Obama Lays Out Plans for High-Speed Train Travel

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

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:

I guess you forgot about magnetic and electric trains :roll:.

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

electricity is much more stable than the price of gas

 

[OCGuy]

Is this Obama's star-wars project?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Is this Obama's star-wars project?

Thanks for asking. No this isn't anything like the Star-Wars project.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

this 'the us is so huge' argument is really dumb, and you fools use it for everything.

most people in the US live in 3-4 pretty concentrated areas, an huge portions of the us are nearly completely empty, such as alaska, the western great plains, or the southwest desert. east of the mississippi the US is about as heavily populated as europe.

edit: after looking at some figures most of the midwestern states have population densities equal to or greater than france.

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

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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

Individualist as in like to have the mobility of our own vehicle(atleast outside mega metropolis areas where having vehicles is more of a burden than a mobility device). Also, I didn't claim it was a reason to not build it - It's a reason why it will likely not be remotely profitable.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

this 'the us is so huge' argument is really dumb, and you fools use it for everything.

most people in the US live in 3-4 pretty concentrated areas, an huge portions of the us are nearly completely empty, such as alaska, the western great plains, or the southwest desert. east of the mississippi the US is about as heavily populated as europe.

edit: after looking at some figures most of the midwestern states have population densities equal to or greater than france.

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

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

I'm not arguing against having mass transportation in heavily populated areas like the Northeast. Hell, Amtrak probably makes money there.

I'm not at all convinced that dumping money into rail is the best way to go given the land usage/planning in the US. Some places would work, and some won't. I don't trust that our government will make the right decisions when it comes down to spending money or running things because it's run by politicians who are only working for their own interests. Let me ask you this: are any of these interstates congested between the proposed cities? Congestion wastes the most gas while getting people nowhere. Plus you'll need good supporting infrastructure in the cities. What do you do after you get there? People won't like it if you have to, say, rent a car because most intra-city transportation systems are bad.

Urban transportation planning is not simple, and regional/national planning is even harder. To think that a bunch of liberals who have no engineering/planning background and think that trains with no passengers would be more efficient than cars for intercity travel is idiotic.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

this 'the us is so huge' argument is really dumb, and you fools use it for everything.

most people in the US live in 3-4 pretty concentrated areas, an huge portions of the us are nearly completely empty, such as alaska, the western great plains, or the southwest desert. east of the mississippi the US is about as heavily populated as europe.

edit: after looking at some figures most of the midwestern states have population densities equal to or greater than france.

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

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

I'm not arguing against having mass transportation in heavily populated areas like the Northeast. Hell, Amtrak probably makes money there.

I'm not at all convinced that dumping money into rail is the best way to go given the land usage/planning in the US. Some places would work, and some won't. I don't trust that our government will make the right decisions when it comes down to spending money or running things because it's run by politicians who are only working for their own interests. Let me ask you this: are any of these interstates congested between the proposed cities? Congestion wastes the most gas while getting people nowhere. Plus you'll need good supporting infrastructure in the cities. What do you do after you get there? People won't like it if you have to, say, rent a car because most intra-city transportation systems are bad.

Urban transportation planning is not simple, and regional/national planning is even harder. To think that a bunch of liberals who have no engineering/planning background and think that trains with no passengers would be more efficient than cars for intercity travel is idiotic.

Congestion wastes time yes, so why don't we give LA a real subway system before we worry about connecting SF and LA because I-5 isn't a parking lot in the central valley. They claim ridership of what several hundred thousand a year? Come on, we've got several millions that sit in LA's parking lots (I-5, US101, I-405, I-10... etc).

Just multiply hours and you will know:
- 1 million riders on HSR can save what 30 minutes? 1 hour? versus air travel? (honestly it's not that much because its a 1hr flight vs 2.5 hr train travel, but let's let the fools claim that security and parking and driving to the airport can waste another hour, so let's give train a 1 hr advantage over planes), that's 1 hr * 1 million people.
- How many people drive LA's freeways everyday or take alternate routes? How many hours do we waste each day because we are not Jack Bauer and we can't hop across LA in 20 minutes? I'm guessing something like 3 million people waste a good 30 minutes EACH DAY TIMES 365 days a year sitting in LA's pathetic freeway system.

Now if you want to talk about wasting gas and wasting hours, CONGESTION tops it all. To say that spending $40 billion to help a small group of people sit on a train instead of picking a $49 Southwest flight is absolutely ABSURD.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
*snip*

I hate LA and Southwest Airlines . Since land is so expensive in CA and the CA government has no money, they can't really build more roads without acquiring a lot of land. I think a way to do it is to charge people $$$ to go into the city and start heavily subsidizing public transit (like London), but SoCal people will probably go ape-sh!t if they did that.

If done right, buses (BRT, bus rapid transit) can be very efficient also. You can have intelligent systems that controls traffic signals for buses and stuff. Rail is just a huge investment. A lot of places (like NYC) invested gazillion years ago on a rail system that works. Now it's very expensive and there has to be better solutions for intra-city travel than just to build new subways.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: DLeRium
*snip*

I hate LA and Southwest Airlines . Since land is so expensive in CA and the CA government has no money, they can't really build more roads without acquiring a lot of land. I think a way to do it is to charge people $$$ to go into the city and start heavily subsidizing public transit (like London), but SoCal people will probably go ape-sh!t if they did that.

If done right, buses (BRT, bus rapid transit) can be very efficient also. You can have intelligent systems that controls traffic signals for buses and stuff. Rail is just a huge investment. A lot of places (like NYC) invested gazillion years ago on a rail system that works. Now it's very expensive and there has to be better solutions for intra-city travel than just to build new subways.

We have sewers, not a real rail system.

 

[Mani]

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.

Nice post.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Hacp

We have sewers, not a real rail system.

Just poorly maintained...

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy
Is this Obama's star-wars project?

Thanks for asking. No this isn't anything like the Star-Wars project.

You're right. Star Wars had a better chance of succeeding at a lower cost. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Andrew1990]

I'm against Obama usually, but this is something I can get behind on. If the economy is in the crapper, might as well come out of it with something to be proud of. This country does need to build up its mass transit system.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
I'm against Obama usually, but this is something I can get behind on. If the economy is in the crapper, might as well come out of it with something to be proud of. This country does need to build up its mass transit system.

Why?

 

[theeedude]

If we had it the conservatives' way, we'd still be waiting for the private sector to build us a highway system.
Also, the whole we don't want to pay for California's rail system doesn't wash with me since California is a net donor of tax funds, so it could get money for high speed rail and still only be getting 80 cents on the dollar back from the Feds.

 

[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.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy
Is this Obama's star-wars project?

Thanks for asking. No this isn't anything like the Star-Wars project.

You're right. Star Wars had a better chance of succeeding at a lower cost. Thanks for pointing that out.

Depends on how you define success here. I am willing to bet a national high-speed rail system would see much more use than our missile defense system ever will.
Lower cost? Reagan's dream missile defense would have cost hundreds of billions, in the late 80s-early 90s. Our missile defense system today gets something like a $9-10B/year budget.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not anti-MDA. It's just hard to argue that the investment in a system designed to defend against the very remote possiblity some rogue country tries to nuc us will ever see a greater return than a rail system.

 

[rchiu]

This is just another example that Obama is all flash and no substance.

I am all for spending our tax dollar on infrastructure, especially in this difficult economy. But what's the priority? Is high speed train more important than, let's say the electricity grid that failed few of years ago, or maybe American already forgotten about the twin city bridge that collapsed and the overall pathetic state of the American road/bridge system. I mean even the traffic in major city like LA/SF/Chicago/New York needs more attention than the high speed train.

But no, high speed train is cool, it's a nice topic to talk about, so that's where the money goes.

 

[MBrown]

I don't understand the arguments against HSR here. If I had access to HSR I would use it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

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.

But a majority of voters voted for Obama, and that majority agrees with Obama's plan for infrastructure spending.

If Obama gets re-elected in 2012, that means a majority of the voters agreed with his decisions in office.

You cant be this stupid can you? Did Obama run on a train platform? Did he hold many public speeches about the great train system he wants to erect?

What you are essentially saying is Obama has the right to do anything he wants because the majority voted for him regardless of reality. That is completely absurd and simple minded.

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

What a deal.

i wonder how much the roads cost

I'd bet a lot less when you consider the amount of people who use them and how many times.

 

[Genx87]

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.

In what way? Airport construction that happened 50 years ago? You do realize airlines pay a landing fee per plane and pay for gate rights and routes? These generate billions a year across the country that should be used to maintain and expand existing airport infrastructure. If they arent, then the fee's need to be raised.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I like the idea of HSR...Spain has had a great deal of success in this arena...I don't trust our government to build it or manage it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

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.

But a majority of voters voted for Obama, and that majority agrees with Obama's plan for infrastructure spending.

If Obama gets re-elected in 2012, that means a majority of the voters agreed with his decisions in office.

But a majority of voters aren't willing to pay for Obama's plan, so he, like his predecessor, is just pushing the cost off to future generations. Regardless, a majority of travelers aren't using rail, which accounts for a small faction of intercity passenger miles.

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.