what the heck is it with Dems and high speed trains?

[Brigandier]

So how many stops would there be? Are we talking about a few per large city? It sounds like exactly what our airline system already does. If it's supposed to replace road trips, there will have to be several stops so that people could get close to their destinations.

Listen, I'm all for more efficiency. I'm just not convinced that a nationwide rail system would be any more efficient than the system we're using, and I haven't seen anything (not that I've really been digging) that provides any assurance that it would be. I just hear, "Well, it works in Europe".

High-speed rail connecting the cities. At the connection point medium speed rails provide service in other directions. Stations along the secondary rail care connected by buses or whatever lazy people need to go the last mile, mile and a half.

 

[Chaotic42]

High-speed rail connecting the cities. At the connection point medium speed rails provide service in other directions. Stations along the secondary rail care connected by buses or whatever lazy people need to go the last mile, mile and a half.

So are you talking about running these rails in all 48 continental states? Would we build a rail system to Boise, ID or would we just stick to the major interstate routes? Would we put them where they would be sustainable on their own, or would we try to connect most people so that they can feel like they didn't pay for "everyone else" to get trains with their tax dollars?

 

[alphatarget1]

Listen, I'm all for more efficiency. I'm just not convinced that a nationwide rail system would be any more efficient than the system we're using, and I haven't seen anything (not that I've really been digging) that provides any assurance that it would be. I just hear, "Well, it works in Europe".

AFAIK DB (Deutsche Bahn) owns most of the railways in Germany and a lot of tracks are shared between freight. Hell, all of their subway (Ubahn, Sbahn) all have the same symbols and seemingly run by the same entity (not totally true but close). Are we going to nationalize UP, BNSF, CSX and all of the big rail companies to create a national system? haha.

If anything, we need to move more freight on railroads. Put some seed money in it and investors will jump on it because it'll be profitable for sure.

 

[K1052]

I don't have a problem with more roads being tolled. Do you really think that a high speed rail system will do any better or be any cheaper? Why start over when we have a workable option in place?

No, my point was merely to point out that people who criticize worthy rail projects based on operating losses while roads pretty much always operate at a financial loss aren't seeing the whole picture.

The gains are in business activity, mobility, property valuation, and a host of other intangibles. For most of our major cities the prospect of major freeway expansion is deader than dead. Rail is the next best candidate for short to medium distance travel between or within major metro areas.

 

[K1052]

So are you talking about running these rails in all 48 continental states? Would we build a rail system to Boise, ID or would we just stick to the major interstate routes? Would we put them where they would be sustainable on their own, or would we try to connect most people so that they can feel like they didn't pay for "everyone else" to get trains with their tax dollars?

Much of the country doesn't (yet) have the density to support the high initial capital costs that HSR and intermediate rail would require. Major outlays should happen in CA, the Chicago-St. Louis-Indianapolis-Milwaukee-Minneapolis hub system, and the Northeast Corridor. Extending 110mph service to other areas is an acceptable position until those areas grow sufficiently for inclusion in one of those networks. Air travel should still handle the long haul routes where rail isn't economically or practically viable.

 

[Chaotic42]

No, my point was merely to point out that people who criticize worthy rail projects based on operating losses while roads pretty much always operate at a financial loss aren't seeing the whole picture.

The gains are in business activity, mobility, property valuation, and a host of other intangibles. For most of our major cities the prospect of major freeway expansion is deader than dead. Rail is the next best candidate for short to medium distance travel between or within major metro areas.

Well, if we're just talking about intraurban rail in metropolitan areas, I have no problem with that. My issue is nationwide high speed passenger rail.

 

[nonlnear]

If anything, we need to move more freight on railroads. Put some seed money in it and investors will jump on it because it'll be profitable for sure.

Warren Buffett is way ahead of you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Hey asshole, I was only there for 5 months and I didn't want to get a bike. I bike almost every day to school/work now that I'm back in the US.

Good for you, so you do have bikes in the US... I was under the impression that anything further than 100 meters away was unnatainable to reach without driving in the US from what others have said.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So how many stops would there be? Are we talking about a few per large city? It sounds like exactly what our airline system already does. If it's supposed to replace road trips, there will have to be several stops so that people could get close to their destinations.

Listen, I'm all for more efficiency. I'm just not convinced that a nationwide rail system would be any more efficient than the system we're using, and I haven't seen anything (not that I've really been digging) that provides any assurance that it would be. I just hear, "Well, it works in Europe".

No, you get off in smaller locations during that time and ride the intercity from there, or a bus if you're close enough.

The system you are using is nothing at all, anything is more efficiant than that.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well, if we're just talking about intraurban rail in metropolitan areas, I have no problem with that. My issue is nationwide high speed passenger rail.

I was under the impression that HSR would be a regional thing (across the nation) - in regions where population density would warrant it - ie: between major midwest cities, the Northeast, parts of California, etc. Has it ever been suggested that we should build a HSR linkage between SF and NYC? That would be utterly ridiculous.

The big problems that currently exist:
-areas with high population density will have high construction costs. Right of ways cost lots of money in highly developed areas.
-Existing infrastructure on existing right of ways could be used, but need upgrading
-decent mass transit is needed in connected cities - but what comes first? HSR or local mass transit? Chicken and Egg problem.

 

[Chaotic42]

I was under the impression that HSR would be a regional thing (across the nation) - in regions where population density would warrant it - ie: between major midwest cities, the Northeast, parts of California, etc. Has it ever been suggested that we should build a HSR linkage between SF and NYC? That would be utterly ridiculous.

This suggests linking Houston with Montreal. That's crazy.

 

[Brainonska511]

This suggests linking Houston with Montreal. That's crazy.

You think you'd be able to take a train from Houston to Montreal? It looks more like you could connect those major cities and you'd have a few hubs where trains would originate and terminate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol @ people buying the "high speed" BS. True high speed would be fine but this slow amtrak type crap is a joke.

 

[K1052]

This suggests linking Houston with Montreal. That's crazy.

Just corridor designations. It's highly unlikely any HSR construction will take place in the south within the next several decades (with Florida as a maybe).

The real money is going to CA (only project building real 200mph+) and the 110mph Chicago network.

 

[Brainonska511]

lol @ people buying the "high speed" BS. True high speed would be fine but this slow amtrak type crap is a joke.

Absolutely. Things like Acela would be okay if it wasn't limited by the existing infrastructure, but it is no substitute for a true HSR line. Unfortunately, true HSR will cost lots of money up front, which causes people to baulk at the price and time frame that the project would take to complete. A recent proposal to a true HSR line in the Northeast was ~$118 billion dollars (over 25 years - $4.7 billion/year): http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...an-but-it-would-take-30-years-to-be-realized/

 

[K1052]

lol @ people buying the "high speed" BS. True high speed would be fine but this slow amtrak type crap is a joke.

So you'll support the appropriation of the $200B that it would cost to build out the NEC and Chicago Hub systems?

 

[Chaotic42]

You think you'd be able to take a train from Houston to Montreal? It looks more like you could connect those major cities and you'd have a few hubs where trains would originate and terminate.

Well, I live on the gulf coast and the proposed rail line is really weird. NOLA to Mobile? Maybe. NOLA to Meridian is a joke. I just can't see enough people down here using that for it to be anything but a tremendous waste of money, especially when you can fly to and from any of these cities.

 

[bamacre]

I don't know about you all, but when socialists start promoting nationalism, I start to feel a little sick.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well, I live on the gulf coast and the proposed rail line is really weird. NOLA to Mobile? Maybe. NOLA to Meridian is a joke. I just can't see enough people down here using that for it to be anything but a tremendous waste of money, especially when you can fly to and from any of these cities.

That might be true, but those Gulf Coast lines would probably be considered last anyway, since there are currently better places to dump HSR money.

 

[Chaotic42]

That might be true, but those Gulf Coast lines would probably be considered last anyway, since there are currently better places to dump HSR money.

Absolutely. I could maybe see rail from New Orleans to the northshore and out to the airport, but the city is in no position to be taking on projects like that anyway.

 

[Brainonska511]

misread last post. disregard this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So you'll support the appropriation of the $200B that it would cost to build out the NEC and Chicago Hub systems?

No.

 

[theeedude]

We have a lot of unemployed construction labor that could be employed at reasonable wages instead. I would rather it to be used to build high speed rail than sitting idle, but with conditions that it's not used to expand government workforce on a permanent basis, and there is very competitive bidding and oversight to avoid enriching private contractors or labor beyond market prices for their services.

 

[IGBT]

you have to build it first to find out how expensive and maintenance needy it is. Then cry and complain that it's too expensive and costly to run. How many millions of dollars per mile will it cost to build??

 

[K1052]

No.

So your original comment was untrue then.