Why don't we have High Speed Trains?

[LTC8K6]

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.

Except it couldn't have been well spent, since all such systems seem to be money losers.

If it was profitable, a private company would be doing it somewhere, imo. Without subsidies.

 

[Hacp]

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

The biggest threat with planes is that they'll be used as weapons. If the plane blows up in the air and disintegrates safely, then it isn't that big of a deal. Sure, the people on the plane die but who cares about theM?

 

[sdifox]

Except it couldn't have been well spent, since all such systems seem to be money losers.

If it was profitable, a private company would be doing it somewhere, imo. Without subsidies.

Public transit payback is not necessarily linear in terms of direct attribution. So private companies would not be interested in it.

 

[ichy]

Except it couldn't have been well spent, since all such systems seem to be money losers.

If it was profitable, a private company would be doing it somewhere, imo. Without subsidies.

Acela already makes an operating profit. Yes, the infrastructure would require government support, but so do roads and airports. Switzerland is a very capitalist country and has probably the best rail system in the world, yet their trains are mostly run by a government owned company. Public transportation lends itself rather poorly to privatization.

 

[kranky]

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...

The railroads have paid their own way since day one. Airlines, truckers, etc. could never make it if they had to supply their own infrastructure. We build highways that never recoup their cost through the gas tax, and use "time saved by the public" as the justification to spend the money. Unfortunately, "time saved" does not mean actual cash, and it costs money to maintain the roads.

If they could use the same concept to justify investments in rail transit (i.e. "time saved" per person is assigned a value, and that justifies the cost) by that standard you could claim every transit system in the country would be profitable even if they didn't charge any fares.

You can't build your way out of traffic congestion. Where the need is the greatest for mass transit, there's no way to build more roads. NY, southern CA, Boston, Chicago, and other areas don't have the room or the money. To build a 4-lane highway through an urban area in southern CA now would cost more than $200 million PER MILE.

And in fact there will never be another national railroad built by private enterprise. The cost of acquiring rights-of-way, and dealing with each state's quirks make it simply prohibitive.

If we as a country want High Speed Rail we are going to have to do it partially with tax dollars. Trains are so much more fuel-efficient than cars or trucks, it may take until gas reaches $5 a gallon before people decide they are willing to change, but if we don't start before that it will be too late. It will take years as it is.

 

[AMCRambler]

Because people in Europe can't afford to own cars. Gas is more expensive and they tax the crap out of them. It is way more convenient to have a car so that once you get to your destination you're not limited to the available modes of public transportation.

Also the US is more spread out and less populated. So once you get to a city by train here there are probably a large number of things to see outside that city that you would need a car for. In Europe there's public transportation available to take you wherever you want to go. In the US it's more limited.

 

[Red Squirrel]

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

That is peanuts. Did you see how much some of the military stuff costs including consumables? it's insane. Maybe the US should start putting a bit of money into their own country every now and then.

The way I see it, it should work similar to a municipal transit system, but it's continent wide.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

They also have a much high population density and grown accustomed to their lower standard of living. It just isnt realistic in the United States except for a few select routes for rail to work. Our geography doesnt work well with rail.

You're really going to argue that Europe has a lower standard of living? Really? Apparently, NINE European countries rank ahead of the US for human development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

The reason rail isn't realistic in the US (or Canada for that matter) is because too many people are accustomed to the status quo of using cars to get everywhere and they refuse to even explore the possibility of a rail network.

A rail network would provide a large number of infrastructure related jobs, be more environmentally friendly (mag-lev or electric trains) and efficient, and reduce dependence on foreign oil and oil and auto lobbyists. I fail to see how any of this is negative.

High speed might make sense only in select corridors at first (Northeast and West Coast, for example), but light rail within cities would be fantastic for reducing congestion and oil usage.

 

[0roo0roo]

You're really going to argue that Europe has a lower standard of living? Really? Apparently, NINE European countries rank ahead of the US for human development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

The reason rail isn't realistic in the US (or Canada for that matter) is because too many people are accustomed to the status quo of using cars to get everywhere and they refuse to even explore the possibility of a rail network.

A rail network would provide a large number of infrastructure related jobs, be more environmentally friendly (mag-lev or electric trains) and efficient, and reduce dependence on foreign oil and oil and auto lobbyists. I fail to see how any of this is negative.

High speed might make sense only in select corridors at first (Northeast and West Coast, for example), but light rail within cities would be fantastic for reducing congestion and oil usage.

no
japan has population density 10x ours. european countries like germany have population density 7x ours. uk 7.9x ours etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

 

[Genx87]

Acela already makes an operating profit. Yes, the infrastructure would require government support, but so do roads and airports. Switzerland is a very capitalist country and has probably the best rail system in the world, yet their trains are mostly run by a government owned company. Public transportation lends itself rather poorly to privatization.

How do we have so many airlines in this country then????? Public transit that competes with the car performs poorly. That is because cars are a better mode of transportation for the individual.

 

[So]

America has the best long distance mass transit system in the world: Southwest Airlines. Not a mass transit system? How so?

I challenge you to give me one good reason why, even if there was a high speed train available, I would be sane to take it from NY to LA. Even if it were 100% free, my time has some value.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

no
japan has population density 10x ours. european countries like germany have population density 7x ours. uk 7.9x ours etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

Hence why I argued it might only make sense in the more densely-populated corridors (North East and West Coast, for example). I did not argue that it should be all across the US.

And you didn't address any of my other points such as having light-rail within densely populated cities.

 

[Genx87]

You're really going to argue that Europe has a lower standard of living? Really? Apparently, NINE European countries rank ahead of the US for human development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

The reason rail isn't realistic in the US (or Canada for that matter) is because too many people are accustomed to the status quo of using cars to get everywhere and they refuse to even explore the possibility of a rail network.

A rail network would provide a large number of infrastructure related jobs, be more environmentally friendly (mag-lev or electric trains) and efficient, and reduce dependence on foreign oil and oil and auto lobbyists. I fail to see how any of this is negative.

High speed might make sense only in select corridors at first (Northeast and West Coast, for example), but light rail within cities would be fantastic for reducing congestion and oil usage.

When they cant afford a bigger home than what our poor can, cant drive because of the cost of gasoline, higher taxation, and their food costs are through the roof. I dont really care what metric somebody comes up with to justify their opinion. What next, the misunderstood GNI gets brought out? They have a lower standard because they dont have the same individual freedoms we do here. They take Mass transit the govt provides for them because what else are they going to take? A 2 seater toy car that costs 7 bucks a gallon to drive?


BART never reduced congestion in any meaningful way. There are real rare instances of light rail reducing congestion in any city.

If govt is honestly motivated to reduce congestion. It should be providing subsidies to business to promote telecommuters. People who never get on the road in the first place. hell of a lot cheaper and would boost the happieness, productivity, and quality of life for all involved. While reducing our need for massive infrastructure maintenance and expansion costs.

 

[Train]

Because I stopped running and working out on a regular basis, now I'm just medium speed, don't make me run too far Train.

 

[Genx87]

The biggest threat with planes is that they'll be used as weapons. If the plane blows up in the air and disintegrates safely, then it isn't that big of a deal. Sure, the people on the plane die but who cares about theM?

Are you kidding me?

 

[ShawnD1]

If govt is honestly motivated to reduce congestion. It should be providing subsidies to business to promote telecommuters. People who never get on the road in the first place.

Cities already do this. It's called "where the hell do I park around here?"

The bus will take you anywhere downtown and it's only $3.50 per day (my bus pass is $70 and each month has about 20 work days). Parking in Edmonton starts at about $5 per day, and that's cheap parking. The parking within walking distance of where you're trying to go is more like $8-10. That's damn near $200 per month just to park your car. If you include gas costs, it's probably a lot closer to $300-400 per month to drive to work instead of take a bus.

Maybe the buses need hard core subsidies on them. Make the bus pass only $10 per month and see what happens. More people take the bus, traffic goes down, parking costs come down for people who need to drive to work. Everybody's happy!

 

[Zenmervolt]

And lobbyists for auto companies, oil companies etc. It cannot be just coincidence that most European countries have drastically higher fuel prices but far more efficient rail networks.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly have to do with most European countries being smaller than the state of Oregon and having centralized populations which make rail networks feasible.

ZV

 

[skyking]

Because I stopped running and working out on a regular basis, now I'm just medium speed, don't make me run too far Train.

now you are a "IF you make me run I'll open up a can of whoopass when I catch you" train.

 

[ichy]

I challenge you to give me one good reason why, even if there was a high speed train available, I would be sane to take it from NY to LA. Even if it were 100% free, my time has some value.

No sane person advocates high speed rail between NY and LA. NY to Boston is much more realistic though, and a fast train trip between those two cities would take significantly less time than a flight.

 

[ichy]

They take Mass transit the govt provides for them because what else are they going to take? A 2 seater toy car that costs 7 bucks a gallon to drive?

Uh, no, they take mass transit because a lot of them prefer it to driving. My parents currently live in Paris, and the ability to take the subway everywhere is something that truly improves quality of life. As someone who has the "freedom" to take my car everywhere it's something that I really envy.

 

[ichy]

Except it couldn't have been well spent, since all such systems seem to be money losers.

The government spends money to provide a public service (one that productive, gainfully employed members of society use and benefit from.) How terrible.

 

[Locut0s]

I road the Shanghai airport maglev. 400+ km/h (248+ miles/h)!! You feel like you are in an airplane at ground level! Amazing experience. :thumbsup: for maglevs!

 

[Fritzo]

Obama's State of the Union speech last night said they're going to be building high speed trains in the US as part of the stimulus package. We have one planned in Ohio that is going to link all of the major cities together. It will be pretty cool to be able to get anywhere in the state within a couple of hours

 

[sdifox]

I road the Shanghai airport maglev. 400+ km/h (248+ miles/h)!! You feel like you are in an airplane at ground level! Amazing experience. :thumbsup: for maglevs!

maglev is a losing proposition. Velaro RUS (604 seat config) can sustain 330kph with an upgrade.

Until we get abundant power supply, maglev is not feasible.

 

[ichy]

Obama's State of the Union speech last night said they're going to be building high speed trains in the US as part of the stimulus package. We have one planned in Ohio that is going to link all of the major cities together. It will be pretty cool to be able to get anywhere in the state within a couple of hours

Pie in the sky nonsense. A few billion dollars distributed over numerous states will accomplish NOTHING. We need to focus on a very small number of densely populated areas where rail has shown that it makes sense, starting with the Northeast Corridor. I guarantee you there will never be a high speed rail network in Ohio.