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

[theeedude]

Right.

Our road system is what sets us apart from lesser nations. No need to take a boat, donkey or penguin to get to where you need to go. We spent a lot of money and still pay A LOT of money for our road system. Are they going to cut our other taxes to pay for this train?

No?

So I get to pay for highways and trains? That's great.

Highways and airports would need to be expanded to keep up with population growth anyways. I would rather add high speed train to the mix than just plow more money into the two forms of transport that are much more dependent on spot oil prices. Since we are devaluing the dollar, oil is going to get much more expensive in dollars.

 

[sandorski]

Highways and airports would need to be expanded to keep up with population growth anyways. I would rather add high speed train to the mix than just plow more money into the two forms of transport that are much more dependent on spot oil prices. Since we are devaluing the dollar, oil is going to get much more expensive in dollars.

Not only that, but Trains give you another Option. For many using a Train will make much more sense from both a Cost and Time perspective. Trains are not there to replace Air or Auto travel, only to offset some of both of those.

 

[Chaotic42]

Highways and airports would need to be expanded to keep up with population growth anyways. I would rather add high speed train to the mix than just plow more money into the two forms of transport that are much more dependent on spot oil prices. Since we are devaluing the dollar, oil is going to get much more expensive in dollars.

Well, you'll also have to worry about power. Will we have enough electricity in the right places for this? How's that commitment to nuclear coming?

 

[Cogman]

An expansive train infrastructure really is a good idea. especially for national goods shipping. It is one of the most efficient methods of shipping.

Trucks have been used because they are the most convenient.

 

[freegeeks]

I don't know in detail the US situation but i can not imagine that there is not a market for a HSR (a real one) linking washington DC, Boston and NYC for example. HSR in Europe has proven that for distances under 1000km, air travel is simply not competitive at all. A train drops you in the middle of the city (the place you need to be). A plane drops you at an airport many miles outside where you need to be. For train travel, you need to show up 15 minutes in advance, try that with air travel. All I know is that HSR has made many more employment opportunities possible. There are plenty of Belgians now that are using the HSR for their daily commute to go to work in Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, something that was totally impossible before. If implemented the right way, HSR beats EVERYTHING under 1000 km, plain and simple. If France and later most Western European countries could build it and make it work, I can not imagine that a country like the USA with all its resources can not make it work.

just my 0,2 eurocents

 

[Schadenfroh]

For train travel, you need to show up 15 minutes in advance, try that with air travel.

It would take less than 15 minutes of processing for a flight as well, if one did not have to deal with security measures with only carry-on luggage.

That being said, I agree that it would make sense for connecting major cities that are not far apart, each with its own intracity mass-transit system where a car is not required.

 

[lothar]

It's expensive but millions upon millions would ride it.

Since you can't tear new freeways through the major population hubs and our air travel network is nearly saturated there really is little choice anymore.

How do you know this?

It's easier to park?

Pay $10 more to go by air instead of wasting an extra 6 hours of your life on a train and you don't have to worry about parking?

 

[JS80]

1) Ridiculously expensive CHECK
2) Economically non-viable CHECK
3) Will cost 5x of initial estimates CHECK
4) Hand out to union labor CHECK
5) Something no one will use CHECK

 

[lothar]

How fast will these "high speed" trains move compared to Acela Express and the Regional Amtrak trains?
Acela Express(currently advertised as "high speed", "fast", etc...) only gets you to your destination 15-20 minutes faster than the regular Regional Amtrak train, but yet you pay a 40-50+% premium in ticket prices.

Like I've said, only the Washington DC and Boston corridor makes sense.
We also have two Florida residents, "Robor"(a liberal) and "Fear No Evil"(a conservative) saying the high speed rail service for the Orlando area doesn't make any sense.

 

[skyking]

It takes me under an hour to get from San Francisco to LA at a cost of $45.

The purposed high speed rail connecting the two cities would take 3 hours and the purposed ticket prices are $100.

So not only does it cost twice the amount of flying but it takes 3x as long.

you must live in the terminal itself. Add in the time you must arrive before the flight to be realistic.

 

[lothar]

I don't know in detail the US situation but i can not imagine that there is not a market for a HSR (a real one) linking washington DC, Boston and NYC for example. HSR in Europe has proven that for distances under 1000km, air travel is simply not competitive at all. A train drops you in the middle of the city (the place you need to be). A plane drops you at an airport many miles outside where you need to be. For train travel, you need to show up 15 minutes in advance, try that with air travel. All I know is that HSR has made many more employment opportunities possible. There are plenty of Belgians now that are using the HSR for their daily commute to go to work in Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, something that was totally impossible before. If implemented the right way, HSR beats EVERYTHING under 1000 km, plain and simple. If France and later most Western European countries could build it and make it work, I can not imagine that a country like the USA with all its resources can not make it work.

just my 0,2 eurocents

1,000km = 621 Miles...
Lol...I fail to see how a high speed rail service would be more effective than a $59 ticket from Southwest.
Baltimore to Indianapolis is 573 miles...

Also, can this high speed rail service permanently pay for itself or will it always be seeking a bailout like Amtrak?
I know the Washington DC Metro system is pretty successful. Amtrak however is not.

 

[lothar]

An expansive train infrastructure really is a good idea. especially for national goods shipping. It is one of the most efficient methods of shipping.

Trucks have been used because they are the most convenient.

What you stated is a fact, especially for the shipping of goods.

My only concern is we go binge drinking on the high speed rail system and nobody uses it or it's not more cost effective than buying a $59 ticket from Southwest.

 

[DrPizza]

Cogman made the point about shipping goods. Freegeeks made the point about center of city to center of city in Europe & increased convenience over air travel for a certain range of distances.

I'm not reading the other 185 posts in this thread, but has anyone pointed out/realized that one of the best investments by federal government when the economy is down is in infrastructure? 1: goods are cheaper. 2: provides jobs. 3: we're better off in the future because of it.

We can invest in infrastructure now while prices are down, or we can twiddle our thumbs & wait until prices are up. And, while the comment is an entirely different thread, ditto alternative energy sources (wind & solar) - invest now.

 

[Cogman]

Cogman made the point about shipping goods. Freegeeks made the point about center of city to center of city in Europe & increased convenience over air travel for a certain range of distances.

I'm not reading the other 185 posts in this thread, but has anyone pointed out/realized that one of the best investments by federal government when the economy is down is in infrastructure? 1: goods are cheaper. 2: provides jobs. 3: we're better off in the future because of it.

We can invest in infrastructure now while prices are down, or we can twiddle our thumbs & wait until prices are up. And, while the comment is an entirely different thread, ditto alternative energy sources (wind & solar) - invest now.

Trains are a particularly good investment. We used to have a pretty good train infrastructure, but it decayed when people took the "Trucks are much more convenient and fuel is cheap" attitude.

I don't know that they would take off for public transport, but for goods? I don't understand why we haven't been using trains. (well I do.. but still it is high time we brought them back).

As for alternative fuels.. I'm still not convinced that solar/wind are where we should dump our money. IMO nuclear makes the best sense out of any alternative fuel.

 

[JS80]

Cogman made the point about shipping goods. Freegeeks made the point about center of city to center of city in Europe & increased convenience over air travel for a certain range of distances.

I'm not reading the other 185 posts in this thread, but has anyone pointed out/realized that one of the best investments by federal government when the economy is down is in infrastructure? 1: goods are cheaper. 2: provides jobs. 3: we're better off in the future because of it.

We can invest in infrastructure now while prices are down, or we can twiddle our thumbs & wait until prices are up. And, while the comment is an entirely different thread, ditto alternative energy sources (wind & solar) - invest now.

1. Just because it's "cheaper" compared to pricing during boom times won't make it cheap. In fact, they may not pay discounted prices - government is known to having strict guidelines on using union labor and other outrageous idiocies, plus overruns that fatten the pockets of union labor and the lottery winners that get the project.

2. Does not provide sustainable jobs.

3. We will not be better off because of a HSR. It will be a black hole of a money suck and bring no value to the US infrastructure.

 

[Hacp]

Cogman made the point about shipping goods. Freegeeks made the point about center of city to center of city in Europe & increased convenience over air travel for a certain range of distances.

I'm not reading the other 185 posts in this thread, but has anyone pointed out/realized that one of the best investments by federal government when the economy is down is in infrastructure? 1: goods are cheaper. 2: provides jobs. 3: we're better off in the future because of it.

We can invest in infrastructure now while prices are down, or we can twiddle our thumbs & wait until prices are up. And, while the comment is an entirely different thread, ditto alternative energy sources (wind & solar) - invest now.

Its cheaper only if you don't hire Union labor.

 

[K1052]

How do you know this?


Pay $10 more to go by air instead of wasting an extra 6 hours of your life on a train and you don't have to worry about parking?

Even with most of it's circa 1860 service Amtrak has 28 million in ridership per year. Now imagine that dense places of population suddenly had a means of travel that is substantially faster time wise than taking a plane or car. Huge ridership.

 

[K1052]

I regularly drive from Tampa to Orlando, one of the suggested HSR routes that people want built. Its quite an easy drive.. Sure, sometimes traffic gets busy but its usually running at 75-80 mph. Why exactly do we need to spend billions to put a train in? 80% of that route runs through rural areas that could EASILY be expanded to about 16 lanes in each direction if needed.

Everything in Orlando and Tampa is so spread out that you need a car once you get to either place anyway.

Trains are stupid and a waste of money (That we DON'T HAVE) for most implementations being discussed. Its nothing but another liberal wet dream thats going to put us in even more debt.

If you read my posts you'd see that I don't want the Orlando-Tampa line built. The funds should be used on other areas that can support the system at ridership levels that make it more economical and practical. The NEC, Chicago Hub system, and the San Diego to San Francisco line in CA. This is where the people are and where the money should be spent.

 

[K1052]

1,000km = 621 Miles...
Lol...I fail to see how a high speed rail service would be more effective than a $59 ticket from Southwest.
Baltimore to Indianapolis is 573 miles...

Also, can this high speed rail service permanently pay for itself or will it always be seeking a bailout like Amtrak?
I know the Washington DC Metro system is pretty successful. Amtrak however is not.

If you end the road bailouts I'll be more than happy to end the rail subsides.

 

[lothar]

If you end the road bailouts I'll be more than happy to end the rail subsides.

If you end the gasoline tax and toll roads, I'll be more than happy to end the road bailouts.

 

[K1052]

If you end the gasoline tax and toll roads, I'll be more than happy to end the road bailouts.

Sounds good, we don't even really need roads anyway...they're a huge drain on the economy.

 

[WackyDan]

And at least 3 times more than the recent Amtrak proposal to build a true HSR line in the Northeast ($117.5 billion over 25 years). Maglev is nice, but it isn't really needed.

Maglev was only an example, not the request.

 

[werepossum]

With trucks you have competition. With rail we'll have unionized federal employees who move at the speed of turtle evolution and make $75K base, $300K with overtime and benefits and child care and college tuition grants and . . .

Personally I like trains, but I have faith that government's touch will turn them to shit. Shit with a urine smell and sullen employees.

 

[Chaotic42]

With trucks you have competition. With rail we'll have unionized federal employees who move at the speed of turtle evolution and make $75K base, $300K with overtime and benefits and child care and college tuition grants and . . .

Personally I like trains, but I have faith that government's touch will turn them to shit. Shit with a urine smell and sullen employees.

I think that the only way we can even begin to solve our problems in the US is for people to understand:

-Not everyone is equal in the marketplace
-Not everyone deserves high pay
-Some people are failures
-Most people must work to earn and keep their lifestyles
-A strong work ethic, honesty, and character are vital traits
-Nothing is really free
-"Stuff" is not what's important in life
-Hard work should be rewarded; laziness should be punished
-Corruption should not be tolerated at any level and is a cancer on society

I think that if people start realizing these things, we'll be able to be competative again. Until then any large undertakings will be devestatingly inefficient to say the least.

 

[jihe]

It takes me under an hour to get from San Francisco to LA at a cost of $45.

The purposed high speed rail connecting the two cities would take 3 hours and the purposed ticket prices are $100.

So not only does it cost twice the amount of flying but it takes 3x as long.

Are you sure? Getting out of LAX alone takes more than an hour.