Obama High Speed Rail funding for US

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Third: Privatise the company running the HSR network. Give it to someone who knows what they're doing. However, still keep the infrastructure government-owned.quote>

We have to be aware, though, that we are falling into the familiar pattern where capital costs are socialized while operating profits are privatized.  Of course, like highways and airports, it is all government subsidized anyway...which leads me to suggest that HSR need not require additional new spending, but a change in subsidization targets for money already being spent, especially when we are already pouring tens of billions of dollars into new highway construction and airport expansion, whose ever escalating catch-up costs are bringing ever diminishing returns and offer no sustainable relief.  If we really want to talk about saving tax money, the sinkholes of new highway and airport construction to support grossly inefficient and expensive planning and growth patterns offer far meatier targets.

If the likes of Southwest Airlines wants to make undercutting threats...we need just hand them the full unpaid bill for existing and future airport construction, and perhaps even the bill for misbegotten military adventures in oil-rich nations.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you.  It also offers yet another reason to shift subsidies to complementary and eventually competitive alternative systems...to keep us out of such economic extortion.

A fear I do have is that like the Acela, much of the money will be dumped in project creep fashion into re-inventing the train, when we can already use existing off-the-shelf technology.  We don't need hyper cutting-edge from the outset...indeed, there is a lesson in how an impoverished nation still picking itself out of wartime ruins can package together the novelty of the Shinkansen out of then-current technology and a stylish nose cone. 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Shadow_Assassin

First: Legislate it so that any future presidents can't actively sabotage the project.quote>

That's effectively impossible to do.  It's falling under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Transportation, which is under the authority of the Executive Branch of the government.  That basically means any future President can simply give the order and the project dies immediately.

Second: Get a private company to build it. At least they have an incentive to keep it under budget. However, it's a good idea to make sure they don't cut corners to the point where it's unsafe and therefore useless.quote>

The government will employ private contractors to build the systems.  That alone isn't incentive enough to get it done on time and/or underbudget.  To actually give them a real incentive, you'd have to promise them a significant chunk of the savings (like 25%-50%) .  Generally, government entities aren't smart enough to know how to really work with their contractors.

Originally posted by: Odainsaker

If the likes of Southwest Airlines wants to make undercutting threats...we need just hand them the full unpaid bill for existing and future airport construction, and perhaps even the bill for misbegotten military adventures in oil-rich nations.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you.  It also offers yet another reason to shift subsidies to complementary and eventually competitive alternative systems...to keep us out of such economic extortion.quote>

Which would you rather have happen?  Build a new System A expecting to suck off people from System B, only to find out that System B undercuts A so that no one uses it, thus making it an enormous waste of money, or that System B tells you what it's going to do ahead of time, thus offering you the opportunity not to waste the money?

The alternative is to engage in the dangerous practice of the government trying to protect itself from the private sector.  Yeah, it prevents the possibility of a large corporation potentially bossing around the government, but it also allows the government to become horribly complacent.  Look at the US Postal Service.  There are laws protecting it from private companies like FedEx.  The USPS employed over 1,000,000 people.  An audit by a private firm a few years back revealed that over 600,000 of those positions weren't needed.  If a private company tried to pull that stunt, its competitors would destroy it, but because the federal government passed a law protecting the USPS from private competitors, it was allowed to grow into a bloated monster that has been bleeding billions of dollars for years.  Like it or not, the government needs to be under some sort of threat from the private sector if you don't want repeats of situations like the USPS.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Shadow_Assassin

Seeing as steel-on-steel doesn't have much friction at all, you also have to consider the centre of gravity of the vehicle. With cars, it's generally much lower than on a train. Sure, the train may be on tracks, but that's useless if the train tips over while turning at a high speed. quote>

While the higher center of gravity thing is true, superelevation of curves is not so much a safety issue as it is a comfort issue. At least with cars, the horizontal g forces become uncomfortable before you risk overturning, so that controls the design. With a train, that may not be the case, but having the wheel bottoms between the rails certainly helps compared to car tires which simply rest on top of the pavement.

Incidentally, with superelevation, you need the train to be travelling above a certain minimum speed through the curve, otherwise it will tip over anyway. Somehow I don't think side friction would help in that case... quote>

Not necessarily. So long as the center of gravity is still above the wheel base, it won't tip over even when stopped:

See?

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I could go into these points a lot more, but in basic we need to start getting off of oil, and onto other forms of transit ASAP.quote>

You would have a valid point, except for one problem: oil is not a form of transit, it's a source of energy.

Cars do almost entirely run on gasoline (an oil product), but that can change.

Originally posted by: BrnoutJerzey

have you been on the US rail systems before? - The rail system is pretty extensive in the US. There are hundreds of kids that commute to my high school by train and I cant tell you how many people use the NJ Transit/Metro North t train service between NY, CT and NJ, not to mention Amtrak that links the whole continental US quote>

As impressive as the rail around NYC is, it's a mere shadow of what it used to be. There are abandoned and ripped up lines all over the place. Most of the old pre-subway elevated lines in the city have been long ago torn down.

[Ntq€310 1]

well Duke it's just this. What do cars use? Gasoline, and oil product, what do airplanes use? a oil product, what do trucks use, a oil product. Now our trains also use some oil, but the question is how much.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

well Duke it's just this. What do cars use? Gasoline, and oil product, what do airplanes use? a oil product, what do trucks use, a oil product. Now our trains also use some oil, but the question is how much.quote>

...

Originally posted by: Duke87Cars do almost entirely run on gasoline (an oil product), but that can change. quote>

I'll see your electric trains and raise you electric cars.

[aiumkastarkius 0]

As much as I wish this dream could come true, I'm betting this is wishful thinking.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

well Duke it's just this. What do cars use? Gasoline, and oil product, what do airplanes use? a oil product, what do trucks use, a oil product. Now our trains also use some oil, but the question is how much.quote>

...

Originally posted by: Duke87Cars do almost entirely run on gasoline (an oil product), but that can change. quote>

I'll see your electric trains and raise you electric cars.

quote>

And I'll see your electric trains and cars and raise you an airplane that runs on vegetable oil.

OK, not literally, since they've never taken the time to make one, but the point is that airplaine can run on anything that's liquid and combustible because they use turbine engines.

Trains don't use much oil anymore if they are designed right, but train's aren't a practical replacement for the US right now.  For people to really start giving up their cars, they need to be able to get from point A in a city to point B in a city more efficiently than many of them can.  Mass transit sucks in the US.

[yamaneko 2]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

I don't know, Amtrack has been pretty disastrous. I think it's less about whether it's private or public and more about if the organization is competent, and that there are mechanisms in place that ensure accountability.quote>

Amtrak funding is full of fail.  The original plan was to relieve private railroading firms of their passenger service and somehow run it at a profit.  Somehow it is expected to eventually run at a profit even though meddling Congressmen can threaten all the funding unless their pet route gets funded, it runs on tracks it generally does not own which are only maintained enough to let freight run at 45 mph, and its reason of existing is precisely because railroads could not turn a profit from passenger service. 

Amtrak also makes plenty of bad decisions without anybody's help.  The only Chicago-Indianapolis trains arrive at midnight downtown.  Fort Wayne and Madison, WI are served by stations more than 10 miles from their downtowns and South Bend's Amtrak station is in a rough part of town several miles south of its airport, and west of downtown, with no special bus service to downtown, Notre Dame or the airport.  

[aiumkastarkius 0]

Originally posted by: yamaneko

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

I don't know, Amtrack has been pretty disastrous. I think it's less about whether it's private or public and more about if the organization is competent, and that there are mechanisms in place that ensure accountability.quote>

Amtrak funding is full of fail.  The original plan was to relieve private railroading firms of their passenger service and somehow run it at a profit.  Somehow it is expected to eventually run at a profit even though meddling Congressmen can threaten all the funding unless their pet route gets funded, it runs on tracks it generally does not own which are only maintained enough to let freight run at 45 mph, and its reason of existing is precisely because railroads could not turn a profit from passenger service. 

Amtrak also makes plenty of bad decisions without anybody's help.  The only Chicago-Indianapolis trains arrive at midnight downtown.  Fort Wayne and Madison, WI are served by stations more than 10 miles from their downtowns and South Bend's Amtrak station is in a rough part of town several miles south of its airport, and west of downtown, with no special bus service to downtown, Notre Dame or the airport.  

quote>

Amtrak is nice around here though.

[Ntq€310 1]

Heres a idea. The MLS ( Major league soccer ) decided to use there own stadiums, that in turn has helped them money wise, and in general. Now the once small league which existence was questioned, is now stable to the point that soon they may turn a profit. Amtrack pulling a profit.. is unlikely.. but honestly I have no doubt that actually having your own tracks may help both money wise, and for the people who use the train. Since incase no one knew.. those fright trains can kind of be slow...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

when did *)* somehow mean  ?quote>

[The Arrowz 3]

Originally posted by: yamaneko

Amtrak funding is full of fail. 

Amtrak also makes plenty of bad decisions without anybody's help.  The only Chicago-Indianapolis trains arrive at midnight downtown.  Fort Wayne and Madison, WI are served by stations more than 10 miles from their downtowns and South Bend's Amtrak station is in a rough part of town several miles south of its airport, and west of downtown, with no special bus service to downtown, Notre Dame or the airport.  quote>

I completely agree. It's one of the most inconvenient and impractical nationwide train systems in the world... Of course, the car and plane industry, along with our nation's geography sort of factor into this, their planning system just doesn't work.

I had some time on my hands the other day and decided to compare trips from Atlanta (where I live) to the west coast (lets say Oakland for example). The prices per person is roughly the same for plane and train tickets, around $300-$500 per person. But the problem is, while the plane takes 4 to 5 hours, Amtrak will take a whopping 59 hours. I guess if you had an extra... week or so, Amtrak is the better option. Of course, crossing the country is about 2000 miles, and there are plenty of hurdles to get through, like the Rocky Mountains, but 59 hours?  Driving from Atlanta to Los Angelas only takes four days (at most, including staying in hotels... my family did it in 2.5, only stopping at rest stops), and this is going at 60-80 mph... Same with going from Atlanta to Washington. Flying is a bit more expensive, but it cuts the trip down by about 8 hours... But any high speed is probably most practical going from south to north and vice-versa, since distances are more feasible. And at the least, it'll shorten the time by connecting several cities, then transferring to slower trains, then back to HSR?

Back onto subject... this is one of his promises I hope actually follows through. I mean, it's a huge task, but it would impact the transporation network like never before (or at least since the interstates). The only problem I see is the red tape... so much beauracracy it's hard to get anything done anymore. Too bad construction can't start... next year?

Btw, I read that they don't plan on eletrifying the tracks (or adding overhead wires)... wouldn't that put a limit on the speed and efficiency of "high speed rail"?

I hope in the future they have something like this:

It'd be great if we could go from Atlanta to Washington DC by train in 6 hours (avg 100mph)...

Or from Atlanta to San Francisco by train in 24 hours (avg 104mph) but at a fraction of the airline cost?

[duack 14]

This topic is kind of "iffy". The main problem I see is that the US is not denseley populated enough to make a HSR feesable. See, in Western Europe, you have 490 million people living in a place about two thirds the size of the US. This means distances between capitals are much shorter so its cheaper to build between cities. That's not to say that you cant have a HSR system in the US, there are parts where you can, like California which is pretty densely populated, but cross country, there's a lot of empty space.

Besides, there are lots of budget airlines that can get you from point A to B pretty cheaply. I know in Australia you can sometimes go cross country for less than $100 by plane, so I guess in the US it should be cheaper, seeing as how petrol is cheaper there. Plus, airlines and airports are easily privately run.

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: The Arrowz

But any high speed is probably most practical going from south to north and vice-versa, since distances are more feasible. And at the least, it'll shorten the time by connecting several cities,quote>

Exactlly. Going across from East to West is a great idea, but it's just a waste since you can go faster by plane at practically the same cost .Now, if they want to throw in a bullet train for those distances, then by all means draw it up and I'll vote for it...if the price is right. But since buiding HSR is a pipe dream, a bullet train is just a ridiculous idea. But American landscape is perfect for North South HSR. Why? Because our major mountain ranges go north south and we have built up cities in a perfect way inbetween these ranges. Think about it, the west coast has LA to SF to Portland to Seatle to Canada, the great plains has Houstan to Dallas to St. Louis to Chicago, and the East coast has Miami to Atlanta to Washington to NY. All of those aviod major mountains leaving a somewhat level path from north to south. Now, the west coast section is still very up and down, but not as bad as trying to get a train going +110 mph go through the rocky mountains. But then again, I'm just going off of freshman year knowledge.

[Yoman3 5]

Amtrak and rail service in general is great around here, but then again, I live where all the money does and should go, the NEC

[BrnoutJerzey 0]

Originally posted by: haljackey

Originally posted by: BrnoutJerzey

I don't know what he's planning, if the stops are frequent , a high speed rail network will be useless, as it will never get up to speed. And it's a little late to start that anyway, maglev would be something more appropriate to start on at this time

quote>

I'd assume stops won't be frequent, and will be for every city along the way.  You might also have express trains that are non-stop to other major cities (ex New York to Boston with no stops to smaller cities along the way).

Maglev... Now that's expensive.  You'd need several times the budget outlined to build a maglev network a fraction of the scale of the HSR network.  You can't just upgrade rails here, you need to build an entirely new, magnetized track with little or no curves along the way in order for it to achieve top speeds.

Sure, its cool, but where's the money? 

quote>

since trains are already prety fequent, they'd need to lay separate paralell lines to keep an express from hitting traffic- but that's do-able

about the maglev- Japan seems to have the money, lol Maybe we will have a good amount soon as well

whats funny is that Japan has high speed rail and it's a highly mountainous region, and the US doesn't and is relatively flat

[belfastuniguy 18]

since trains are already prety fequent, they'd need to lay separate paralell lines to keep an express from hitting traffic- but that's do-able

about the maglev- Japan seems to have the money, lol Maybe we will have a good amount soon as well

whats funny is that Japan has high speed rail and it's a highly mountainous region, and the US doesn't and is relatively flat quote>

Japan is densely populated with millions upon millions commuting every day, they need efficient and superior transport links. Japanese rail is some of the best in the world, its track, trains and timetabling is incredibly impressive. They took technology and used it to solve the problems affecting the country.

[patfirefghtr 160]

I would love to see HSR in the USA as for one I would ride it!!! Plus I think it would bring the love affair with the trains back to us...

[Zezug 6]

Japan does have the fancy rail and stuff, however their govt has a debt at 190% or greater of the GDP as well, so its not that they had the money to build it, they have taken on loads and loads of debt to do it, even beyond (comparitively) what the US has.

[yamaneko 2]

Originally posted by: Zezug

Japan does have the fancy rail and stuff, however their govt has a debt at 190% or greater of the GDP as well, so its not that they had the money to build it, they have taken on loads and loads of debt to do it, even beyond (comparitively) what the US has.quote>

Japan also encourages the use of its trains by making sure that all its expressways are toll roads.  Tolls are set nationwide at 24.60 yen/km, so it costs over 13,200 yen to travel from Tokyo to Osaka (550 km).  The speed limit is 100 km/hr, though the Tokyo-Nagoya leg of the expressway is so crowded that a parallel expressway is being built, and the Nagoya-Kansai leg is still recovering from the Kobe earthquake;  if you're very lucky you can make the trip in 5.5 hours.  You also get to pay for at least 25 liters of gasoline and possibly a car rental.  The expressways are supposed to pay for themselves by 2050; Japanese real estate is pricey and farmland is protected from eminent domain so farmers can name their price for the land.  (This may help explain just why Kansai Airport is on a landfill island in earthquake country.) 

If you take the train, you can go Green Car (first class, reserved, bullet) for 13,660 yen and get to Osaka in style and in about 2.7 hours.  If you're a cheapskate, you can go for 5,240 yen (coach class, reserved) and get there in 3 hours (semi-express) or 4 hours (stopping in every town). 

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: yamaneko

so it costs over 13,200 yen to travel from Tokyo to Osaka (550 km).

quote>

So that's about $134.42. Well played Japan.

If you take the train, you can go Green Car (first class, reserved, bullet) for 13,660 yen and get to Osaka in style and in about 2.7 hours.  If you're a cheapskate, you can go for 5,240 yen (coach class, reserved) and get there in 3 hours (semi-express) or 4 hours (stopping in every town). 

quote>

huh, that's pretty nice. About $140, that's not bad at all, especially for first class. Another point for Japan.

[sneakeypete 16]

Factor in the saving of not having to own and pay for the maintenance of car full stop as well.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, you also have to consider the high cost of living in Japan. Their tolls work out to a bit over 40¢ per mile. By constrast, the New Jerey Turnpike, costs only 7.4¢ per mile - more expensive than any other toll road of significant length in the country.

Although some shorter roads get much higher. The Chicago Skyway is 38.5¢ per mile.

Most of the toll roads in the US predate the interstate system, although the idea has made a resurgence in recent years, with new toll roads such as Delaware route 1. Although in that case the tolls are merely intended to pay for the cost of constructing the highway and, in theory, are supposed to be removed once that debt is paid off.

As for why more tolls are not added to the interstates, there's a very simple reason why not: it's illegal!

Highways built to be part of the interstate system were built with 90% federal funding. One of the strings attatched to that is that there can't be any tolls on the road. The reaon for this is that federal highway funding comes from federal taxes on gasoline and motor oil - so it's to avoid "double taxing" the users of the road.

This could be changed, of course, but I doubt it would be politically feasible to enable construction of new tolls all over the place at this point in time. One need only look at how the plan to add tolls to currently free bridges into Manhattan to counter the MTA's budget deficit died a horrible bloody death in the legislature in Albany to demonstrate that. People in this country expect their roads to be "free".

[Jezus53 18]

Okay, so gas is $4.24 a gallon. I don't know how many miles per gallon the average car gets in Japan, but I'll say maybe 35? So you'll need about 16 gallons (an average tank size) to get there, which comes out to $67.84. Add that to the 134.42 that becomes $202.26. So pretty much, you can spend $140 on a nice seat, no stop and go, and relax, or you can drive and worry about traffic and never relax and pay $62 more. Now there's incentive for ya.

[yamaneko 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

As for why more tolls are not added to the interstates, there's a very simple reason why not: it's illegal!

Highways built to be part of the interstate system were built with 90% federal funding. One of the strings attatched to that is that there can't be any tolls on the road. The reaon for this is that federal highway funding comes from federal taxes on gasoline and motor oil - so it's to avoid "double taxing" the users of the road.

This could be changed, of course, but I doubt it would be politically feasible to enable construction of new tolls all over the place at this point in time. One need only look at how the plan to add tolls to currently free bridges into Manhattan to counter the MTA's budget deficit died a horrible bloody death in the legislature in Albany to demonstrate that. People in this country expect their roads to be "free".

quote>

New interstates can have tolls on them, as people who live in Illinois and Indiana have found out.  I-355 going through DuPage and Will County west of Chicago is toll, as will be the Evansville-Bloomington section of the I-69 extension in Indiana.  Now, maybe this was made possible through the magic of Congressional legislation.

[Herdervriend 46]

Let's build one in the desert With only solar power plants next to it Mega energy sufficiency