Why don't we have High Speed Trains?

[nCred]

Are those the electric trains being powered by a coal powerplant?

Yeah, the environmental friendliness depends on how the electricty is generated.

I found this: link

The finding also underlined that electric trains and cars can contribute to emissions if the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. Passengers on the Boston light rail, an electric commuter train, were found to emit as much or marginally more than those on mid-size and large aircraft. This is in part because 82 per cent of electricity in Massachusetts is generated by burning fossil fuels.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The problem I have, particularly in Florida, is what do you do once you get to your destination. They are proposing a Tampa to Orlando, Orlando to Miami train. Ok.. how many people have been to Orlando or Tampa? NO subway system. Attactions/Businesses spread out over massive areas. You would need a car once you got there. So whats the point? I haven't spent much time in Miami but have driven through it several times, its also very spread out but at least does have some sort of rail service... assuming you want to go to the downtown area.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/10/news/economy/high_speed_rail/index.htm

The elephant on the tracks
But when measuring Acela's profit, one has to take a new look at the old adage -- it takes money to make money.

"It is a fact that no nationwide passenger rail system anywhere in the world is considered profitable when all costs -- including capital -- are accounted for," wrote Cole, in an e-mail to CNNMoney.com. "Like all national rail systems worldwide, Amtrak requires annual funding to support both its capital and operational needs."

High-speed rail backers, including the White House, look overseas for success stories. But Amtrak released a study in April to demonstrate that Europe's system is heavily subsidized. Germany's high-speed rail network, the most expensive in Europe, required average annual subsidies of $11.6 billion during the 10-year span that ended in 2006, according to the Amtrak study.

Japan's system is often cited as the most financially successful high-speed rail in the world, according to Ron Utt, but "that's because in the 1980s they wrote down all the debt to zero," he noted. "We're talking about several hundred billion dollars in debt."

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/07/22/the-fatal-flaw-of-florida-high-speed-rail/

Looks like the proposed FL trains would be oriented towards tourism...

 

[darkxshade]

planes > trains

Train on treadmill > plane on treadmill

 

[ichy]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/10/news/economy/high_speed_rail/index.htm

How many tax dollars go toward air traffic control, airport construction, airline related security, etc etc etc?

 

[TheSlamma]

I'd rather be on the ground then in a tin can 20,000 feet in the air

My grandmother worked for Rio Grande, my mother worked for Rio, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific and my second stepdad worked for Amtrash. I heard plenty of stories of derailments, things on the tracks that they hit, bridges being washed out cars racing the train and crazy passengers. So don't try the safe card trans vs planes here sonny.

 

[LTC8K6]

How many tax dollars go toward air traffic control, airport construction, airline related security, etc etc etc?

So we should subsidize trains at a loss too?

Yeah, that's a good argument...

Don't forget that the airline industry was gov't regulated for a long time and it got it's start carrying the mail, a very necessary thing...

 

[TheSlamma]

Train on treadmill > plane on treadmill

Planes handle treadmills just fine

 

[ichy]

So we should subsidize trains at a loss too?

Yeah, that's a good argument...

I'm saying that I don't think that government spending on infrastructure, whether that's highways, rail lines or airports, is necessarily a bad thing. Visit any country with a good rail system and I think that the vast majority of people would tell you that it was money well spent.

 

[Future Guy]

Oh, it also happens to make a nice target for terrorists.

And planes are not targets? Have you forgotten the recent incident at Christmas? How about 9/11? Turning a plane into a missile and being capable of striking anywhere seems more of a threat than a train, which can only go where the tracks go.

 

[mmntech]

Probably been mentioned but the US already does have one highspeed line. The Accela Express goes from Boston-New York-Washington DC.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245664867/1237405732511

They've been mulling over the idea in Ontario for some time now. Plans are to build it on the Windsor-Montreal Corridor. Canadian governments are particularly notorious for ignoring badly needed infrastructure improvements though. Take a look at some of our roads! We've heard every excuse in the book as to why it would be infeasible to build high speed trains. Cost obviously being a big one. Even if it was approved, it would be at minimum a decade before it was completed.

My next trip to the US on mass transit will definitely be by train though. They've made flying such painfully frustrating and degrading experience so why would anybody in their right mind voluntarily do it?

 

[skyking]

I'll be sending that link above to my wife. That route pretty much passes by all our friends in the north east, very cool.

 

[Hacp]

Probably been mentioned but the US already does have one highspeed line. The Accela Express goes from Boston-New York-Washington DC.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245664867/1237405732511

They've been mulling over the idea in Ontario for some time now. Plans are to build it on the Windsor-Montreal Corridor. Canadian governments are particularly notorious for ignoring badly needed infrastructure improvements though. Take a look at some of our roads! We've heard every excuse in the book as to why it would be infeasible to build high speed trains. Cost obviously being a big one. Even if it was approved, it would be at minimum a decade before it was completed.

My next trip to the US on mass transit will definitely be by train though. They've made flying such painfully frustrating and degrading experience so why would anybody in their right mind voluntarily do it?

I already know about the AMtrak "high speed rail". It is not high speed. Isn't the average speed 70mph?

 

[ElFenix]

the main reason is that all our rail networks didn't get blown up in WWII. look at the countries that have actual high speed train service. all their crap got blown up. when all our rails get blown up, we can straighten them out and have high speed service.

I love trains. I love Germany's rail network, but even in that country it is becoming the most expensive way to travel long distances.

germany is roughly half the size of texas. there's no such thing as a long distance within germany. driving from altenkirchen on the baltic sea coast all the way to the border next to basel is about 705 miles. i'm sitting in houston over 100 miles from louisiana and it's over 740 miles to el paso.

And planes are not targets? Have you forgotten the recent incident at Christmas? How about 9/11? Turning a plane into a missile and being capable of striking anywhere seems more of a threat than a train, which can only go where the tracks go.

i don't think anyone is saying planes aren't targets. for some reason people don't think trains wouldn't be targets or there wouldn't be intrusive security. eurostar trains are a quarter mile long and carry 750 passengers. that's a big target.

 

[Triumph]

Yeah, because population centers never shift, and the track would never need to be upgraded to handle more capacity, right :awe:

Um...when was the last time an airplane landed near the mall instead of at the established, major airport that was build 30 years ago and has never moved? What kind of course changes are you talking about? Landing in Des Moines instead of Saint Louis because a snow storm blocked out the whole city?

 

[ichy]

My next trip to the US on mass transit will definitely be by train though. They've made flying such painfully frustrating and degrading experience so why would anybody in their right mind voluntarily do it?

Al-Qaeda is probably Amtrak's greatest friend, as awful as that sounds.

 

[FoBoT]

Area United States
9,826,675 km2
3,794,101 sq mi


you people in the 5 largest cities can have your high speed trains, the rest of us need those darn flying cars they have been promising for years

 

[ichy]

the main reason is that all our rail networks didn't get blown up in WWII. look at the countries that have actual high speed train service. all their crap got blown up. when all our rails get blown up, we can straighten them out and have high speed service.

Not really. France only started building the high speed lines for the TGV in the 1970s, and I think Germany started their high speed network in the 80s. You're right about size though, a lot of the US is simply too large and not densely populated enough for high speed trains to make sense. That being said, just because it won't work every doesn't mean it isn't a great idea in a few areas.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think it would be cool if they had a huge network of high speed trains, assuming it would be affordable compared to planes, and less hassle.

 

[Hey Zeus]

21 hours from NY to LA? lol, yeah that will get a lot of ridership, when a plane will get you there in 3.5 hours.
.

Has the Concord come back into service? Try almost 8 hours from NYC to LAX. Time difference doesn't mean shit. You're still stuck on that plane for nearly 8 hours.

 

[K1052]

Not really. France only started building the high speed lines for the TGV in the 1970s, and I think Germany started their high speed network in the 80s. You're right about size though, a lot of the US is simply too large and not densely populated enough for high speed trains to make sense. That being said, just because it won't work every doesn't mean it isn't a great idea in a few areas.

Any sane approach to HSR in the US has regional systems as the priority. The NE corridor, the SF-LA-SD run, and a hub system in Chicago (reaching STL/INDY/MIL/MIN/DET) should be the front runners for +220mph service.

 

[ichy]

I think it would be cool if they had a huge network of high speed trains

No! That's a great way to make sure it never happens!

High speed rail is simply not economical in many parts of the US. Instead of crazy fantasies about huge networks we should try to identify the small number of routes where high speed rail would make the most sense (such as Boston-NY-DC) and build it there.

 

[FoBoT]

I think it would be cool if they had a huge network of high speed trains, assuming it would be affordable compared to planes, and less hassle.

it would only cost 2-4 TRILLIONS of $ to build that :hmm:

 

[Genx87]

Given the choice between dealing with the nonsense involved in getting on a plane these days if I needed to travel from DC to NY I would choose Amtrak every time. I don't have to arrive at Union Station an hour before my train departure time and it takes me right to the middle of Manhatten.

Until a bomb blows up on a train packed full of people. Then the TSA will be there as well.