High Speed Rail

[Kelly the Dog]

I admittedly know nothing about this issue, and just wondered what people thought about it. I have no idea if it's a good idea or a bad idea, although I will say that I really liked what little of the high speed rail I was on when in Europe. Not sure how it translates to the states.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...lo&refer=us

[The Big Cat]

I admittedly know nothing about this issue, and just wondered what people thought about it. I have no idea if it's a good idea or a bad idea, although I will say that I really liked what little of the high speed rail I was on when in Europe. Not sure how it translates to the states.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...lo&refer=us

 

Given the regional clusters of major cities that exist in the U.S., high speed rail seems like an obvious solution, to me at least.

[Bishop Hedd]

I'm all for it. As a sometime user of Amtrak everyone in this state knows the trains could be faster. Conrail of course owns all trax, thereby slowing passenger rail to a crawl at their whim so there would have to be new track laid. There's a big push for it in Buffalo and all the right people seem to be behind it. We'll see.

[/dev/null]

You mean something like this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Hig...d_Rail_Corridor

[Kelly the Dog]

You mean something like this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Hig...d_Rail_Corridor

That seems like a good use of it, connecting all those cities.

[DC Tom]

I admittedly know nothing about this issue, and just wondered what people thought about it. I have no idea if it's a good idea or a bad idea, although I will say that I really liked what little of the high speed rail I was on when in Europe. Not sure how it translates to the states.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...lo&refer=us

 

Part of the problem implementing it here is that the US, as a country, is so much more spread out than European nations that a truly practical high speed rail system ends up being prohibitively expensive, particularly when travel by car is still so much more convenient. In certain regions (e.g. the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, or SoCal) it could easily be effective if implemented right. But why would you put high-speed rail in to Denver, for example? Or Seattle? Could the passenger load and distances be made cost-effective between urban areas so regionally isolated?

 

I always hear people say "Look at France's rail system, why can't we do that here?" Because France is small enough that high-speed rail can cross the entire country in three hours. Here, it would still take two days. Doesn't mean rail can't be made a viable alternative...but I don't think the European model is appropriate for the US.

[blzrul]

I think if the proper corridors are chosen it's a no-brainer. Building high-speed rail for the sake of high-speed rail would be dumb.

 

I would like to see more investment in light rail. But I am pleased that there is high-speed rail slated for the Pacific Northwest, although in the fall and winter we have issues with snow and mud/landslides wiping out our tracks locally....

 

But if you look at the travel patterns for air travel I am sure that some would emerge that could be addressed by high-speed rail efficiently.

 

The other part of this initiative is the MUCH needed upgrade of the current infrastructure (grades, crossings etc). I worked with the Big 6 railways a few years ago on projects to use wireless technology to improve many aspects of their operations and learned just how much room there is for improvement....those upgrades alone will improve travel and save lives.

[Kelly the Dog]

Part of the problem implementing it here is that the US, as a country, is so much more spread out than European nations that a truly practical high speed rail system ends up being prohibitively expensive, particularly when travel by car is still so much more convenient. In certain regions (e.g. the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, or SoCal) it could easily be effective if implemented right. But why would you put high-speed rail in to Denver, for example? Or Seattle? Could the passenger load and distances be made cost-effective between urban areas so regionally isolated?

 

I always hear people say "Look at France's rail system, why can't we do that here?" Because France is small enough that high-speed rail can cross the entire country in three hours. Here, it would still take two days. Doesn't mean rail can't be made a viable alternative...but I don't think the European model is appropriate for the US.

That's probably right. There is no need for it in Denver and Seattle, as far as connecting to other cities goes. I know there was some talk about connecting Phoenix and Vegas but that seems dumb to me. But the northeast, southeast, midwest, so cal, and perhaps some others seems at first blush pretty smart. I take the slow trains down to San Diego or up to Santa Barbara from LA and even like them.

[Chef Jim]

That's probably right. There is no need for it in Denver and Seattle, as far as connecting to other cities goes. I know there was some talk about connecting Phoenix and Vegas but that seems dumb to me. But the northeast, southeast, midwest, so cal, and perhaps some others seems at first blush pretty smart. I take the slow trains down to San Diego or up to Santa Barbara from LA and even like them.

 

There's been a lot of discussion here regarding LA-SF or Las Vegas. The people against it are just not seeing the cost effectiveness of it. Many of the studies are way out of whack with the amount of riders they anticipate. There talking here in SF as if it's a done deal and already talking about where to put the terminal. Currenlty with the cost of airfare not being so outrageous why take the train with you can fly from LA to SF in under an hour.

[stuckincincy]

I admittedly know nothing about this issue, and just wondered what people thought about it. I have no idea if it's a good idea or a bad idea, although I will say that I really liked what little of the high speed rail I was on when in Europe. Not sure how it translates to the states.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...lo&refer=us

 

It doesn't.

 

It's a chronic buzz issue here for Democrats, resurfaced recently. Basically, a try for getting public money shoved the union trades's way in return for well-established political support for election. Our current Governor dictated that any public money expenditures be union-only for construction and repair. Even a small food kitchen will have to pay union cost for something as simple as a broken window, if anyone who shows up is on some sort of State (taxpayer) assistance.

 

A curious thing is happening here in Cincinnati. Our black Mayor is hot and heavy about a trolley system of short distance, one terminus being in an area of town where the Cincinnati Police have repeatedly warned White or Hispanic people to stay out of, because of well-established black racial violence against them.

 

Yet..our currently- reigning Black activist - he's head of the local NAACP chapter, is against this. All I can figure is that it 's a power struggle over other people's money forced out of their pockets by taxation and threat of incarceration or financial ruin for non-compliance. Nothing new there.

[Steely Dan]

Part of the problem implementing it here is that the US, as a country, is so much more spread out than European nations that a truly practical high speed rail system ends up being prohibitively expensive, particularly when travel by car is still so much more convenient. In certain regions (e.g. the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, or SoCal) it could easily be effective if implemented right. But why would you put high-speed rail in to Denver, for example? Or Seattle? Could the passenger load and distances be made cost-effective between urban areas so regionally isolated?

 

I always hear people say "Look at France's rail system, why can't we do that here?" Because France is small enough that high-speed rail can cross the entire country in three hours. Here, it would still take two days. Doesn't mean rail can't be made a viable alternative...but I don't think the European model is appropriate for the US.

 

 

The system will include lines in the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast and New England and a hub in Obama’s hometown of Chicago

 

The Pacific Northwest has me scratching my noggin too. I also hope a very small part of it would be to test out mag-lev technology here. It's expensive right now but it is the future and getting some experience and testing with it wouldn't be a bad thing. IMO

[Kelly the Dog]

There's been a lot of discussion here regarding LA-SF or Las Vegas. The people against it are just not seeing the cost effectiveness of it. Many of the studies are way out of whack with the amount of riders they anticipate. There talking here in SF as if it's a done deal and already talking about where to put the terminal. Currenlty with the cost of airfare not being so outrageous why take the train with you can fly from LA to SF in under an hour.

One reason is that a one hour plane flight takes four hours. Another is the uncertainty of the airlines and oil prices as well as finding ways to lessen our dependence on fuel. And unless you make reservations early the flight is 300-400 dollars.

[blzrul]

The system will include lines in the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast and New England and a hub in Obama’s hometown of Chicago

 

The Pacific Northwest has me scratching my noggin too. I also hope a very small part of it would be to test out mag-lev technology here. It's expensive right now but it is the future and getting some experience and testing with it wouldn't be a bad thing. IMO

Amtrak runs between this corridor and it's disgustingly slow. One could in theory with high speed rail commute from Bellingham to Seattle / Seattle to Portland, etc.

[Chef Jim]

One reason is that a one hour plane flight takes four hours. Another is the uncertainty of the airlines and oil prices as well as finding ways to lessen our dependence on fuel. And unless you make reservations early the flight is 300-400 dollars.

 

Oh I see. It's takes four hours because of luggage and security right. And you'll just be able to hop on one of those high speed trains without going through security and checking in luggage.

[drnykterstein]

People always complain about LA-Las Vegas... but I think in order for this to eventually be a national/cross country system, you have to start small and build it up over time.

 

So ya, start with NY to DC and LA to Vegas and over time connect the two

[BillsNYC]

Oh I see. It's takes four hours because of luggage and security right. And you'll just be able to hop on one of those high speed trains without going through security and checking in luggage.

 

I think that's a valid point. I guess the hugest difference in time between high speed train and flight would be on time percentage. A little rain can cause 2 hour delays here in NYC, but probably wouldn't affect trains. If I could get to Buffalo in 4 hours via train, I'd do that in a heartbeat over flying, especially during the winter.

[GG]

Part of the problem implementing it here is that the US, as a country, is so much more spread out than European nations that a truly practical high speed rail system ends up being prohibitively expensive, particularly when travel by car is still so much more convenient. In certain regions (e.g. the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, or SoCal) it could easily be effective if implemented right. But why would you put high-speed rail in to Denver, for example? Or Seattle? Could the passenger load and distances be made cost-effective between urban areas so regionally isolated?

 

I always hear people say "Look at France's rail system, why can't we do that here?" Because France is small enough that high-speed rail can cross the entire country in three hours. Here, it would still take two days. Doesn't mean rail can't be made a viable alternative...but I don't think the European model is appropriate for the US.

 

That's the rub. It's taken them over 30 yrs to recognize that transcontinental rail travel doesn't make any sense in the US. But regional tracks can definitely work.

 

Seems like an obvious realization to anyone looking at a map, so insert your own opinion on why it took 30 yrs for the powers that be to finally get it.

 

Here’s a list of the ten corridors the Obama administration had identified for possible high-speed rail projects:

 

* California corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)

* Pacific Northwest corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver British Columbia)

* South Central corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)

* Gulf Coast corridor (Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)

* Chicago hub network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville)

* Florida corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami) Southeast corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville)

* Keystone corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)

* Empire corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo)

* Northern New England corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)

 

And yes, rail travel will need gov't subsidies if a decision is made that railroads are a part of the nation's transportation network.

[Chef Jim]

People always complain about LA-Las Vegas... but I think in order for this to eventually be a national/cross country system, you have to start small and build it up over time.

 

So ya, start with NY to DC and LA to Vegas and over time connect the two

 

Actually I've always felt that LA-Vegas would be very successful. I know tons of people that drive out there on a regular basis that would definately take the train. They'd end up in the poor house however.

[CookieG]

Until this year, Acela hadn't been doing bad on its Washington-Philly-NYC-Boston runs, in fact, it had 54% of the market in the plane-train Washington-NYC sector.

 

For instance....http://www.thedenverchannel.com/travelgetaways/13955626/detail.html

 

It dropped off this year, but that's due to the decline of business travel in general.

[drnykterstein]

Actually I've always felt that LA-Vegas would be very successful. I know tons of people that drive out there on a regular basis that would definately take the train. They'd end up in the poor house however.

 

Oh ya, you think the tickets would cost that much?

Makes sense, I'd not be surprised.