I am angry in a way you can't even begin to understand

[BenBurch]

Less beneficial, too. How does Illinois make more sense?

Because it is less expensive, and flat, and if you can make a good job of high speed rail here is the place. The Chicago-StL corridor is heavily traveled.

If all agree that HSR is a) expensive to build, and b) not profitable, ...

That latter assumption I do not agree on. I think it can in fact make profit.

[rwguinn]

Why are we wasting all that money building bridges over water?
It's a lot cheaper to build 'em in Eastern New Mexico, where land is cheaper, you don't have to worry about boat traffic, you can work on dry land, and don't have to worry about flood debris damaging it later...

[BenBurch]

Why are we wasting all that money building bridges over water?
It's a lot cheaper to build 'em in Eastern New Mexico, where land is cheaper, you don't have to worry about boat traffic, you can work on dry land, and don't have to worry about flood debris damaging it later...

You've obviously never seen an arroyo flood...

I am saying that the traffic exists to make it viable right here, and it is the cheapest entry to the technology. "Low-hanging fruit."

[rwguinn]

You've obviously never seen an arroyo flood...

I am saying that the traffic exists to make it viable right here, and it is the cheapest entry to the technology. "Low-hanging fruit."
Sigh.
I grew up on the Caprock in Eastern NM...
Way to miss the point.
I think you would find that a very large portion of the Chicago/St. Louis highway/Interstate traffic is headed elsewhere.

[WildCat]

The Chicago-StL corridor is heavily traveled.
Is it? Got numbers?

[Newtons Bit]

Sigh.
I grew up on the Caprock in Eastern NM...
Way to miss the point.
I think you would find that a very large portion of the Chicago/St. Louis highway/Interstate traffic is headed elsewhere.

That's not a town, that's barely even two houses!

[Newtons Bit]

You've obviously never seen an arroyo flood...

I am saying that the traffic exists to make it viable right here, and it is the cheapest entry to the technology. "Low-hanging fruit."

The Bear Canyon Arroyo runs behind my house. About once a month it has enough water in it to get ones ankles wet...

[rwguinn]

That's not a town, that's barely even two houses!
Now, don't YOU start, too!
ON the Caprock, N's B
ON it, not In it...

But I was only 28 miles away from that burg.

but to correct you, it has A house/post office/cafe...

[Newtons Bit]

Now, don't YOU start, too!
ON the Caprock, N's B
ON it, not In it...

But I was only 28 miles away from that burg.

but to correct you, it has A house/post office/cafe...

Whoops, I overestimated the number of buildings by 100% ;)

[BenBurch]

Is it? Got numbers?

2400 daily air passengers, rail 1,568 daily.

So around 4000/day, nearly 1.5 million per year.

Bus unknown, driving unknown. (to me - I can't find the numbers but I the road is pretty busy having driven it.)

Note that the Obama Administration is proposing a really dumb HSR system for this corridor. Why go with 110 mph trains? Makes no sense at all. It does cost less, though;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-chicago-st-louis-kansas-city

[BenBurch]

Sigh.
I grew up on the Caprock in Eastern NM...
Way to miss the point.
I think you would find that a very large portion of the Chicago/St. Louis highway/Interstate traffic is headed elsewhere.

Which is why I would connect airport to airport.

Treat it as just a low-altitude aircraft.

Then you can make connections to elsewhere.

[rwguinn]

Which is why I would connect airport to airport.

Treat it as just a low-altitude aircraft.

Then you can make connections to elsewhere.
Aircraft don't have to cross a public roadway every 22 seconds, among other things...

[WildCat]

2400 daily air passengers, rail 1,568 daily.

So around 4000/day, nearly 1.5 million per year.
Where are you getting these numbers from? How many of these passengers are on their way to Kansas City or Omaha or New Orleans?

[Travis]

The people from Westchester ride on the trains to get to Manhatten all the time. In the tri state area trains are not thought of as a low class I don't want to rub shoulders with the masses way of transportation.

Travis do you have any input on why this particular train in Florida is such a good idea to get you so upset?

Mostly it would serve as a demonstration of the technology. Very, Very few Americans have any experience with high speed trains. They might think of them as being just "faster" trains when they are so much more than that. A modern Velaro is so different from a standard Amtrak train it's ridiculous.

High speed trains need specially constructed rails that are laid on special concrete sleepers. The trains themselves have EMU's that are positioned in places to eliminate jackknifing in the unlikely event of a derail (derails are almost unheard of on HSR trains).

Then you have the fact that HSR needs to be completely grade separated which means that the trains have an unimpeded path to their destination.

So when people can start seeing these trains: seeing how quiet they are, how sleek they are, how you can access WIFY while on them. Then people will have a better idea of what the technology actually is.

Then this system we're building in California that will be traveling at 220 mph won't seem like a pipe dream.

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the fans of HSR need to account for all costs in doing cost benefit analysis. I do not believe that is being done. Security is a cost. In a risk assessment, an HSR rail mishap is far more lethal than conventional train travel. Kinetic energy is proportional to V2.

As I noted, there are a few areas that may benefit from HSR, but I don't see how you can afford to buy the land there. :p

Any threat to high speed trains also exists to buses.

And TSA like measures are not in place in any of the other HSR systems around the world.


I'm all for that. My issue is the Obama admin. is pushing this nation-wide right off the bat. California seems to have the most political will for HSR (though not enough to use their own money apparently), why not see how that goes before we start building it in Ohio and Florida and Illinois?

That might be what happens unless the Tea Partiers get them to spend zero dollars on HSR development.

Now the California system will be a success. The route is laid out. It's being designed to have speeds of 220mph and will connect major metropolitan regions. I know I would preferentially ride it. I've read just about every EIR on this project--which you can get to here (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/)--and I think it will be a model system.

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/02/Amtrak%20Capitol%20Corridor%20sees%20best-ever%20January.aspx

Indeed. That's what I was talking about. Here in California train use has been going up steadily since 2002. Also lots of people in California are now trying to get condos near train/transit stations.

[rwguinn]

Mostly it would serve as a demonstration of the technology. Very, Very few Americans have any experience with high speed trains. They might think of them as being just "faster" trains when they are so much more than that. A modern Velaro is so different from a standard Amtrak train it's ridiculous.
It has been demonstrated. Lots of places. Places with different culture, laws, and environments from the US--which is far from being a uni-culture coast-to-coast

High speed trains need specially constructed rails that are laid on special concrete sleepers. The trains themselves have EMU's that are positioned in places to eliminate jackknifing in the unlikely event of a derail (derails are almost unheard of on HSR trains).The original tracks across the US were laid when there were damn few farmers out here, mostly self-sufficient. They were built using cheap (Irish and Chinese labor, legend has it) labor, and were built because the US granted the railroads huge chunks of land either side of the line.
Now you are proposing a whole NEW line, either paralleling what we have, replacing what we have (and thus sharing with freight), or striking out across country. I guarnadamntee you, the people who now own the land are going to be a lot better equipped than the Native Americans were at protecting what they own (especially since a number of said owners are large corporations

Then you have the fact that HSR needs to be completely grade separated which means that the trains have an unimpeded path to their destination. Now, you;re talking over/underpasses every mile through farm country.

So when people can start seeing these trains: seeing how quiet they are, how sleek they are, how you can access WIFY while on them. Then people will have a better idea of what the technology actually is.

Then this system we're building in California that will be traveling at 220 mph won't seem like a pipe dream.



Any threat to high speed trains also exists to buses.Nope

And TSA like measures are not in place in any of the other HSR systems around the world.




That might be what happens unless the Tea Partiers get them to spend zero dollars on HSR development.

Now the California system will be a success. The route is laid out. It's being designed to have speeds of 220mph and will connect major metropolitan regions. I know I would preferentially ride it. I've read just about every EIR on this project--which you can get to here (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/)--and I think it will be a model system.



Indeed. That's what I was talking about. Here in California train use has been going up steadily since 2002. Also lots of people in California are now trying to get condos near train/transit stations.So, "If we build it, they will come"
Gotcha.

[BenBurch]

Aircraft don't have to cross a public roadway every 22 seconds, among other things...

Like all high speed rail systems, no level crossings.

[rwguinn]

Like all high speed rail systems, no level crossings.
WHAT.
ARE.
YOU.
GOING.
TO.
DO.
ABOUT THE DAMN ROADS THAT NOW EXIST??
You keep ignoring this.

[WildCat]

Now the California system will be a success.
Then why doesn't California build it? What's the risk?

[BenBurch]

Where are you getting these numbers from? How many of these passengers are on their way to Kansas City or Omaha or New Orleans?

No idea about the final destination of the passengers.

Amtrak numbers; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Service

Air numbers; http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-air500passr.htm

[dtugg]

Mostly it would serve as a demonstration of the technology. Very, Very few Americans have any experience with high speed trains. They might think of them as being just "faster" trains when they are so much more than that. A modern Velaro is so different from a standard Amtrak train it's ridiculous.

High speed trains need specially constructed rails that are laid on special concrete sleepers. The trains themselves have EMU's that are positioned in places to eliminate jackknifing in the unlikely event of a derail (derails are almost unheard of on HSR trains).

Then you have the fact that HSR needs to be completely grade separated which means that the trains have an unimpeded path to their destination.

So when people can start seeing these trains: seeing how quiet they are, how sleek they are, how you can access WIFY while on them. Then people will have a better idea of what the technology actually is.

Then this system we're building in California that will be traveling at 220 mph won't seem like a pipe dream.

I hope it wil be as awesome as you think it will. I have my serious doubts though. But if it is going to be so awesome why can't the people of California pay for it themselves?

Any threat to high speed trains also exists to buses.

Do buses travel at 220mph? Do buses carry as many people as trains? Would destroying a bus cause as much monetary damage as destroying a high speed train? How much longer would it take to fix the infrastructure damage from a bomb exploded on a train vs one on a bus?

And TSA like measures are not in place in any of the other HSR systems around the world.

Do these countries even have TSA like security at airports (excluding flights going to the US)?

[BenBurch]

WHAT.
ARE.
YOU.
GOING.
TO.
DO.
ABOUT THE DAMN ROADS THAT NOW EXIST??
You keep ignoring this.

No. I haven't. The answer is obvious if you understand this field;

You build on a berm and overpass where you have to cross roads you cannot cut. To cross long distances and not have to cut many roads or have many overpasses, you parallel a major interstate where the small roads are already cut at the Interstate, and then you only need to deal with those roads that still go under or over the Interstate. In some situations where the interstate itself has a very wide median, you can put your ROW on that median. Several commuter rail projects have been done in just this way.

[rwguinn]

No. I haven't. The answer is obvious if you understand this field;

You build on a berm and overpass where you have to cross roads you cannot cut. To cross long distances and not have to cut many roads or have many overpasses, you parallel a major interstate where the small roads are already cut at the Interstate, and then you only need to deal with those roads that still go under or over the Interstate. In some situations where the interstate itself has a very wide median, you can put your ROW on that median. Several commuter rail projects have been done in just this way.
there are existing railroads paralleling a great many Interstates. What you going to do with them?
Obviously, you have not driven across Kansas or Oklahoma.
There are overpasses or underpasses for pretty much every one of those roads. That does not mean there is an exit there.
If the interstate passes under, there is a minimum height of 16 feet. So your train, including roadbed and rolling stock, must be less than 16 feet.
What do you do about grades? Interstates are allowed 6%. High-speed trains will have to ease into that, at considerably lower grade. And interstates can be twisty/turny in hilly country.
And there are a lot of places where there is little to no median between the two sets of lanes.
ETA:
And the berm is wonderful. How high? You have to allow some pretty big farm equipment to pass under.
Ever seen a big combine?

[BenBurch]

Sigh. Civil engineers have studied this to death. They know how to do this.

[rwguinn]

Sigh. Civil engineers have studied this to death. They know how to do this.
You're hung up on the technology.
Hell, yes. We know how to do it. I was actually on a 300MPH rail project, back in the 80's.
We can do it.
Socially, economically, and politically-those are the objections we have been raising. Engineers are not stupid.

[BenBurch]

Then you know we can deal with the surface roads. Interstates did it. And with the added problem that they needed to have interchanges with them.

And honestly, the technology doesn't matter much to me with respect to HSR, if you could show me how to have an equivalent energy efficiency and supply with aircraft, I'd be all ears.

I just know this is how to move masses of people from one major city to another without liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and I also know that we don't have more than another 30 years in which those will be cheap enough to burn. Rail can be fed by fixed site electric power. Aircraft cannot. Cars can be recharged from fixed site power, but will never have the speed or convenient range for more than commuting.

[WildCat]

No idea about the final destination of the passengers.
But that's critical, isn't it? Someone going to New Orleans isn't going to take a train from Chicago to St. Louis, then hop on a plane the rest of the way.

[dtugg]

Then you know we can deal with the surface roads. Interstates did it. And with the added problem that they needed to have interchanges with them.

And honestly, the technology doesn't matter much to me with respect to HSR, if you could show me how to have an equivalent energy efficiency and supply with aircraft, I'd be all ears.

I just know this is how to move masses of people from one major city to another without liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and I also know that we don't have more than another 30 years in which those will be cheap enough to burn. Rail can be fed by fixed site electric power. Aircraft cannot. Cars can be recharged from fixed site power, but will never have the speed or convenient range for more than commuting.

Coal can be turned into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. And there is a crapload of that.

[BenBurch]

But that's critical, isn't it? Someone going to New Orleans isn't going to take a train from Chicago to St. Louis, then hop on a plane the rest of the way.

Well, passing through to KC would be much more likely. The train to Nawlins does not go through St. Louis.

But Lincoln Service is not a part of a connecting service elsewhere except for one train a day which becomes the River Runner after a stop at St Louis and then goes on to KC. The numbers I quoted were for the Lincoln Service and that is six trains a day and only one is through service

The Texas Eagle makes the same route and is ticketed to St. Louis, but is not in the number I quoted.

The Southwest Chief goes to KC, but not through St. Louis.

[Newtons Bit]

there are existing railroads paralleling a great many Interstates. What you going to do with them?
Obviously, you have not driven across Kansas or Oklahoma.
There are overpasses or underpasses for pretty much every one of those roads. That does not mean there is an exit there.
If the interstate passes under, there is a minimum height of 16 feet. So your train, including roadbed and rolling stock, must be less than 16 feet.
What do you do about grades? Interstates are allowed 6%. High-speed trains will have to ease into that, at considerably lower grade. And interstates can be twisty/turny in hilly country.
And there are a lot of places where there is little to no median between the two sets of lanes.
ETA:
And the berm is wonderful. How high? You have to allow some pretty big farm equipment to pass under.
Ever seen a big combine?

I'd have to look it up, but I think interstates are allowed higher than 6% over short distances. But the more challenging thing will be the curves on the interstates. For a 70mph design, and a superelevation of 9.0%, the radius of the curve is 528ft (I cheated, I looked up a table). At 175mph, a train has a horizontal acceleration of 0.62g. The rails would need to be up at about a 30 degree angle (not sure what kind of resistance the rail has or passenger comfort requires). I suppose its probably possible, but that kind of slope can't be cheap to create. It would have to be one giant chunk of concrete...

[BenBurch]

Coal can be turned into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. And there is a crapload of that.

The Fischer–Tropsch process is dirty and wasteful. The fuel you get that way is very expensive. The Nazis wanted it because they had nothing else.

Maintenance costs are high and so are plant costs.

Longer-chain molecules such as you would find in Jet-A are harder to obtain and proportionally more expensive to make.

It is not going to be a solution to our energy needs, and in any case not even close to carbon neutral.

It will provide an expensive source of gasoline analog that can be used where nothing else will serve and the costs can be justified.

[WildCat]

Well, passing through to KC would be much more likely.
Uh, you said your HSR would go from Chicago to St. Louis?

[BenBurch]

You follow Interstates where that makes sense. For example, Chicago to Indianapolis is almost as straight as a ruler and as level as the sea. You take other routes where that makes sense. It's not hard to figure out.

And some places you just won't be able to serve with high speed trains, so if you have train service the conventional sort would be all you can do. The European rail systems have examples of that sort of access.

[BenBurch]

Uh, you said your HSR would go from Chicago to St. Louis?

You were asking about whether people were connecting through in the number I quoted. Most of those quoted will not be connecting at least on the Amtrak numbers because the service I quoted for has 5 out of 6 trains not connecting.

[Travis]

It has been demonstrated. Lots of places. Places with different culture, laws, and environments from the US--which is far from being a uni-culture coast-to-coastThe original tracks across the US were laid when there were damn few farmers out here, mostly self-sufficient. They were built using cheap (Irish and Chinese labor, legend has it) labor, and were built because the US granted the railroads huge chunks of land either side of the line.
Now you are proposing a whole NEW line, either paralleling what we have, replacing what we have (and thus sharing with freight), or striking out across country. I guarnadamntee you, the people who now own the land are going to be a lot better equipped than the Native Americans were at protecting what they own (especially since a number of said owners are large corporations Now, you;re talking over/underpasses every mile through farm country.NopeSo,

Building whole new lines is how it is done. It was done by the French, the Japanese and Spain. In all those cases they couldn't just use the existing railroads they need an entirely new one. Because some of the countries were more auto oriented they ended up having to build many of the new lines parallel to freeways.


WHAT.
ARE.
YOU.
GOING.
TO.
DO.
ABOUT THE DAMN ROADS THAT NOW EXIST??
You keep ignoring this.

It's called grade separation. Here's one (http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=45.3251166&lon=9.3795347&z=17&l=0&m=s) on the new Milan-Bologna HSR line. Note how little impact it has on the surrounding countryside. Also note that it had to be built along a whole new alignment.

Then why doesn't California build it? What's the risk?

If California didn't have to send so much money to the Feds then the state could afford it. If California became it's own country it could afford it easily.


But that's beside the point here. The Federal government helps build infrastructure all the time. Many parts of the Interstate system were built with 80% Federal funding. That's they way huge infrastructure mega-projects get built the whole world over. Bavaria was not tasked to fund and build the Nurnberg to Munich HSR line. It was funded at the National level. Kent did not fund the construction of HS1 it was funded by the UK Parliament.

So now, in light of that, consider that, in California, the Feds are only being asked to put up 25% of the funding.

[Travis]

I would advise you all to maybe learn a bit more about the systems.

I've followed every single high speed rail line, end to end, with Google Maps satellite view. I've read the relevant documents on both the California system and the Florida system. I've also gone out of my way to talk to people who have been on the international systems themselves.

Everything I see makes me think that we need these here and we need to start construction before it's too late.

[BenBurch]

...
It's called grade separation. t.
...

I told him that, he didn't seem to get it.

[rwguinn]

Building whole new lines is how it is done. It was done by the French, the Japanese and Spain. In all those cases they couldn't just use the existing railroads they need an entirely new one. Because some of the countries were more auto oriented they ended up having to build many of the new lines parallel to freeways.




It's called grade separation. Here's one (http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=45.3251166&lon=9.3795347&z=17&l=0&m=s) on the new Milan-Bologna HSR line. Note how little impact it has on the surrounding countryside. Also note that it had to be built along a whole new alignment.



If California didn't have to send so much money to the Feds then the state could afford it. If California became it's own country it could afford it easily.


But that's beside the point here. The Federal government helps build infrastructure all the time. Many parts of the Interstate system were built with 80% Federal funding. That's they way huge infrastructure mega-projects get built the whole world over. Bavaria was not tasked to fund and build the Nurnberg to Munich HSR line. It was funded at the National level. Kent did not fund the construction of HS1 it was funded by the UK Parliament.

So now, in light of that, consider that, in California, the Feds are only being asked to put up 25% of the funding.

I told him that, he didn't seem to get it.
You boys just don't listen, do you.
Where is the money going to come fro. Yes, we can build overpasses/underpasses.
But every mile or so?
Suppose you put 'em in every 10 miles, to save money
Right now, Farmer Brown hires Custom Combine to bring in his wheat. Farmer green also hires them. They finish Farmer Brown's field, and then drive the machinery the 1/2 mile to Farmer Green's field. Then the next 1/2 mile to Farmer Jones.
You stick a High-speed rail line across, between Farmer B and Farmer G, with Farmer J on the same side as farmer B.
Now, they finish with Farmer Brown, load all the machinery on trucks, drive the 5 miles to the overpass, then across the tracks, and 5 miles back.
Unload, harvest, reload, retrace your route (Farmer J's barley wasn't quite ready when you finished farmer B's Wheat) and do it all again...
That's just one, little, tiny, piece of the problem.

[BenBurch]

All that is known. All that is considered when serious civil engineering projects are proposed.

[GreyArea]

But, Travis, Glenn Beck said that high-speed rail will allow the evil government to control our movements.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102280010

You wouldn't want that, would you?










:rolleyes:

[eeyore1954]

But, Travis, Glenn Beck said that high-speed rail will allow the evil government to control our movements.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102280010

You wouldn't want that, would you?

:rolleyes:

Glen Beck said that George Will said that sort of.

[Augustine]

In California Amtrak makes money. In the northwest Amtrak makes money. In the Northeast Amtrak makes lots of money. In fact 70% of air/rail travel between those cities is now done via Amtrak's pretend high speed rail line the Acela.

Amtrak only loses money in places where it is forced to serve smaller communities with intermittent trains that are often late because they are forced to use the same rail lines as freight trains. High speed rail solves that by having dedicated tracks to high speed rail only.

Source?

Amtrak itself reports losses in 2009 of:
$11.0 M on the San Joaquins line,
$55.8M on the California Zephyr line,
$50.4M on the Coast Starlight,
$61.7M on the Southwest Chief line, and
$39.2M on the Sunset Limited line.

(In fact the only lines that didn't post losses was the Acela line in the northeast corridor.)

What lines in California posted net revenue in 2009? Where did you get this information?

[rwguinn]

Travis and Ben Burch are crying about the expense to relocate a business in Wisconsin to widen a highway, yet seem to have no problem with killing/relocating/inconveniencing businesses and people to build a HSR line.
I find it amusing...

[iknownothing]

I see it as a matter of leadership. You have to convince them that this is a benefit to them even if they have no station. One way to do that is to make sure that there are feeder bus lines from areas where there is enough traffic.

I'm reading that as "you have to convince them that there is a benefit to them even when there isn't really."

Who in their right mind would choose to take a feeder bus line to an area where there is enough traffic to get on a train, so that they can travel to a city that probably doesn't have public transportation, where they'll need to rent a car anyway? All that waiting -- drive to the bus station, wait to board, wait through bus stops, arrive at a train station. Wait until your scheduled train. Wait to board. Wait while it goes through multiple stops. Get to destination. Drag your luggage with you to the rental car agency. Wait while you sign paperwork, inspect the rental car, and finally drive to your final destination.

And just imagine how fun that would be with a couple small children!

This is a plan to connect two cities that are an hour and a half apart, with traffic, neither of which have any public transit of note, by building a multi-billion dollar train literally in the middle of the Interstate.

Yes. This just doesn't seem to be a project where it would have made a lot of sense.

Density. Crossing Illinois will be cheaper than crossing California.

Because you don't stop in as many places, which means trying to convince people that it makes sense for them to go through the multiple stages and hassle of feeder buses, etc.

I've taken the train. I've considered it other times. I've tried to like it. But it always takes so much longer than the same trip would have by car or air.

[WildCat]

If California didn't have to send so much money to the Feds then the state could afford it. If California became it's own country it could afford it easily.
They could also afford it easily if it was such a no-brainer money-maker like you claim. They would have no problem whatsoever selling bonds to fund it, since those bonds would be virtually risk-free.

So why doesn't California just do it? Why do they think they have to spread out risk you claim doesn't exist?

[WildCat]

All that is known. All that is considered when serious civil engineering projects are proposed.
Elsewhere you thought Wisconsin should halt all road construction projects because they have a deficit. Surely, the US government should do likewise until they no longer run a deficit? So no HSR until then, right?

[Tatyana]

Highways are a necessity, passenger railroads are a luxury. And an expensive luxury at that.

Is that why so many other nations have such extensive railroad systems?

Americans are just not used to having a good public transport system, and the attitude that it is for 'poor people'.

[Tatyana]

No, highways are a necessity. Do you think you could get your new refrigerator from Home Depot to your house via train Travis? When you injure yourself will you take a train to the hospital, after getting to the station via pack mule or something??

Roads are a necessity, passenger rail is a luxury.

False dichotomy.

Most countries have rail systems and roads, not one or the other.

I don't have a car, and when I need large items, there is this thing called home delivery.

There are even men who are paid to carry the large items into the house so you don't injure yourself and have to wait for the train to go to the hospital. ;)

I can see why high speed trains may not be the best idea everywhere in the US when there isn't the public transport for the cities that people are traveling to.

England is starting to build more high speed rail, however, we also know, from having train transport from the day dot, which journeys are frequently used and well supported by the public.

I love train travel.

The Eurostar is the best way to get from London to Paris.

The Eurostar then runs all the way into Italy (where the train system is fabulous as well).

You lot really don't know what you are missing. Trains are the best way to travel short-medium distances.

[leftysergeant]

I have an idea how to fund HSR.

Sieze and sell every vehicvle driven by a drunk river or a person driving with a suspended license. Split the money between local Police Departments and AmTrak.

Solve three problems out of the pockets on one moron.

[Teemu]

For EU25, just 6% of the passenger kilometers is done by rail, and of that around fifth by high speed rail. For EU25 the proportion of air travel is 11% around same as for United states.

Last page:
http://www.erf.be/images/stat/2007/2007_chap6.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States#Passenger

Of oil used in transportation in USA, around 20% goes into eighteen wheelers. So Pickens plan to make them use natural gas could be good. Suburban sprawl and public transport doesn't fit that well together, and United States is getting even more suburban (http://www.newgeography.com/content/002080-what-the-census-tells-us-about-america%E2%80%99s-future). Most homes are expected to last over half a century, so redesigning communities around public transport is not realistic. Electrochemical battery, fuels, and nuclear batteries have covered need for different kind of energy storages well enough for most of 20th century so there hasn't been that much of pressure for something more, like there was to replace vacuum tube with something better. So making heavy freight transport to use natural gas and research into energy storage technologies would probably give better results than high speed rail.

[rwguinn]

Is that why so many other nations have such extensive railroad systems?

Americans are just not used to having a good public transport system, and the attitude that it is for 'poor people'.
Most "other nations" that have extensive railroad systems would fit inside New Mexico or Arizona...

[WildCat]

Anyone still think the TSA won't be just as bad for trains as they are for airlines? Here's a group of Amtrak terrorism suspects being searched after they got off the train in Savannah, GA.

V1B3AubsTBo

When we got off in Savannah, there were TSA agents out on the platform that told us to go inside to get our (checked) luggage. So we were part of about 20 people that wondered inside. As soon as we went inside the door, there were about 14 TSA agents waiting and they ushered us into a roped off holding area. They stated we were all being searched, as well as our luggage. We told them we just got OFF the train. They said they didn't care, that if we entered the building, we were subject to search. We told them we didn't want to enter the building, that THEY told us to. (BTW our luggage was never inside - it was waiting for us on the train platform).

We started fussing about how this didn't make sense (you can actually hear us in the video). They started searching people. The family in front of us (the video posted) started being searched. When I saw the two young boys get searched, and they made them lift their shirts up, that is when I pulled out my camera and started shooting. I was in shock!! They continued to wand them, then pat them down as well.

My wife as well as one of the other ladies in our group were brought over and searched. They made them pull up their shirts (to their bra line) and then patted them down and even patted down their breasts AFTER they wanded them (what if they didn't have a bra on?!)
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/03/tsa-pat-down-savannah-train-video-full.html

HSR will be every bit the security nightmare airline travel is.

[theprestige]

Most "other nations" that have extensive railroad systems would fit inside New Mexico or Arizona...

This. Making statements about "America" or "Americans" in comparison to European nations is ridiculously oversimplifying things. Tatyana is totally overlooking the fact that America is a pretty big country, with a diverse array of populations, population densities, economies, subcultures, values, priorities, etc.

There are reasons why Americans in New York have a subway system.

There are reasons why Americans spread across southern California do not have a high speed rail system.

[JudeBrando]

This. Making statements about "America" or "Americans" in comparison to European nations is ridiculously oversimplifying things. Tatyana is totally overlooking the fact that America is a pretty big country, with a diverse array of populations, population densities, economies, subcultures, values, priorities, etc.

There are reasons why Americans in New York have a subway system.

There are reasons why Americans spread across southern California do not have a high speed rail system.

Simple truths.

It is not all or nothing, no matter how angry I don't believe Travis is...

Regional systems may make sense regionally. Simple. But maybe not so much even after further serious examination and consideration.

By the way Travis, if what I just heard regarding the earthquake in Japan is true, 4 entire trains are missing. Last night, it was "only" one whole bullet train. Trains, crew, passengers and rails all gone just like that. Bet no one in this thread had considered that as one of the options here... and neither did I.

[Rogue1stclass]

I would advise you all to maybe learn a bit more about the systems.

I've followed every single high speed rail line, end to end, with Google Maps satellite view. I've read the relevant documents on both the California system and the Florida system. I've also gone out of my way to talk to people who have been on the international systems themselves.

Everything I see makes me think that we need these here and we need to start construction before it's too late.

Ever been on the interstate doing the speed limit, when suddenly a car, probably something German, tears past you at 90mph?

Imagine that, except instead of a car, it's a train, and instead of 90mph, it's doing 165mph, and you are surrounded by lost tourists, frustrated locals, and zoned out truck drivers all doing in excess of 70mph.

I've been on the Eurostar and the TVG. They were kind of neat. If I had the option to take one up to Pensacola, I'd totally do that. Tampa? Not so much.

[WildCat]

I just learned of this video on youtube, it's the testimony of Joe Vranich before a Californis Senate committee nearly 3 years ago. What I find particularly damning is that the state HSR agency predicts a ridership far higher than any HSR line anywhere in the world has achieved, and is insanely higher than Amtrak projected ridership for a HSR line in the Northeast corridor, which has a similar population as California.

Add him to your [feces] list Travis! ;)

SS0RD6dqpKY

[davefoc]

For a variety of reasons I like the idea of high speed rail lines. The fact that they are gradually being built throughout Europe is a real advantage to the citizens of Europe.

However, it sounded to me like people have made at least two good points with respect to HSR in the US.
1. If it's going to be tried out why not try it out in the north east where highly populous cities are fairly close together and those cities already have highly developed local public transportation systems.

2. It doesn't make sense to build HSR systems to connect cities with poorly developed local public transportation systems. Public money that is available for public transportation systems would be better spent on local transportation systems for those cities.

[Prometheus]

Amtrak has already attempted an HSR line in the Northeast, except that it doesn't actually operate as an HSR. My understanding is that the population density and existing infrastructure made the logistics a nightmare.

[Puppycow]

Amtrak has already attempted an HSR line in the Northeast, except that it doesn't actually operate as an HSR. My understanding is that the population density and existing infrastructure made the logistics a nightmare.

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

[Bigfooter]

For a variety of reasons I like the idea of high speed rail lines. The fact that they are gradually being built throughout Europe is a real advantage to the citizens of Europe.

However, it sounded to me like people have made at least two good points with respect to HSR in the US.
1. If it's going to be tried out why not try it out in the north east where highly populous cities are fairly close together and those cities already have highly developed local public transportation systems.

2. It doesn't make sense to build HSR systems to connect cities with poorly developed local public transportation systems. Public money that is available for public transportation systems would be better spent on local transportation systems for those cities.

I agree with those points.

As someone who lives in Syracuse and does a lot of business in New York City, I am constantly weighing train, plane, or car. I almost never fly due to how undependable the service is. I love the train and when it's running on schedule it's great. But there have been several times where the 5 hour trip has turned into 12 due to commerical traffic. In most instances I choose to drive - pretty much 3.5 hours door to door.

I would welcome a high speed line from Buffalo to NYC and I think it would eventually catch on if shown to be dependable.

Although I get concerned when I hear some of the profs at Cornell who aren't in favor of the project like Rick Geddes.

http://centralny.ynn.com/content/top_stories/532218/expert-doubts-plan-for-high-speed-rail/

At $50 million a mile, the money on the table now for NY wouldn't even get the tracks built. That's 20 billion just for the tracks.

At those kinds of costs for just one corridor when they are being proposed all over the country, I just don't see it being feasible.

[Prometheus]

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

Like I said...

[Skeptic]

Oh yeah? OH YEAH?! You know who else loved hi-speed rail?! Hitler, that's who (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/08/love-of-high-speed-trains.html)!

[Travis]

Wow, thread resurrection. I just got through reading about 4000 pages of EIR material for the first two segments of the California project to go out to contract for construction. It looks like they will start running actual bullet trains over this once they get a San Jose to Palmdale route up. That will be going while they first finish the route all the way into Los Angeles Union Station (which is going to be great because it is served by two subway and one light rail line as well).

After that it will be a matter of connecting San Jose to the grand iconic station in San Francisco that is already under construction.

[Ziggurat]

I just got through reading about 4000 pages of EIR material for the first two segments of the California project to go out to contract for construction.

It strikes me as something of a problem that they need 4000 pages of EIR for two small segments.

California is screwed.

[Travis]

On that I agree. The amount of environmental studies they need to do these days for any infrastructure project is mind boggling.

[rwguinn]

I saw these today, and it made me think of some folks here...
http://klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=2252
http://klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=2255