China will have spent $260 billion on high speed trains by 2020 in an investment towards that country's transportation infrastructure (Euronews - centrist)
http://www.euronews.net/2010/10/26/china-s-rail-construction-boom-continues/

This is the sort of thing that needs to be happening in this country. But it takes years to move anything in the right direction. The Acela is a joke. If we had something akin to what China is using we could get from DC to NYC in ~1hr, to Boston in ~2hrs.

Investment in this country needs to occur on a vast scale not just for projects similar in vein to China's work, but on so many levels. It would go a long way to strengthening our economy as well as updating badly needed work on our road, bridges, pipes, energy, transport, communications, etc.

The difference is - when China wants to build something, they just displace all the residents that are in the way. Here in the US it would take years just to get any agreement on where the trains could run, and then all the local jurisdictions and everyone's NIMBY obsessions would have to be dealt with.

Maybe if the US government passed a law saying that they have right of way to any point starting at 100 feet above the highest point on your property (including structures) and 200 feet below your property, then they could put in railways ABOVE or below all the homes and just have to get permissions to put in footings from time to time.

Just look at all the hell it takes to put in a couple of additional high power lines to feed the area and you will get an idea what these rail lines would run into.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

two words;

Pneumatic tubes.

It would be nice to have some high speed rail running between LA and NYC or DC. Some say it is impossible because of the geography, others say there would be a lack of demand. Still a cool idea though to have long distance high speed rail in the US like they do in Europe.

RegVoter - you do have a point in that regard. Also, the fact that China is a one party state they can create whatever rules they want.

Spain though is another country that has really come to the forefront in modernizing its trains fleet. Just 15 years ago they were a backwater. Now I could go from Madrid to Seville in just over 2 hours (before it would take several). By car it takes ~5-6 hours. If I recall it's like going from here to RI in terms of equivalent distance. Spain built atop existing lines and updated the technology to accommodate for the times. That's something we don't do here.

I agree we shouldn't necessarily be like Europe in every regard, but it makes sense in high density areas (Boston-Norfolk for example) to modernize our fleet. If it takes longer to get to NYC by train than it does driving, we'll all be driving there still.

my favorite time machine:
Attachments:

Man oh man how great it would be to be able to take a train to NYC or Chicago, or San Fran, in a reasonable amount of time. For awhile I was traveling back and forth to Chicago for business. I'd have given anything to take a train over flying. I looked into, thinking that with all the time it takes to get to the airport early, I'd gladly sacrifice. There is no convenient train to Chicago, as I recall it was something like a 12 hour trip, that's about equal to driving, which I considered also.

How about a fast train to Florida? I'd think that would be viable as well.

Agreed that there needs to be some national comprehensive plan. Oh, how about using some of the stimulus money? Something worthwhile that would actually create jobs and actually benefit the country.

­



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2014 09:38PM by chuckhoffmann.

Yahweh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> two words;
>
> Pneumatic tubes.

One of the problems with high speed rail is that it would most likely take away some very profitable freight lines in order to provide rights of way for some very marginal passenger service. We no longer have the excess rail capacity that we had in the early 1970s when the northeast corridor was set up.

Europe has a wonderful rail system. Unfortunately, the service is unreliable due to constant strikes. If you are depending on the rail system while on "holiday", good luck... cause you'll need it.

This past June, luck was with me and I was able to travel through Italy without plans being derailed. Not so the year before, when a strike was "rescheduled", leaving me stranded in the train station in Rome. Forgetabout trying to get a refund, just forgetaboutit.

The constant strikes in Europe are making Europe a less desirable vacation destination. While sitting on a plane in Paris, waiting to take off, after a long delay, I inquired as to the cause and was told the air traffic controllers were on strike. WHAT?

Of course, today, half the flights out of Paris are grounded and train travel is a mess, as union workers are busy rioting and burning, angry that the government wants them to work until they are 62.

Poor pathetic wimps.

China may beat us with high speed trains. But, thank God, we still have the lead when it comes ot high speed trannys...



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Alias wrote:
"Poor pathetic wimps[French people]"

Instead of name calling, you should be wishing the US had such generous benefits. The French do pay very high taxes for their privileges though (10-15% higher than we pay + VAT) for it they get a much shorter work week, guaranteed holidays of several weeks p/year, free medical care, and the lowest retirement pension of any industrialized nation.

If I were a middle/lower class citizen in this country, I would think the people in France have it pretty well - and they do in comparison to middle/lower class Americans by far. If you are making decent dollars though in this country, then you are better off in this country, investing the money and being able to keep more of it.

As for the strikes, while they can be a pain - it is how the citizenry can make their voices heard. Imagine the US govt doing something you didn't like, we have no vox populis - our only recourse are these stupid rallies on the mall that do nothing to change/affect policy decisions in Washington.

This is one of the absolute dumbest ideas around. High speed rail is one of the most inefficient modes of transportation there is. The amount of infrastructure required to transport any meaningful amount of passengers is ridiculous. Go to the damn airport and forget about it. And if you want to be like Europe go there. Just because they're losers doesn't mean we have to be.

mcsmack - you should travel more - and if you do - open your eyes.

I love this country, but it isn't the best in everything. There are many ideas that can be brought in to make this country better.

I disagree that high speed rail is inefficient. It would be if you're talking about building a line from here to say Huntington, WVA. But we live in this megalopolis, I think it would make a lot of sense to have a super fast train system between here and NYC/Boston. The high speed trains employed in Europe and eastern Asia routinely travel over 200 mph - you could get to NYC in 1hr and Boston in 2.

These high speed train networks are very popular (London/Paris, London/Brussels, Madrid/Seville, Paris/Marseille, etc). Our current rails system is in fairly poor shape and it would need a major overhaul to make it viable. But other countries have done it, I don't see why we couldn't. It's an investment in this country to boot.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love this country, but it isn't the best in
> everything.

Well then why don't you go back to MEXICO, Jose?!

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> mcsmack - you should travel more - and if you do -
> open your eyes.

I'm guessing he doesn't have much experience driving 95 from DC to NYC.

DC to NYC is a good idea for a rail line. Which is why the Pennsylvania Railroad built the one we have, out of the company's own pocket, back in the 1930s. The Northeast Corridor line was the fastest and most advanced electric rail line in the country back then, and even today it's a pretty good one, although it could be faster.

Trouble is, even that busy line doesn't break even. Whether that's because Amtrak can't manage it or because even busy corridors just can't compete I don't know. The NEC line, because it is high(er) speed, costs a fortune to maintain. The tracks have to be much smoother than a normal railroad, and the electrical infrastructure isn't cheap, either.

The Penna. RR went out of business partly because federal law required it to maintain passenger service routes regardless of profitability. Other railroads managed to hang on until the new law allowed them to dump all their passenger service off onto the new Amtrak in the early 70s. Those companies now make a shit ton of money because rail freight is profitable, and the US has the most advanced, highest capacity freight rail system in the world. All of it is privately owned and operated, too.

Rail passenger travel is a waste of government money. European states have it because they heavily subsidize it. If you have to subsidize it, then it can't break even on its own and it is a net loss of money. That's Business 101. Kind of like the Space Shuttle, which also can't pay for itself. But like a manned space program, having a high speed rail system is a prestige thing for countries, so they blow cash on it so they can brag about how "modern" they are.

That said, I love it, so if you build it, I will gladly ride it at taxpayers' expense. I know it's wasteful, but if you're going to waste money you might as well waste it on me.

See you in the lounge car!

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias wrote:
> "Poor pathetic wimps"
>
> Instead of name calling,

I apologize to every Frenchman burning a car or smashing store windows, tonight.

> you should be wishing the
> US had such generous benefits.

Why would I want this country to end up like France?

The garbage is rotting on the sidewalks. The oil refineries are blocked. The airports and train stations are shut down and the streets are in flames because the French are acting like toddlers who cry when their balloons pop. France is running out of money. There aren't enough producers to support the lifestyle the non-producers have come to enjoy.

I love Europe. It's a beautiful museum when the workers aren't setting cars on fire, but it's a museum in decay and the only way it will survive is by reducing the free lunch program, along with the size and power of government. Regulations discouraging investment and growth need to be eased so business can thrive without fear of government intrusion and retaliation.

Socialism collapses upon itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss/

High-speed rail seems like an easy target for terrorists.

Snapple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> High-speed rail seems like an easy target for
> terrorists.

i totally agree. that's why i get around in these:
Attachments:

themuse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snapple Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > High-speed rail seems like an easy target for
> > terrorists.
>
> i totally agree. that's why i get around in these:

could I see a picture of you wearing those shoes, muse?

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> themuse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Snapple Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > High-speed rail seems like an easy target for
> > > terrorists.
> >
> > i totally agree. that's why i get around in
> these:
>
> could I see a picture of you wearing those shoes,
> muse?


Do we really want to see her chubby pale legs again?
I think not

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> themuse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Snapple Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > High-speed rail seems like an easy target for
> > > terrorists.
> >
> > i totally agree. that's why i get around in
> these:
>
> could I see a picture of you wearing those shoes,
> muse?


i would but i let my friend borrow them for the evening. she's hosting a company halloween party at a tranny bar in the haight.
alias, do you have a foot fetish?

yeefuckinghaw

I'm not much for feet personally...can you show us a photograph of you in your undies instead?

Britdrnva,


In your time in the UK, did you see a lot of New Age travellers or Tinkers?

themuse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > themuse Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Snapple Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > High-speed rail seems like an easy target
> for
> > > > terrorists.
> > >
> > > i totally agree. that's why i get around in
> > these:
> >
> > could I see a picture of you wearing those
> shoes,
> > muse?
>
>
> i would but i let my friend borrow them for the
> evening. she's hosting a company halloween party
> at a tranny bar in the haight.
> alias, do you have a foot fetish?


only on high speed trains, muse.

eesh wrote:

"In your time in the UK, did you see a lot of New Age travellers or Tinkers?"

Not really, eesh...mind you if I attended certain concerts both lots were around usually on the outskirts trying to peddle stuff. They are both the equivalent of gypsies in a sense but UK gypsies if that makes sense to you.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not much for feet personally...can you show us
> a photograph of you in your undies instead?

Doctor, what is your specialty?

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> only on high speed trains, muse.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KuNH3C36QE

(Sorry, embedding disabled)

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not much for feet personally...can you show us
> a photograph of you in your undies instead?

you got it:
Attachments:

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not really, eesh...mind you if I attended certain
> concerts both lots were around usually on the
> outskirts trying to peddle stuff. They are both
> the equivalent of gypsies in a sense but UK
> gypsies if that makes sense to you.




Yeah, I just find those nomadic types interesting, especially when they live that lifestyle in a first world nation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 11:26PM by eesh.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Not really, eesh...mind you if I attended
> certain
> > concerts both lots were around usually on the
> > outskirts trying to peddle stuff. They are
> both
> > the equivalent of gypsies in a sense but UK
> > gypsies if that makes sense to you.
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, I just find those nomadic types interesting,
> especially when they live that lifestyle in a
> first world nation.


ooo me too, eesh.
tink, tink.

yeefuckinghaw

Alias wrote:
"Doctor, what is your specialty?"

Contrary to what my dear friend Troll may think - I'm a doctor in emergency medicine/acute care.

themuse...I just knew you wouldn't indulge me....alas!

For me, I like the drive from D.C. to N.Y.C. better than taking acela. I guess it's intriguing, when you get on the NJT, it's all farmland and forest, up near the city, it's a whole different picture. It's scenic in a way...

Acela is a fraud. You get into NY 30 minutes sooner than a regular train at twice the price. I doubt Acela goes significantly faster than the regular train. Regular service just has more stops.

That said, I prefer the train to NYC over flying or driving.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DC to NYC is a good idea for a rail line. Which is
> why the Pennsylvania Railroad built the one we
> have, out of the company's own pocket, back in the
> 1930s. The Northeast Corridor line was the fastest
> and most advanced electric rail line in the
> country back then, and even today it's a pretty
> good one, although it could be faster.
>
> Trouble is, even that busy line doesn't break
> even. Whether that's because Amtrak can't manage
> it or because even busy corridors just can't
> compete I don't know. The NEC line, because it is
> high(er) speed, costs a fortune to maintain. The
> tracks have to be much smoother than a normal
> railroad, and the electrical infrastructure isn't
> cheap, either.
>
> The Penna. RR went out of business partly because
> federal law required it to maintain passenger
> service routes regardless of profitability. Other
> railroads managed to hang on until the new law
> allowed them to dump all their passenger service
> off onto the new Amtrak in the early 70s. Those
> companies now make a shit ton of money because
> rail freight is profitable, and the US has the
> most advanced, highest capacity freight rail
> system in the world. All of it is privately owned
> and operated, too.
>
> Rail passenger travel is a waste of government
> money. European states have it because they
> heavily subsidize it. If you have to subsidize it,
> then it can't break even on its own and it is a
> net loss of money. That's Business 101. Kind of
> like the Space Shuttle, which also can't pay for
> itself. But like a manned space program, having a
> high speed rail system is a prestige thing for
> countries, so they blow cash on it so they can
> brag about how "modern" they are.
>
> That said, I love it, so if you build it, I will
> gladly ride it at taxpayers' expense. I know it's
> wasteful, but if you're going to waste money you
> might as well waste it on me.
>
> See you in the lounge car!

Exactly

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack - you should travel more - and if you do -
> open your eyes.
>
> I love this country, but it isn't the best in
> everything. There are many ideas that can be
> brought in to make this country better.
>
> I disagree that high speed rail is inefficient.
> It would be if you're talking about building a
> line from here to say Huntington, WVA. But we
> live in this megalopolis, I think it would make a
> lot of sense to have a super fast train system
> between here and NYC/Boston. The high speed
> trains employed in Europe and eastern Asia
> routinely travel over 200 mph - you could get to
> NYC in 1hr and Boston in 2.
>
> These high speed train networks are very popular
> (London/Paris, London/Brussels, Madrid/Seville,
> Paris/Marseille, etc). Our current rails system
> is in fairly poor shape and it would need a major
> overhaul to make it viable. But other countries
> have done it, I don't see why we couldn't. It's
> an investment in this country to boot.


I've been everywhere baby but that's not the problem. Most people commute by air over long distances. Automobiles for shorter stints. What I am saying is the sheer number of people commuting alone make rail impractical. Let's just look at a few numbers in general.

The US Dept. of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that the July system wide passenger load factor for US airlines was 86.9% (86.9% domestic and 86.7% international), the “highest recorded for any July.â€

According to the report, US airlines carried 68.4 million passengers in July, a 0.4% increase compared to July 2009, but a decline of 3% versus July 2008. US airlines carried 0.6% fewer domestic passengers versus July 2009; however, the number of international passengers increased 7.5%.

Delta Air Lines carried the most passengers, transporting 10.8 million, up 63.8%, of which 2.25 million were traveling internationally, up 65.4%. The large percentage increases reflect the integration of Northwest Airlines. Southwest Airlines carried 10 million domestic passengers in July, up 4.7% year over year and the most domestic passengers of any US airline.


A lot of these folks are commuting. Let's just say what is our goal for commuters to transfer to rail transportation instead of plane or auto. 2 million a day? One million? Then what are you going to do to transport all those folks from the train stations to their offices? Hire 1 million rick shaws? Flood the streets with even more cabs? I know this hurts environmentalist egos a bit but any kind of a meaningful high speed rail system in this country is extremely impractical and infeasible. It just won't work. We have way to many people moving around in diverse locations. If some of these rail supporters realized how embarrassingly ridiculous the idea was it would go away as an option forever.

It is like trying to go back to the wagon train days after the horseless carriage was invented. This is 2010 not 1910.

The Pennsy did not go broke due to a government mandate to maintain passenger service. In the years following WW2 Pennsy found itself serving a declining and increasingly competitive market while it had excess capacity on which it was still required to make substantial debt or lease payments. It tried to deal with the problem by merging with the New York Central which was also facing the same problems. The resulting Penn Central was badly managed and soon collapsed. While Pennsy and Penn Central did have a fair amount of money losing traffic, its financial difficulties would have taken it under anyways. However when the Penn Central did collapse, the threat of discontinued passenger service, both by Penn Central and by competing roads, drove the U.S. to set up Amtrak.

Almost all forms of passenger transportation, planes, trains and automobiles, are subsidized. Fuel and personal property taxes, tolls and fines do not generate enough revenue to cover the costs of constructing, maintaining and policing the roadways.

The real question is what form provides the most bang for the transportation buck. Unfortunately high speed rail does not measure up well on this. High speed rail lines are expensive to construct. To maintain high speed times stops must be limited, which means creating feeder networks to serve areas that are not close to the few stops. Also maintaining high speed times generally means that passenger trains cannot share the same lines as slower freight. If you want to see what happens if freight and passenger service cannot be separated, just watch the problems that MARC and VRE experience with CSX.

What made the Northeast corridor work as a semi-high speed network was that much of the infrastructure, including sufficient lines to separate freight and passenger service, was already in place. Unfortunately this does not exist today in most parts of the country. In many places where lines did exist a few years ago that could have been adapted to high speed service (or used to divert freight traffic to free up a line for high speed service) the lines have been pulled up, and in many cases either developed or converted into highways.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In many
> places where lines did exist a few years ago that
> could have been adapted to high speed service (or
> used to divert freight traffic to free up a line
> for high speed service) the lines have been pulled
> up, and in many cases either developed or
> converted into highways.

Yup, or "rails to trails".

­



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2015 06:52PM by chuckhoffmann.

Mr. Hoffman wrote:
"I don't give a loud, slow, wet one if some rich idiot has a place to jog or ride his $500 trail bike;"

A $500 trail bike would be considered pretty cheap. Most of those bikes you see are well over $1k, usually in the $2-5k range.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Acela is a fraud. You get into NY 30 minutes
> sooner than a regular train at twice the price. I
> doubt Acela goes significantly faster than the
> regular train. Regular service just has more
> stops.
>
> That said, I prefer the train to NYC over flying
> or driving.

+ 1

I rode the NE regional up to nyc on thursday. I clocked most of the intercity portions of the ride at 120mph on gps. I can't see paying double for the Acela just to shave 40 minutes off the trip.

For me, the most interesting part of high speed rail development is the changes that would happen to the nation's social geography. For example, one could easily live in Richmond or Baltimore and commute to DC, conceivably even to New York.

Hell, I already commute an hour to work ;)

If only a tiny fraction of the Federal money spent on road maintenance (and expanding highways) is spent on new high speed rail there will be enough money to complete a basic system, ideally on the northeast corridor where such a development would make the most sense.

"Robert Samuelson on High-Speed Trains: "People prefer fashionable make-believe"
Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson lays out the not-hard-to-find economic case against 21st century high-speed rail projects, then comments:

President Obama calls high-speed rail essential "infrastructure" when it's actually old-fashioned "pork barrel." The interesting question is why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems, is willful ignorance. People prefer fashionable make-believe to distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that don't exist and ignore costs that do.

Always keep stuff like this in mind whenever you hear a Democrat like John Kerry whine that "We've lost our minds. We're in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don't weigh in." Like the scientific cases for trade protectionism and stadium welfare, the truth/fact-based economic argument for high speed rail has long ago been routed, yet even at a time when we are out of money a huge cohort of politicians and their enablers are keen to set even their I.O.U. notes on fire. It's beyond disreputable.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/robert-samuelson-on-high-speed

RJS should shut the f--- up. His ideas represent a strain of economic thought that has lead this country's to the monumental mess that it is today. However like a stopped clock that s correct twice a day he has reached the right result on this one.

For passenger rail projects to be successful, certain conditions must exist. Those conditions did exist about 30-40 years ago. Had we embarked on an aggressive transportation scheme at that time, of which high speed rail was one part, we would have a much better transportation network today. However things have changed in the past 30 years, and today the conditions for successful high speed rail no longer exist in most parts of the country, and there isn't sufficient political clout to obtain funding for the few spots where it does still exist.

Naysayers can say what they will, it makes sense though in high density areas especially Boston-NYC-DC.

These sorts of trains are expensive to put in place there is no doubt but it would relieve burgeoning pressure on air/vehicular transport.

High speed rail systems are in place throughout western Europe and eastern Asia, if you ever travel on them, they are nearly always full. They get you from downtown city X to downtown city Y more economically and faster than a plane or car could - it's a win-win all around.

As Bill N said - there really isn't sufficient political clout/will to move that direction.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Naysayers can say what they will, it makes sense
> though in high density areas especially
> Boston-NYC-DC.
>
> These sorts of trains are expensive to put in
> place there is no doubt but it would relieve
> burgeoning pressure on air/vehicular transport.
>
> High speed rail systems are in place throughout
> western Europe and eastern Asia, if you ever
> travel on them, they are nearly always full. They
> get you from downtown city X to downtown city Y
> more economically and faster than a plane or car
> could - it's a win-win all around.
>
> As Bill N said - there really isn't sufficient
> political clout/will to move that direction.


Being full doesn't mean a train is not a waste of money. If you subsidize it, of course its easy to fill it up. The question is, "can it pay for itself?".