HighSpeed Rail in the U.S

[Ntq€310 1]

In recent weeks more and more news on the chance of Highspeed rail in the U.S has happend. 

High-speed rail backers look to Obama Democrats for next funding wave

By Paul Rogers

Mercury News

The credit markets are collapsing, the stock market has tanked, and government deficits are sky-high.

Sounds like a terrible time to try to construct one of the largest public works projects in California history: an 800-mile-long, $45 billion network of bullet trains linking the Bay Area and Los Angeles, right?

Wrong, say state planners and backers of the project, still giddy from voter approval last month of Proposition 1A, which provided it a $9.95 billion down payment.

The new tone in Washington, D.C., away from Reaganomics and toward a new version of FDR's "New Deal," means there will be billions for public works projects like roads, bridges, airports — and rail, supporters say.

"I'm sure there will be federal money," said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, a state agency planning the system. "When we talk about jump-starting the economy, how are you going to do that without creating jobs?"

Morshed and other high-speed rail advocates are looking to three potential funding sources from Washington, D.C.

First, President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a massive economic rescue package, perhaps worth $500 billion. The package is expected to be heavy with public works spending.

Second, a bill introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., would authorize the sale of $23

billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance high-speed rail projects around the country, with at least $10 billion of that set aside for California and the Northeast. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is a co-sponsor.

 Finally, on Oct. 15, President Bush signed the Amtrak reauthorization bill. It included $1.5 billion for high-speed rail projects over the next five years in 11 corridors across the United States, including California.

"I think high-speed rail now is 'when' not 'if,'"‰" said Carl Guardino, chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business organization in San Jose that backed Proposition 1A.

A business plan released by the high-speed rail authority last month says that it will cost $33 billion to build the system from San Francisco to Los Angeles, with trains zooming at 220 mph and stations in San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield and other large cities.

In addition to the nearly $10 billion approved by voters on Nov. 4, the plan seeks about $14 billion in federal money, $7 billion in private funding from companies that would operate trains and sell tickets similar to the way commercial airlines run airplanes, and $3 billion from local and regional sources.

Morshed said his agency expects to finish engineering and environmental studies by 2012, with the whole L.A.-San Francisco route completed from 2018 to 2020. Another $12 billion will be needed to extend it to San Diego and Sacramento, the business plan says, with completion estimated by 2030.

 The state's business plan projects 55 million riders a year and a $1.1 billion profit by 2030.

That may be overly ambitious. Most other high-speed rail systems in the world require some government operating subsidies, said Dan Sperling, director of the University of California-Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. It is not easy to say now whether the 2030 ridership and profit projections are plausible, he added.

"It's difficult to design a system and

determine its attract

iveness," he said, "when the benefits are going to be so far in the future, and with so much uncertainty about where people will be living, how they will be traveling, what fuel prices and global warming policy will be."

 Critics call the project a boondoggle whose business plan is overstated.

"We will pour billions into this and it will not perform as prescribed," said James Moore, a professor and director of the transportation engineering program at the University of Southern California. "The entire plan crumbles at the touch. Ridership estimates, capital cost estimates, construction cost estimates, operating assumptions, the attractiveness for private dollars — every assumption is wildly optimistic."

In the Bay Area, the plan calls for running trains at up to 125 mph along the existing CalTrain corridor between San Francisco's Transbay Terminal and San Jose's Diridon Station — a 30-minute ride. Two new tracks would be added alongside the two CalTrain tracks, and stations would be located in Redwood City or Palo Alto and at San Francisco International Airport.

CalTrain's planned electrification of its system, due for completion in 2015, might lure federal funding of high-speed rail, supporters say, because the coming improvements — including overhead wires — would benefit both projects. The CalTrain partnership also increases the chances that California's first high-speed rail segment would be San Jose-to-San Francisco.

"What a coup for us that would be," said Christine Dunn, a spokeswoman for CalTrain. "It would bring people from all over the world to come and see what it looks like."

The n ext High Speed Rail Authority board meeting will be held at 10 a.m. today at the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors chambers, 70 W. Hedding St., in San Jose. To read the high-speed rail business plan, go to www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. quote>

and

High-Speed Rail Coming Down The Tracks

by Adam Doster on November 25, 2008 - 4:26pm

The Supertrain could be coming to a station near you. Following the excellent news last month that Congress doubled the amount of federal funding earmarked for Amtrak, Sens. John Kerry and Arlen Specter unveiled another bill last week that would build upon the Amtrak reauthorization and fund high-speed rail lines across the country.

Titled the High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008, the bill would provide money for tax-exempt bonds to finance long-stalled high-speed rail projects. “A first-rate rail system,” Kerry said in a statement, “would protect our environment, save families time and money, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and help get our economy moving again.”

If the bill passes, Illinois riders could benefit handsomely. The legislation sets aside $5.4 billion over a six-year period for rail infrastructure bonds that can be used on 10 rail corridors deemed in need of repair by the Federal Rail Administration. The Midwest represents one such corridor, with Chicago as its hub. Plans to revamp the region’s stretch of rail (dubbed the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative) were drawn up years ago. All that’s needed is the capital, which this bill would help provide.

As Ryan Avent writes, the timing of Kerry and Specter’s initiative is especially poignant in light of the Rust Belt’s financial struggles and the auto executives’ impending 500-mile carpool to Washington: 

High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half. 

High-speed rail would, in other words, turn Rust Belt distances into northeast corridor distances, while also shifting the Rust Belt closer to the northeast corridor. It would increase the return to doing business in every city in the region. It would be the Erie Canal and the original railroads on steroids. quote>

So what our your thoughts? and what do you think about this becoming more and more likly? this thread can also be used to post any new news about this.

[JakeMD 107]

This could be interesting...

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

Just what the states needed. Clean transportion and and more jobs.

[hamsterTK 93]

The critics are morons.

This is the perfect time to build anything....Construction materials and costs are at all time low. With everything else stalled, steel, concrete, are all super cheap.

Of course that will change by the time the ground is broken so whatever...

[Jazzmaster 716]

It's definitely good to see more effecient means of rail travel coming to California.

However, I would like to point out that, for our country as a whole, high speed rail is nothing new...

[Ntq€310 1]

not new persay, but more or so new to actually be coming, the washington - boston is the olny route that is actually highspeed rail, while all others are just normal trains. The U.S has really fallen behind compared to other countries, also i suck at quotes, so can anyone hlep me?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Thier 45 billion budget will turn into 400 billion very quickly.

Not that they shouldnt do it, i just think it wont be as well managed or used as the european/japaneese  versions. 

Creating the jobs  and this infrastructure is what needs to be done. eventualy it will have the rideships  that are estimated as that area contiunes to grow.

 

[The Arrowz 3]

Two words: ABOUT TIME

True, the Acela express is doing very well in the northeast, but it's only in the northeast, while the rest of the country is far, far behind in rail-related transportation. Hopefully this will happen and will set an example for the rest of the country.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK The critics are morons.quote>

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.  To use light rail as an example, reports have been compiled from some of the very companies pushing for light rail indicating that there still isn't the ridership necessary to get rail systems to break even.  For stuff like this to work, it's going to need backing from not just the average Joe who doesn't have any solid opinion, but from the people like myself who will only travel by rail if they can justify to me that the cheaper fare is worth the inconvenience of being stuck in transit longer than a plane.

This is the perfect time to build anything....Construction materials and costs are at all time low. With everything else stalled, steel, concrete, are all super cheap.

Of course that will change by the time the ground is broken so whatever...quote>

The second sentence negates the first, meaning that if your prediction is correct, it really isn't the ideal time to begin building this project.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: hamsterTK The critics are morons.quote>

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.  To use light rail as an example, reports have been compiled from some of the very companies pushing for light rail indicating that there still isn't the ridership necessary to get rail systems to break even.  For stuff like this to work, it's going to need backing from not just the average Joe who doesn't have any solid opinion, but from the people like myself who will only travel by rail if they can justify to me that the cheaper fare is worth the inconvenience of being stuck in transit longer than a plane.

This is the perfect time to build anything....Construction materials and costs are at all time low. With everything else stalled, steel, concrete, are all super cheap.

Of course that will change by the time the ground is broken so whatever...quote>

The second sentence negates the first, meaning that if your prediction is correct, it really isn't the ideal time to begin building this project.quote>

 

Does it matter if the rail system breaks even?  does any mass transit system break even much less show a proffit? 

We have light rail in dallas and  it is slowly expanding its next work. A bullet train between

Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin would  be someing to consider too, although those 4 citys are pretty far apart compared to LA and SanFran and the Bay Area

[Explodingsims 3]

I would say it's a good time for a project like this.

About time America jumped back on the train...bus...thing...

It seems like trains are beginning to become popular again though, CSX seems to be running a lot of ad's here.

Although, there is a reason that High-speed trains haven't caught on here.

The space they have to travel between cities makes them a bit impractical, say compared to Japan, Where there's less land and cities are closer together. Plus, Americans always like cars better.

I still approve of it, just presenting a counterarguement.

[Mtg2192 0]

Really, I think that the best time to build a new railway is at what seems like a VERY low point for car sales. Why should the car industry have a monopoly on intrastate transportation? Now is a great time for the railway to be built.

But I personally think that it should be built across the country. Sort of a Route 66 of railways, if you will. Also, why not extend the one from Boston to Washington to Florida? Maybe a fork over to Philly to Pittsburg to Cleveland to Chicago, stopping at various points along the way? I think it would be great for tourism, as a train would likely be cheaper than a plane to ride on, and it would probably also be great for commuting to a place very far from your house. Think about it: being able to live in Pittsburgh and work in NYC, getting there within an hour. Living in Cleveland (with one of the lowest cost-of-livings) and commuting to Chicago for work. Hell, you could live in San Diego and work in Washington State like my uncle does and still get back home in time to spend time with the kids.

I certainly approve of the idea of a bullet train, and if it is funded correctly, perhaps it would be possible to earn a Manhattan income without having to spend the money to live in Manhattan or the surrounding boroughs. New York City would become more like Tokyo too: more bustling even than it is now, and possibly more important to industries outside of finance as well as the financial importance.

After all, a crash in America can cause the entire world to fall into an economic recession as well, can't it? Shows our importance, even at a point in time when we thought we had little.

[Mtg2192 0]

and to the post before, wouldn't a plane be impractical then? After all, it would go at about double the speed of the train and get there in half the time, but you also have to deal with many security issues and checkpoints and such, while trains usually involve a ticket, possibly a metal detector alone, and you can get on the train and go right away. so maybe on a trip to NYC from Cleveland, you're saving about 15 minutes taking a plane.

Plus, though cross-country trains would be nice, we're probably talking more like inter-city trains. Trains that will get you to places you don't need to take a plane to get to faster than a car can.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: hamsterTK The critics are morons.quote>

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.  To use light rail as an example, reports have been compiled from some of the very companies pushing for light rail indicating that there still isn't the ridership necessary to get rail systems to break even.  For stuff like this to work, it's going to need backing from not just the average Joe who doesn't have any solid opinion, but from the people like myself who will only travel by rail if they can justify to me that the cheaper fare is worth the inconvenience of being stuck in transit longer than a plane.

This is the perfect time to build anything....Construction materials and costs are at all time low. With everything else stalled, steel, concrete, are all super cheap.

Of course that will change by the time the ground is broken so whatever...quote>

The second sentence negates the first, meaning that if your prediction is correct, it really isn't the ideal time to begin building this project.quote>

 

Does it matter if the rail system breaks even?  does any mass transit system break even much less show a proffit? quote>

quote>

[Mtg2192 0]

What we need in America is to bring back the streetcars. The motor companies have had their chance to expand, and in a time when people can't buy cars, public streetcars would help people get from place to place.

[Mtg2192 0]

locally of course.

[Mtg2192 0]

btw, the RTA in Cleveland used to show a profit before the crashes and oil climbs. Also, if you value your time so much, if you were to take a 8 hour ride, you could do it at night and sleep in one of the beds provided in any train that goes for 8 hours.

[Ntq€310 1]

just to say MTG you can edit your post instead of making a new one.

But This is heavily needed. And generally a upgrade to the whole U.S rail system is needed. With Fright congesting the system totally by 2035, and Trains being unrealiable when they should be in many cases the best way to travel, it's sad the U.s has fallen so low on this.

Besides that This system would work great for area's like the midwest where it's both faster then car, but easier then plane. And this can also curve future development in area's. Besides that economiclly this is very good.

[SHADD0W09 2]

for all you gyes intrested in the cal high speed the sight is http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ im for the uk i like the system

[duack 14]

For some reason I get the feeling this whole thing will fall apart. Even if the trains are faster and easier, people probably wont use them because they have a bad rep. Regardless, even if nobody uses them, the economy needs an injection. It would be best if that injection was somethign useful but at this stage anything will do.

[SockoJr53 51]

There is a reason as to why America is so far behind Europe and Asia in railroads. Simply put: people here don't like trains. There was a time when America had the greatest railroads on the planet. Unfortunately with the advent of the jet engine and the interstate system, railroads became a thing of the past. People would generally prefer the solitude of their own cars, or the speed of an airplane over trains.

However it is clear that we as a country cannot continue to progress into the 21st century with our current dismal rail system. Lets face it, rail is THE ONLY efficient means of moving people and freight. Traffic on highways and interstates sucks, and airport security and airline cutbacks are just plain annoying.

I'm really excited to see this California proposition passed, and additional funding secured for Amtrak (The Fed NEVER gives Amtrak funding) It is a step in the right direction for our country.

I could go on for hours about railroads, but I kept my views short.

/Is a HUGE railfan

//Lives on the Northeast Corridor

///Takes the Metro North Railroad to work daily and LOVES it

[DanWalker8 3]

I want to see a high speed line from chicago to saint louis, through Springfield Of course, im bias! i should probably run for congress to bring that home in some porkbarrel, hometown hero gig!

[toxicpiano 125]

aren't there loads of cities without public transport in America? I thought that the biggest was in texas with 200,000 people.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano aren't there loads of cities without public transport in America? I thought that the biggest was in texas with 200,000 people.quote>

 

Arlington Texas population 250K or so. I may be wrong but i do think DART does run some service there but only to Six Flags, Hurricane Harbor, Rangers Stadium and the Convention Center( which are all  close together), as does the Fort Worth System.

But  Arlington's  been taken care of ,as part of the citys deal to build the new Cowboy Stadium the were required to impilment bus service. I expect they will  become part of The FT Worth system.

A couple other suburbs in Dallas have no public transport Grand praire Tx is one of them.

What happend there is the residents of these citys got to decide to be part of the DART system or not. The ones that declined no buses go there. But save some on sales taxes.

[fukuda 351]

I'm not going to deceive anyone, when the HSR was first implanted here it was a total ruin, it took years for them to make a profit and now they are extending to all the state capitals.

But it was made as a symbol of the modern times and how the country advanced, so the economic issues weren't too worrying then

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano aren't there loads of cities without public transport in America? I thought that the biggest was in texas with 200,000 people.quote>

Most of the larger cities have public transport, though the actual usefulness of said transport is debatable.  The city I'm in has a bus system, so technically it has public transit, but the system is effectively worthless, so they might as well not bother to run it.

You also have to factor in that there are literally tens of thousands of small cities in the US, many too small to support anything even remotely looking like a public transit system.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: toxicpiano aren't there loads of cities without public transport in America? I thought that the biggest was in texas with 200,000 people.quote>

You also have to factor in that there are literally tens of thousands of small cities in the US, many too small to support anything even remotely looking like a public transit system.quote>

not even a small bus service running from main street to walmart on the outskirts or something?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: toxicpiano aren't there loads of cities without public transport in America? I thought that the biggest was in texas with 200,000 people.quote>

You also have to factor in that there are literally tens of thousands of small cities in the US, many too small to support anything even remotely looking like a public transit system.quote>

not even a small bus service running from main street to walmart on the outskirts or something?quote>

Not even that.  Assuming Wiki is correct, Texas for example, has 1510 recognized cities/towns.  Consider the following chart (which isn't exact, but a good estimate):

Population in city	# of cities	% of total cities
<100	34	2%
100-1,000	559	37%
1,000-10,000	711	47%
10,000-25,000	106	7%
25,000-50,000	50	3%
50,000-100,000	24	2%
100,000-250,000	15	1%
250,000-500,000	2	<1%
500,000-1,000,000	3	<1%
>1,000,000	3	<1%

Looking from that chart, you'll see that roughly 86% of Texas cities have a population below roughly 10,000.  From my personal experiences, I can tell you that a population that small can't support much of anything, let alone a mass transit system.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I think its great this project was given approval. America has lagged well behind other nations in terms of high-speed rail. Yes I'm aware the distances in America are somewhat greater than Europe and Japan. however this could be an advantage and allow America to attempt to develop a new generation of trains.

The problem is that unlike in Europe and Japan America does not have a comprehensive rail network which allows somewhat seamless integration from high-speed to commuter to mass transit. Here in Europe you can travel intercity on high speed lines and then simply change platform and get an inner-city train or transfer to subway or buses. America is wholly dependent on car transport for land travel. Hence people will usually have to drive around a city as public transport is woeful so they may as well just drive to it.

This is unlikely to change in the forseeable future, but at least some cities and states are making that change and attempting to at least bring American rail travel into the 21st century.

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK The critics are morons.

This is the perfect time to build anything....Construction materials and costs are at all time low. With everything else stalled, steel, concrete, are all super cheap.

Of course that will change by the time the ground is broken so whatever...quote>

 

True,

  but it could of been cheaper if we kept some steel mills, cement plants and other industries.