congestion around new york is ridiculous and only getting worse.

So why is Obama wasting time, money, and resources pushing for it in places like Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin?

 

[Fear No Evil]

The station for passengers has been closed for about 15 years. The tracks connect about 125 miles of small towns to two large cities, all with their own stations. These stations closed because people moved to live closer to where the jobs were, lately though with lack of jobs we have been seeing a lot more people moving into the area. They come here because it is cheaper to live. The downside is the drive to work is about 35 miles each way. Trains could help these people and it doesn't have to be high speed. Cost could be much cheaper than any other form of transportation if it is done smart. Mix and match freight with passengers and it could be very profitable.

Think about what you are saying. You are suggesting a massive infrastructure layout to connect SMALL TOWNS to large cities. Thats a complete waste of money. How did these people get from the large city to the small towns? Cars. What makes you think that since 15 years ago people didn't want to use the trains to get to the city that they are going to now? The train wasn't convenient or profitable then, why would it be now?

Mix freight and passengers? How would that work? You'd have passenger cars on freight trains that would load and unload people on their wya across the country? Have you ever seen a massive freight train accelrate? It takes forever. It would take 4 weeks to get across the country. And it doesn't make sense to mix freight and passenger on short distances because short distance freight doesn't use trains.

For freight there is no cheaper way to move large amounts from one destination to another. The train here runs twice a day, an average of 30-40 cars loaded down with grain . That engines consumes about 1 gallon per mile. To run its route of 48 miles it uses 48 gallons of diesel @ $2.80 /gal = $134 fuel to move around 8,000 tons of cargo 48 miles, no other method can come close.

Hopefully that twice a day is 7am and 5pm so people can go to and come back from work. Nevermind is provides absolute NO way for the people on the train to get from home to the train or the train to work. So you will still need cars/buses/taxis to do that. I also wonder how long it takes for it to go that 48 miles? My guess is probably about 1.5 to 2 hours. Who would want to sit on that waiting to get home when there car would take 45 minutes and get them door to door? How much is an hour+ of your time worth?

Traveling long distance by train for me was a lot more enjoyable than any plane trip. I had plenty of leg room, could get up and walk around, go to my room to sleep, look at all the scenery, and it made the trip fun , not something that I had to endure. To run a train from FLA to CA over 3 days uses about 10K Gallons of fuel so the cost to run the train the distance is $30K and could provide service to 10K+ people along the way.

Unless you are assuming that 10,000 people get on the train in FL, and get off in CA, your 3 day trip would become 5 if they stopped at every major city in between to load and unload passengers. And how many people would be willing to take a 5 day trip rather than a 4-5 hour flight? You'd have to spend 2 weeks of vacation just on the train trip alone, and never get to spend any time in CA.

There is no reason rail cannot be profitable, the problem has always been poor management. I doubt this is something the government can improve .

The 'poor management' has been there are simply not enough people who would use rail in most of the United States for it to be profitable.

 

[alphatarget1]

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.

Right of way acquisition is expensive...