High Speed Rail In America

[Danlikebooks 6]

 What are your thoughts on the proposed high speed rail in the United States?  Would it be a transportation success?  A Failure?

I myself am in favor of the proposed lines, which I think will change the way we travel from car and plane centered to a more mass transit style nation over the next few decades.  I live in Cincinnati, Ohio, and I have been a big supporter of the proposed Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland line because I could use it to visit my family up in Cleveland more often.  However, the new Republican Governor-Elect John Kasich has vowed to kill the proposal even though the state already has the money for it (he calls it Socialist, ha).  What are your ideas?

[jeffsandychelsea 3]

He calls it socialist? Since when is a type of transportation "socialist?" Sounds like he's playing on the fear of Fox News watchers.

[Easy Bakes 253]

This is a big can of worms to open.

It might work in the north east were you have the population densitys and  # of passengers to make it work.

every were else except maby Chicago  the places were people live  and were they work are not close enough to make  mass transit work.

high speed rail  from big city to big city across america is a pipe dream. we just cannot afford to build it.

this isnt the 40s any more were you had masses of unemployed willing to work for next to nothing building the hiways and bridges between these citys.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Im not American, but I would say a Boston-New York-Baltimore-Washington line would work.

Maybe a California Line? ie. from Oakland/San Franciso to San Diego via LA.

[a2A209_ 10]

Originally posted by: ROFLyoshi

Im not American, but I would say a Boston-New York-Baltimore-Washington line would work.

Maybe a California Line? ie. from Oakland/San Franciso to San Diego via LA.

They are going to build a line in California. I saw it on a website about it. Well they are going to build one from San Francisco airport to San Diego,which has stops along the way. But I think there is going to be a delay because of the lack of money. So the line has the possibility of not going to be built because of the lack of money. Also the website is: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

  Edited July 29, 2011 by a2A209_  

[antsel 841]

I think a high speed rail line from LA to Las Vegas would be extremely beneficial. I imagine those who have driven the stretch of I-15 from I-10 north towards Victorville will agree. The worst might be between I-10 and I-210 where it's almost a perpetual state of grid-lock from Friday morning straight until Sunday.

[sneakeypete 16]

It seems to me that the best spending for HSR in the US would be to build a completely new line in the NE, completely seperate from the current track routes, more direct, grade seperate, fast bends, the works. Anywhere else apart from maybe california isn't going to give the returns people want, and not doing that in the NE soon is going to make it hard to do in the future (and from what i've heard about the current "regular" line, its pretty poor anyway)

[Drobadur 0]

the German Socialist ]

[trplsss 0]

EasyBakes has got it right, the massive amount of people looking for work made it easy to build the highway system. 

It's a chicken and egg problem isnt it? It looks like out in the midwest, you might not have the pop density needed, and state governors are reapportioning the money for HSR for bridge and road improvements because of that. But the demand I think is there. If Callifornia can prosper with their LA-SF line and the NE can build something similar, you might see HSR take off. 

I think what's more important is to focus on local rail lines. I.e. - NJ Transit is TERRIBLE!!! I mean come on, we're talking about the biggest city in the country having regional train lines that take an hour to get into Penn station when driving at the right hours can take 30 min?

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

This is a big can of worms to open.

It might work in the north east were you have the population densitys and  # of passengers to make it work.

every were else except maby Chicago  the places were people live  and were they work are not close enough to make  mass transit work.

high speed rail  from big city to big city across america is a pipe dream. we just cannot afford to build it.

this isnt the 40s any more were you had masses of unemployed willing to work for next to nothing building the hiways and bridges between these citys.

quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Big problem #1: the price tag. High speed rail ain't cheap, and we're broke.

Big problem #2: the construction timeframe. We're talking decades from starting to plan to opening the final segment. Since political cycles are far shorter than that, such a long term project is impossible because sometime long before its completion the powers that be will see fit to cancel it.

Both are quite a shame. High speed rail would in some cases be the most logical mode of transportation and would be a great thing to have.

[diamonddog_74 32]

It's sad, but this quote from a recent New York Times Magazine article about China pretty much says it all:

"One bullet train I took could cover the distance between New York and Washington in an hour. The United States is on course to have such a train approximately never."

So, Easy Bakes and trplsss, the current unemployment rate in the US is 9.8%. You don't think that's enough people to work on building this? I'm unemployed, and I'd gladly take a job building HSR because I know it will be very useful. China built their system in less than ten years, so has Spain. Why can't we? Oh yes, the dreaded "socialist" aspect of public transportation.

The newly-elected US Congress suffers a major case of jealousy, stubborness, and misplaced pride. Their attitude really comes down to: "Well, since we didn't invent it, we don't want it." They fail to remember that the US didn't invent rockets or modern submarines, the Germans did. But that didn't stop the US from appropriating that technology and making their own versions. Ah yes, but that was for war, and we know how much the US government loves war. Trains are peacetime infrastructure, not very exciting to them.

Yes, the Northeast Megalopolis is the most logical place to start. However, I think there's enough intercity traffic between Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Northern Indiana to justify a hub in the Midwest. Chicago has some of the worst highway traffic in the nation. Although there's a decent suburban train network, a lot more highway drivers could be riding the train.

Also, since it's relatively flat around the Great Lakes for hundreds of miles, a lot of the existing rail ROWs have very few curves. They can be grade separated and "straightened" a little more to make some very fast rail corridors. Really, the main issue around here is grade separation. Just doing that could improve rail traffic here in the Midwest tremendously.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: diamonddog_74

It's sad, but this quote from a recent New York Times Magazine article about China pretty much says it all:

"One bullet train I took could cover the distance between New York and Washington in an hour. The United States is on course to have such a train approximately never."

So, Easy Bakes and trplsss, the current unemployment rate in the US is 9.8%. You don't think that's enough people to work on building this? I'm unemployed, and I'd gladly take a job building HSR because I know it will be very useful. China built their system in less than ten years, so has Spain. Why can't we? Oh yes, the dreaded "socialist" aspect of public transportation.quote>

I do think its enough people to build the thing, how ever someone said China built thiers in 10 years, that would not even get out of the planning stages here in 10 years for such a massive project.For example Texas in increasing the # of reactors at Comanche Peak Nuclear Facility from 2 to 4 reactors. they started 2 years or so ago, the new reactors are not expected to be online untill 2025. 15 years to build 2 reactors in one small texas town that already has an existing facility there.

there are just to many jurisdictions in differnt states, citys,countys all wanting to put thier 2 cents into the project, not to mention the eviromentalists, minority  owned bussiness participation, the list of things that would kill this are endless.

 the bigest hurdle would be money and lack  a huge lack of intrest in most places for riding trains.

there was a plan for  a hub in texas between Dallas/Ft worth area, Houston, and the  San Antonio/Austin area.dont know what became of it, probably in the same pile of discarded campain promises that the Trans -Texas Supercorridor went.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

And this Gem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mid-Continent_Trade_Corridor

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The Pacific North-West has only one major city, so I see no future for High Speed Rail here.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: diamonddog_74

the current unemployment rate in the US is 9.8%. You don't think that's enough people to work on building this? I'm unemployed, and I'd gladly take a job building HSR because I know it will be very useful.quote>

The problem isn't a lack of men to build these things, it's a lack of funds to pay them.

The two key things that make 2010 different from 1930 are:

1) National debt. Going into the 30's, US debt as a percentage of GDP was very small, and we had some leeway to deficit spend. But going into this recession, we have a deficit that is already far larger than it should ever have been allowed to become, and so instead we have to find ways to spend less.

2) Standards of living and worker expectations. Labor was dirt cheap in the 30's, rounding up a bunch of unemployed people and getting them to build stuff was easy. The game is different now. Labor is expensive, and since unions and the government are in bed with each other there will be no efforts to change that in the public sector.

China built their system in less than ten years, so has Spain. Why can't we?quote>

Red tape. Our environmental laws add a couple years to the planning process of any megaproject. The need for public comment (and dealing with the ever present NIMBYs) slows down the planning.

And beyond that, it also often comes back to money. It would be entirely possible to complete any major public construction project in half the time, but it would cost twice as much.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: diamonddog_74

the current unemployment rate in the US is 9.8%. You don't think that's enough people to work on building this? I'm unemployed, and I'd gladly take a job building HSR because I know it will be very useful.quote>

The problem isn't a lack of men to build these things, it's a lack of funds to pay them.

The two key things that make 2010 different from 1930 are:

1) National debt. Going into the 30's, US debt as a percentage of GDP was very small, and we had some leeway to deficit spend. But going into this recession, we have a deficit that is already far larger than it should ever have been allowed to become, and so instead we have to find ways to spend less.

2) Standards of living and worker expectations. Labor was dirt cheap in the 30's, rounding up a bunch of unemployed people and getting them to build stuff was easy. The game is different now. Labor is expensive, and since unions and the government are in bed with each other there will be no efforts to change that in the public sector.

China built their system in less than ten years, so has Spain. Why can't we?quote>

Red tape. Our environmental laws add a couple years to the planning process of any megaproject. The need for public comment (and dealing with the ever present NIMBYs) slows down the planning.

And beyond that, it also often comes back to money. It would be entirely possible to complete any major public construction project in half the time, but it would cost twice as much.

quote>

it alway comes down to money. The willingness to spend it to get somethimg like this done.

[nathanthemayor 1,263]

I live in Fresno CA and the propsed HSR would go right through us. I think despite the cost it's time that America actually builds one...

  Edited November 3, 2011 by nathanthemayor  

[Albatross Domain 2]

 Unfortunately, the idea of HSR probably will sit on the shelf for while here in Texas, it was recently announced that the state is now facing a $20 Billion shortfall, for next years budget, any requests to the state for infrastructure spending will be 'killed' before it even reaches Austin;  Here in San Antonio, the first leg of a light rail system on the NW side of town is already in the works and scheduled to be completed by 2012-2013 time frame, connecting NW of downtown towards the Medical Center Area along a route of Fredericksburg Rd, to the NW, however, once again leaving the center core of town, East side, southside, out of the loop. Light rail is nothing new obviously, and the past 10yrs, it has increased in usage, in places where it was deamed "Will Fail", DFW (dallas-ft- worth), are constantly expanding new lines. With San Antonio's population currently at 1.7Million (roughly 2M) countywide, it would be ideal, and our city would benefit greatly.

[iowndiscti 141]

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/High_Speed_Rail_07-09-2009.JPG

 some states have already started to upgrade existing lines , particularly in the midwest

ONly 2 hours from detroit [ where i live] to Chicago?  im in favor of this

[ the detroit chicago line was just granted 161 million dollars back in october. woot woot!]

the only problem i could see with this [ besides the cost] is when we reach places like denver. wont the  rail end up with a " terrain too steep" or " unsuitable grade for construction message" [ thats the only way i could explain it. lolz]

EDIT: im not too happy with them building the " Major Station" in Dearborn when the one right outside of downtown would more effectively serve as a station. people boarding from Downtown Chicago  could get right off of the train and literately walk to downtown Detroit if The new station was going to be built near the current Amtrak station on Woodward. also, a major station on Woodward makes much more since than anyplace else because Woodward is Detroit's Through street, and is effectively served by the most of the bus systems about every 10 - 15 mins, as  where a station in Dearborn is only served by that 1 Michigan avenue bus every 30 minutes

[Yonk 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

2) Standards of living and worker expectations. Labor was dirt cheap in the 30's, rounding up a bunch of unemployed people and getting them to build stuff was easy. The game is different now. Labor is expensive, and since unions and the government are in bed with each other there will be no efforts to change that in the public sector.

quote>

It's not just the labor, it's the way things are done today. Back then, it was a hundred guys with shovels and pickaxes and wheelbarrows. Now it's five guys with gigantic machines that pretty much do all the work for you as you press buttons and pull levers. There aren't very many jobs avaliable at all, expecially for unskilled laborers. Costs much less to hire those five guys and their machines than the hundred laborers, anyway.

Any idiot can pour asphalt to make a highway, but do any of us have the skills to know how to operate the machine which constructs a high-speed rail track? I'm sure there's more to it than pounding spikes into rail ties.

- Yonk

[sneakeypete 16]

Doesn't sound like any construction site i see.

Usually, you need 1 guy to do the work, 1 guy to supervise, 1 guy for the supervisor to consult with, and 1 boss to manage them. at least!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

HSR in most of the land mass of North America is impractical.  Everyone thought the CPR was an impossible dream, but we imported the labour to do it from China.  We, collectively, no longer have that option.

Existing rail systems cannot accommodate the requirements of HSR.  The grades are bad, the curves are too short, and the whole business reeks of feather bedding as railroads now do.  The more likely project is the one to create a super-sonic aircraft that doesn't make a sonic boom.  According to a show I saw recently on aircraft research, this one is underway, privately, of course.

With governments in the act, and with civil servants who would rather stop something than start a massive project, together with all the nay-sayers and NIMBY-ites, HSR will never be done.

[Cobraroll 138]

I think this is an example on how the American (and largely, Western World) way of doing things is highly inefficient. We want everyone to have their say. The one guy who has to move because the rail will go through his house is the one with the most power (a tearful interview, a Facebook group, an official protest, and the entire planning process is set back several months). This makes NIMBYism a gargantuan problem. Look to the UK, where it's nigh on impossible to build anything without at least 20 years of planning and applications submitting. Then there's the politicians, which by law can't sit longer than so-and-so, and because of the two-party system, with the parties having alternating success, each government is eager to undo what the previous one spent their entire period doing, or wait until they are in power themselves before supporting an obviously good suggestion (and really slate it when they're not in power). Things take AGES to do, costs loads and loads of money, and will, no matter what, cause huge protests.

The US and the UK are the worst examples, the former because of the political split and size of the bureaucracy, the latter because of high population density and a strong culture of NIMBYism. Of course, the red tape exists everywhere else too, but it's usually easier in smaller or less populated countries because of less people involved. The system of HSE and paperwork does nothing to ease the system.

In that regard, it's easier to do it the Chinese way, with the government having control of everything and masses of uneducated and unemployed people who are happy to shovel for fifteen hours a day for a dollar an hour. Or the Third world way, where a friend of the relevant minister is handed a sum of money, hires a bunch of people who know how to use a shovel, buys the relevant materials as cheaply as possible, and gets the work done before the entire sum is spent on salaries. They get their things done, but with little respect to individuals.

Back on topic, I think the US will get the HSR eventually, but things have to improve on the technological front first, oil has to get more expensive, and it has to become more expensive to pollute. Only then will (most likely) private actors, like transport corporations, start building lines and putting their trains on them, while reducing their numbers of planes. Remember, you can load tons on a plane, but kilotons on a train. And while a train requires more infrastructure, it also creates more jobs, and doesn't make as much noise. But I think most of Europe, India, China, and even parts of Africa will have their HSR net up long before the US.

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

With governments in the act, and with civil servants who would rather stop something than start a massive project, together with all the nay-sayers and NIMBY-ites, HSR will never be done.

quote>

Isn't that sad?

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: diamonddog_74

 Yes, the Northeast Megalopolis is the most logical place to start. However, I think there's enough intercity traffic between Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Northern Indiana to justify a hub in the Midwest. Chicago has some of the worst highway traffic in the nation. Although there's a decent suburban train network, a lot more highway drivers could be riding the train.

quote>

There was a proposed train line from Madison to Milwaukee (1 and 1/2 hours driving with NO TRAFFIC, about three hours WITH TRAFFIC and there is pretty much always traffic) with a future extension to Chicago and then eventually to Minneapolis.  The amount of short flights from Minneapolis to Chicago is quite large and the eventual train line between them, if built, is expected to help decrease that.  Anyways, the line between Madison and Milwaukee is expected to be nixed because their new GOP Governor-elect has vowed to get rid of it.

Money is a big issue, which I can understand, but the Federal Government recently gave out grants to some states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, California, Illinois, etc) to build rail, so the money is already out there.  It can only be spent on rail expenditures and it will only be sent out to other states if not used, so why not use it?  It's already been spent, so why waste it?

For those who say that it wouldn't be able to reach many people who live in less dense areas, don't the airports have the same problem?  In Cincinnati, the international airport is across the river in Kentucky, which is quite inconvenient to get to from anywhere else in the city.  However, it is serviced by buses, highways, taxis, and several car rental places.  If a train station was built in the middle of the city, couldn't it also be serviced by these same things?  In Cincinnati, the buses all service the suburbs, so someone who lives out in the fringes of the city outside of the I-275 loop could take a bus or drive downtown, and then take the train to, say, Cleveland for a business meeting, or to go to college, or to watch a football game between the Bengals and the Browns.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Actually, there might be a way to have an international Vancouver B.C to Seattle HSR line but that would have a lot of obstructive bureaucracy.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

HSR in most of the land mass of North America is impractical.  Everyone thought the CPR was an impossible dream, but we imported the labour to do it from China.  We, collectively, no longer have that option.

quote>

Politically impossible maybe, but nowadays the Chinese both have the manpower and the knowhow to construct high speed railways. And they still export huge amount of workers to countries less sensitive of immigration.

[hym 358]

The problem with HSR is that an expansive system will cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars to build, and other than the option of taking a train instead of flying, it won't offer anything the airlines can't already top. The fastest HSR system is only about half the speed of a commercial airplane.

If the US is to ever see a resurgence of rail travel, the new technology is going to have to be something that completely turns the conventional transportation model on its head. Vactrain could be the answer, if we ever figured out how to build it in a cost effective manner.

[sneakeypete 16]

They don't let you get onto the plane 5 minutes after you arrive in the middle of downtown. That's why HSR can be an option event though it only tavels at half the speed.

[hym 358]

Which might be viable till someone tries to blow up the train, at which point the delays at the airport will find their way to the HSR system.

[krbe 193]

While the speed is just half that of the plane, there are no security queues, no bus / taxi rides to the airport, no minimum check in times, no waiting on the runway, and no circling over the destination because there is fog around the airport. The train generally win for trips less than three hours. DB runs ICE-Sprinter trains between Berlin and Frankfurt and Hamburg and Cologne, where the equivavlent air trip takes 1.10 (most of the tracks are designed for 200 or 250 km/h though instead of the 300/330 km/h the ICE3 is capable of).

However, it is for the short routes only (c. 650 km / 400 mi.), but if done correctly you can cut air travel substantially (air travel now accounts for about one in every four trips with planes and trains between Madrid and Barcelona if I remember corrcetly, and I have a feeling a fair share of the air passengers are transiting). But of course -- it is extremely expensive, and with conventional technology only the Northeastern Corridor, Chicago-Detroit/Minneapolis, LA-SF and similar routes will be short and fast enough to be able top take any passengers from airlines. And, you'd have to get used to the fact that you won't exactly see low cost alternatives frequent the lines either.