High Speed Rail (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

Can High-Speed Rail Succeed in America?

By Bryan Walsh Friday, Jan. 29, 2010

Passengers exit an Amtrak Acela at Union Station in Washington

Environmentalists came away from President Obama's first State of the Union address on Wednesday with mixed feelings. Yes, the President focused on the importance of investment in clean energy and energy efficiency as the best way to sustainably grow America's moribund economy, and he mentioned clean coal, biofuels and nuclear power (though not renewable energy), and he talked up the need to pass a "comprehensive energy and climate bill." But notably, he said nothing about putting a price on carbon — which is considered by most greens to be the key move to reduce global carbon emissions.

There was one part of the speech, however, that no green could fault: Obama's call for the creation of a high-speed rail system as a way to generate green jobs, enhance economic productivity and reduce carbon emissions. On Thursday, Jan. 28, the White House announced the awarding of $8 billion in stimulus funding to kick-start high-speed-rail projects and improve service in 13 corridors across the country. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Tampa, Fla., to announce the projects, which include the construction of an 84-mile high-speed track from Tampa to Orlando.

"We want to start looking deep into the 21st century and say to ourselves, There's no reason why other countries can build high-speed rail lines and we can't," Obama told a crowd in a University of Tampa arena. "Right here in Tampa, we're building the future."

That's a nice sentiment, but America's antiquated rail system will have to advance a long way just to make it to the present, let alone the future. U.S. intercity railroads are a laughingstock compared with those in most other developed nations — and, increasingly, even those in developing nations like China, which is investing more than $300 billion to build more than 16,000 miles of high-speed track by 2020.

Today you can travel the 250 miles from Paris to Lyon on the high-speed TGV in two hours. Covering a similar distance from Philadelphia to Boston takes some five hours, and that's on an Amtrak Acela train, the closest thing the U.S. has to high-speed rail. "Every other major industrialized nation has recognized that high-speed rail is key to economic growth and mobility," says Petra Todorovich, director of the America 2050 program at the Regional Planning Association. "It's time for America to realize that as well."

When the White House announced last spring that it would allocate billions of stimulus dollars to high-speed-rail projects, states submitted 45 applications for more than $50 billion in aid. In the end, the Federal Railroad Administration decided to distribute $8 billion in funding to 31 states, with the biggest single grants going to California ($2.3 billion) and Florida ($1.3 billion).

But whatever the public's vision of a sparkling new 150-m.p.h. bullet train like those in Japan and Europe, the reality is that not all, or even most, of the stimulus money will go toward creating entirely new rail service. Instead, much of the initial funding will be spent improving and speeding up existing service.

In Florida, however, the money will in fact help build a new stretch of track between Tampa and Orlando, which will allow trains to travel at speeds up to 168 m.p.h. It is the first leg of an intercity corridor that is expected to continue southward to Miami.

Demographically, Florida is an ideal state in which to launch the rail projects. Together, the metro areas of Tampa and Orlando are a major economic unit, home to more than 3.4 million people and close enough on the map to make high-speed rail competitive with air and auto travel. The region is also a tourist hub, which makes it likely that a Tampa-Orlando rail line will be well-used by Americans from around the country. That makes it a smart advertisement for other high-speed-rail projects back in their home regions.

Florida's project is also an optimal test case, having already been approved by the state and relatively free of red tape. The line is set to open by 2015, the environmental-impact assessment has already been done, and the state owns more than 90% of the route's right of way. That should reduce the property struggles and legal challenges that have slowed other new rail projects. "Florida is relatively cheap compared to other projects," says Todorovich. "This is the sort of project they can use to build support on a national basis. You need a success."

Still, the initial round of $8 billion — which Biden referred to as "seed money" during his remarks in Tampa — is just a tiny percentage of what it would cost to significantly overhaul the country's rail system. And there are concerns that by spreading the funds to so many different projects in so many different states, it won't be possible to make a real difference in any one place, as Mark Reutter wrote in a new report for the Progressive Policy Institute. It doesn't help that the one region that could most obviously benefit from truly high-speed rail — the Boston-to-Washington corridor — received a mere $112 million in funding, in part because building new track in the congested area would be prohibitively expensive and politically challenging.

Nevertheless, high-speed rail is an idea whose time has come — at least for environmentalists. According to Environment America, high-speed rail uses a third less energy per mile than auto or air travel, and a nationwide system could reduce oil use by 125 million bbl. a year. In addition, high-speed rail represents the kind of long-term infrastructure investment that will pay back for decades, just as the interstate highway system of the 1950s has. "This is a down payment on a truly national program," said Biden, who has logged more than 7,900 round trips of his own on Amtrak. "It will change the way we travel and change the way we work and live." Greens will be happy to see that.

High-Speed Rail

By Randy James Monday, Apr. 20, 2009

Like soccer and fresh bread, Americans have long viewed train travel as something that other countries simply do better. But thanks to President Barack Obama's stimulus package, efforts to get faster trains on track may finally be gaining speed.

Earlier this month Obama announced $8 billion in stimulus funds — and a request for $5 billion more over five years — toward high-speed rail projects. The government has identified 10 corridors across the country that could potentially receive funding, from a Los Angeles-San Francisco line to a route linking New York City to Buffalo.

"Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination," the President mused while unveiling the plan April 16. It's a beguiling image that's compelled and thwarted travelers in this country for decades, especially as highways clog, oil prices climb and airport delays mount.

Japan opened the world's first high-speed rail line, between Tokyo and Osaka, in time for the 1964 Olympics. Shinkansen, or bullet trains, now travel at speeds up to 185 miles per hour over some 1,500 miles of rail lines across the country. Italy is credited with Europe's first high-speed line, opening between between Rome and Florence in 1978; today trains also race through Spain, Germany, Belgium, Britain and France at speeds up to 150 miles per hour or more — making most Amtrak lines resemble a Disneyland monorail in comparison. Taiwan has also climbed on board, and fast-growing China has plunged into high-speed rail in a big way. Trains hit 217 miles per hour along a new, 75-mile route between Beijing and Tianjin built for the 2008 Olympics, and maglev (magnetic levitation) trains blast by at 268 between Shanghai and its airport. Concerns over cost have slowed the addition of more maglev lines, but conventional high-speed lines are being built in China at a frenetic pace.

By those standards, the fastest trains in the U.S. barely register; in fact, Washington defines "high-speed" as just 90 miles per hour, positively poky next to, say, France's TGV, which rockets travelers from Paris to Avignon at 158 miles per hour. Amtrak's nine-year-old Acela train between Washington, D.C. and Boston briefly hits 150 miles per hour in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, but averages only about 85 over the full route due to limitations of the tracks and overhead electric lines.

European and Asian governments have actively supported high-speed rail for a variety of reasons. Higher gas prices and denser populations make rail travel generally more attractive overseas. After World War II, many countries focused on building modern rail networks after their existing lines were destroyed. In the sprawling U.S., meanwhile, with many cities hundreds or thousands of miles apart, resources flowed toward improving air links and roads — with Eisenhower's interstate highway system the crown jewel. Several states have pursued high-speed rail on their own, including California, where voters approved $10 billion last fall for a massive project initially linking Los Angeles and San Francisco that's expected to cost tens of billions. Many high-speed train initiatives have been derailed due to their exorbitant cost — recent rail construction in Spain averaged some $22 million per mile.

The sobering expense of high-speed train travel has tempered the expectations of even the strongest rail advocates. "It sounds like a lot of money to Americans, but it's really just a start," James P. RePass of the National Corridors Initiative told the Washington Post. Some critics also predict a massive price tag to operate new rail lines, pointing to Amtrak's perennial shortfalls, and a proposed link between Anaheim and Las Vegas (in the home state of Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid) sparked outrage and derision among many Republicans.

Still, many are heartened by the President's interest in train improvement and by Vice President Biden's well-known affection for Amtrak, nurtured over years of commuting between Delaware and Washington, D.C. Even without brand-new trains, supporters welcome any new spending on the country's aging rail system. "We're not going to wake up in a year and see a bullet train," RePass said. "But we are going to see much faster service for relatively little money."

First, do we really need High Speed Rail? Or perhaps a better question is, would Americans use High Speed Rail? What further would the government need to do in order to make it 'work', if anything? If we need High Speed Rail then why are we looking at 84 MPH while the rest of the world would see that as being pedestrian? If it something we need and want, why not do it right?

 

[OC Zed]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.

(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

 

[Sarnoff]

High speed rail might work if we could park our cars on the trains, like when you take the ferryboat across the Sound.

 

[RC94]

This American would definitely use the high speed rail. I have taken the Accela dozens of times either from Boston to NYC when I was in grad school in Boston and going home to NYC or from NYC to Washington for work.

 

[pollardsvision]

I had one cut with alot of speed once. It was 'aight.

 

[Bogeys]

High speed rail is great in concept and in limited application in the United States.There is no reason for the US to be on the forefront of a national high speed rail system. We're just too big. The cost of the infrastructure over the thousands of miles just isn't worth it. Japan, Germany, France.... all these countries are about twice the size of the state of Minnesota. So it's more worthwhile to connect the country. You never read about China, Russia, or Brazil moving to the lead on this.That said, there are limited corridors where it makes sense. The most popularly discussed is the Boston-NYC-DC pathway but Dallas-San Antonio and Chicago-(destinations vary) also get discussed often. And I think there would be tremendous utility there. And I imagine there are some other main travel areas that would also be good. The problem is getting the real estate.Good idea? Yes. Ready application? Yes. Tougher than people think? Yes. Should we do it? Depends on what the final numbers look like. I don't think that it's something that involves social morals akin to taking care of the elderly or regulating industrial emissions to protect infants. So it's a straight-forward NPV calculation, taking into consideration time gained by travelers and factoring in any lower emissions and congestion. And if the NPV is positive, sure. If it's negative, I don't see a screaming need. It's kind of embarrassing where we are relative to other countries but there is a good reason for it.

 

[TLEF316]

Monorail........Monorail.......MONORAIL!!!!!!!!

 

[Kimber]

Lots of spending, very few sustainable jobs created. Most of the money will be flushed down the toilet buying up real estate, not creating jobs. We will end up with the huge project that will lose money year after year and maybe a few hundred jobs. This is not how you grow the economy, but this is how liberals think. You grow the economy by working with businesses that have real sustainable growth potential. These types of efforts take capital away from productive efforts and dump them into money pits. Completely counterproductive in the long run.

 

[Parrothead]

High speed rail is great in concept and in limited application in the United States.There is no reason for the US to be on the forefront of a national high speed rail system. We're just too big. The cost of the infrastructure over the thousands of miles just isn't worth it. Japan, Germany, France.... all these countries are about twice the size of the state of Minnesota. So it's more worthwhile to connect the country. You never read about China, Russia, or Brazil moving to the lead on this.That said, there are limited corridors where it makes sense. The most popularly discussed is the Boston-NYC-DC pathway but Dallas-San Antonio and Chicago-(destinations vary) also get discussed often. And I think there would be tremendous utility there. And I imagine there are some other main travel areas that would also be good. The problem is getting the real estate.Good idea? Yes. Ready application? Yes. Tougher than people think? Yes. Should we do it? Depends on what the final numbers look like. I don't think that it's something that involves social morals akin to taking care of the elderly or regulating industrial emissions to protect infants. So it's a straight-forward NPV calculation, taking into consideration time gained by travelers and factoring in any lower emissions and congestion. And if the NPV is positive, sure. If it's negative, I don't see a screaming need. It's kind of embarrassing where we are relative to other countries but there is a good reason for it.

This is gonna hurt.. but....

 

[Captain Placeholder]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

This is more about symbolism than anything else. It's the backyard swimming pool of public projects - it looks pretty and is a luxury item, but it's not going to be used enough to justify its existence.

 

[kaa]

I believe the price of gas is heading towards $10 / gallon in Obama's first term, so I actually think something like high speed rail could see unexpectedly heavy demand if it were implemented in the next 3-5 years. The problem is these things won't be up and running in 3-5 years. When the oil crisis hits, proposals like this will be held up by detractors as an example of "too little, too late".

 

[kaa]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

Possibly the commuting problem might be solved via innovative ideas in using remote networking to work-from-home. Once every home has video conferencing, and online technology and cloud computing get more stable and interconnected, a company owning some expensive brick and mortar property in the middle of downtown will make a lot less sense.

 

[kaa]

Probably what will happen is the US will experience the biggest oil crisis in its history from now until 2015, and bureaucrats will extrapolate out that trend and determine that we MUST have high speed rail NOW. So they pour billions of dollars into it and try to fast-track (pun intended) these projects. Then just as the first rail systems come online at tremendous cost around 2017 or so, the price of oil has completely collapsed and no-one rides them because everyone is driving cars again and enjoying cheap gasoline.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I believe the price of gas is heading towards $10 / gallon in Obama's first term, so I actually think something like high speed rail could see unexpectedly heavy demand if it were implemented in the next 3-5 years. The problem is these things won't be up and running in 3-5 years. When the oil crisis hits, proposals like this will be held up by detractors as an example of "too little, too late".

Yes. We know you do.

 

[kaa]

I believe the price of gas is heading towards $10 / gallon in Obama's first term, so I actually think something like high speed rail could see unexpectedly heavy demand if it were implemented in the next 3-5 years. The problem is these things won't be up and running in 3-5 years. When the oil crisis hits, proposals like this will be held up by detractors as an example of "too little, too late".

Yes. We know you do.

Good. Apparently I have to keep repeating it though since people like to twist my words and misquote me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Monorail........Monorail.......MONORAIL!!!!!!!!

Mono = OneRail = Rail

 

[ffldrew]

The biggest problem that high speed rail could help solve is the mess we have in the air corridors around Boston, New York, Philly, DC - if implemented well we could off load a lot of flights into these areas. The trains need to haul ### in order to make this work - and sadly many of these "high-speed" options only go 150 mph - we need to match Japan, French and Chinese speeds in the +200 range in order for users to go via rail vs air.

 

[Koya]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

Possibly the commuting problem might be solved via innovative ideas in using remote networking to work-from-home. Once every home has video conferencing, and online technology and cloud computing get more stable and interconnected, a company owning some expensive brick and mortar property in the middle of downtown will make a lot less sense.

They have been saying this since the mid 1990's. The fact remains, there is a strong need for actual personal interaction in many lines of work. Some of it is productivity. Some of it is the mere fact that human nature wants to be around others, not isolated at home. Regardless how good the technology is, you cant replace face to face, you can't replace the energy of human interaction and you can't replace a handshake.I will add, however, that where high speed rail exists, you can more easily have a satellite office in another City... you won't have isolated individuals, but perhaps a small team/outpost that for the most part does not need to be with the mothership. With high speed rail, even a few hundred miles distance would be a very easy commute for those located away from the HQ once a week, a few times a month etc.

 

[Chadstroma]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

This is more about symbolism than anything else. It's the backyard swimming pool of public projects - it looks pretty and is a luxury item, but it's not going to be used enough to justify its existence.

Isn't it pretty poor symbolism when our 'high speed' is like half that of most of the world's high speed? I mean, if we wanted a symbolic thing, shouldn't we at least match the best of the high speed rails? Or have Maglev?

 

[Chadstroma]

The biggest problem that high speed rail could help solve is the mess we have in the air corridors around Boston, New York, Philly, DC - if implemented well we could off load a lot of flights into these areas. The trains need to haul ### in order to make this work - and sadly many of these "high-speed" options only go 150 mph - we need to match Japan, French and Chinese speeds in the +200 range in order for users to go via rail vs air.

That is interesting as far as the airspace. I did not look at it through that angle of that particular air corridor and simply thought about how the airlines are actively reducing capacity (for other reasons of course). But that is one thing I can not get over. Our 'high speed' seems pathetic to the rest of the world. And if it is not really high speed where travel time is comparable to flying and less expensive than flying, then I think the only things that would work would lines that were specifically designed for vacation/entertainment. Can we do that?

 

[RTB1]

As someone who travels a LOT, but within a specific geographic territory, I would love the option of high-speed-rail.

I make the drive from Cincinnati to Cleveland, or Cincinnati to Columbus, every few weeks. One of the rail lines included in this initial funding is a line that connects these three cities. But, from what I hear, taking this new train from Cincy to Cleveland would take about 6 hours. Factor in driving to the train station, parking your car, boarding the train, etc. and then doing the reverse and renting a car at your destination, we're probably talking 8 hours at least between leaving my house and arriving at my final destination.

I can drive it in 4 hours, door-to-door.

They'd have to improve the time factor considerably.

 

[QUEZILLA]

They are putting one between Tampa and Orlando and I think it's a huge waste right now. Neither has a mid-sized rail to get people around the cities and nobody is going to take a bus. Unless your riding the trolley in Ybor or the monorail at Disney, then you are going to need a car. Not to mention, the south is all about urban sprawl, which means cars and huge subdivisions. FL just passed a bill that will increase urban sprawl so I don't see public transportation anywhere in the near future.

I'm not going to be the one to turn down a free billion dollars but I think a rail it would be more beneficial in a different place.

*ETA* And it's supposed to cost like $25 per trip!

 

[MrPhoenix]

I can see the St. Louis-to-Chicago line being particularly useful for Cards/Cubs or Blues/Blackhawks games.

 

[Chadstroma]

They are putting one between Tampa and Orlando and I think it's a huge waste right now. Neither has a mid-sized rail to get people around the cities and nobody is going to take a bus. Unless your riding the trolley in Ybor or the monorail at Disney, then you are going to need a car. Not to mention, the south is all about urban sprawl, which means cars and huge subdivisions. FL just passed a bill that will increase urban sprawl so I don't see public transportation anywhere in the near future.

I'm not going to be the one to turn down a free billion dollars but I think a rail it would be more beneficial in a different place.

*ETA* And it's supposed to cost like $25 per trip!

Interesting point about not having good public transportation at the destination cities. I mean, if you have to drive to the HSR, then park, then pay for the ticket, then when you get there basically rent a car to get around while you are there.... why not just drive? Specially there... I have made two trips to TB in the last 6 months. I have flown into TB and then got a rental car and headed out towards Orlando. Pretty much as soon as you get out of TB metro area, then it is wide open driving even during rush hour. I was actually thinking about making the trip an extended one and going to Orlando on my last trip. If the HSR was already there now, I really do not think I would use it. I would not want to have to keep getting rental cars for each side of the trip and haul my luggage around and then on top of it pay $25. Now, if gas was $10 a gallon, then maybe it becomes an option but with gas around $3-4.... I don't think so.

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

if they decide to build only ONE, I hope it's from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. I hate that drive...

 

[Chadstroma]

if they decide to build only ONE, I hope it's from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. I hate that drive...

If it is comparable in travel time with a flight and significantly less.... I could see this being successful. Party trains to Vegas where you do not have to worry about your condition to drive. Plus, when you are in Vegas, you do not need a car so that is not a negative.

 

[Eulogys]

They are putting one between Tampa and Orlando and I think it's a huge waste right now. Neither has a mid-sized rail to get people around the cities and nobody is going to take a bus. Unless your riding the trolley in Ybor or the monorail at Disney, then you are going to need a car. Not to mention, the south is all about urban sprawl, which means cars and huge subdivisions. FL just passed a bill that will increase urban sprawl so I don't see public transportation anywhere in the near future.

I'm not going to be the one to turn down a free billion dollars but I think a rail it would be more beneficial in a different place.

*ETA* And it's supposed to cost like $25 per trip!

Interesting point about not having good public transportation at the destination cities. I mean, if you have to drive to the HSR, then park, then pay for the ticket, then when you get there basically rent a car to get around while you are there.... why not just drive? Specially there... I have made two trips to TB in the last 6 months. I have flown into TB and then got a rental car and headed out towards Orlando. Pretty much as soon as you get out of TB metro area, then it is wide open driving even during rush hour. I was actually thinking about making the trip an extended one and going to Orlando on my last trip. If the HSR was already there now, I really do not think I would use it. I would not want to have to keep getting rental cars for each side of the trip and haul my luggage around and then on top of it pay $25. Now, if gas was $10 a gallon, then maybe it becomes an option but with gas around $3-4.... I don't think so.

Living between Orlando and Daytona Beach, it would take me close to 45 minutes to get to one of the 2 proposed HSR stations (Disney and OIA) and then another 45 minute ride to TB. The only time I go to Tampa is when the Bruins are playing the Lightning and using the HSR would cost me $60 round trip not counting transportation cost from the station in TB to the arena and back. And oh yeah, I would have to do all this on THEIR schedule. So that's $60+ and 1½ hours travel time. If I was to go with any friends, add on another $50pp.OR, I could drive the 1:45 - 2 hours each way on MY schedule costing me $40 (gas/parking) and that price doesn't increase when more people go with me.

Another way of looking at it, a group of 4 would pay $200+ to use the HSR compared to $40 to save ½ hour travel time each way.

Seems to me just another waste of money. Also, the jobs this is suppose to create............won't happen for at least another year, just like all those shovel-ready jobs the 1st Stimulus package was suppose to be for.

 

[Neofight]

High speed rail is great in concept and in limited application in the United States.

There is no reason for the US to be on the forefront of a national high speed rail system. We're just too big. The cost of the infrastructure over the thousands of miles just isn't worth it. Japan, Germany, France.... all these countries are about twice the size of the state of Minnesota. So it's more worthwhile to connect the country. You never read about China, Russia, or Brazil moving to the lead on this.

That said, there are limited corridors where it makes sense. The most popularly discussed is the Boston-NYC-DC pathway but Dallas-San Antonio and Chicago-(destinations vary) also get discussed often. And I think there would be tremendous utility there. And I imagine there are some other main travel areas that would also be good. The problem is getting the real estate.

Good idea? Yes. Ready application? Yes. Tougher than people think? Yes. Should we do it? Depends on what the final numbers look like. I don't think that it's something that involves social morals akin to taking care of the elderly or regulating industrial emissions to protect infants. So it's a straight-forward NPV calculation, taking into consideration time gained by travelers and factoring in any lower emissions and congestion. And if the NPV is positive, sure. If it's negative, I don't see a screaming need. It's kind of embarrassing where we are relative to other countries but there is a good reason for it.

This is gonna hurt.. but....

Should've fact checked before you whipped the little guy out.There are plenty of corridors where this makes perfect sense for the long term, and it simply isn't going to get any less expensive to do this. Nor will land become more readily available in the future. So I would disagree with Mattias (with whom I generally agree) on this being an NPV calc as well.

We don't have to do this because others are doing it; we need to do this based on the realities of our infrastructure. And the wheels are already in motion.

 

[Chadstroma]

They are putting one between Tampa and Orlando and I think it's a huge waste right now. Neither has a mid-sized rail to get people around the cities and nobody is going to take a bus. Unless your riding the trolley in Ybor or the monorail at Disney, then you are going to need a car. Not to mention, the south is all about urban sprawl, which means cars and huge subdivisions. FL just passed a bill that will increase urban sprawl so I don't see public transportation anywhere in the near future.

I'm not going to be the one to turn down a free billion dollars but I think a rail it would be more beneficial in a different place.

*ETA* And it's supposed to cost like $25 per trip!

Interesting point about not having good public transportation at the destination cities. I mean, if you have to drive to the HSR, then park, then pay for the ticket, then when you get there basically rent a car to get around while you are there.... why not just drive? Specially there... I have made two trips to TB in the last 6 months. I have flown into TB and then got a rental car and headed out towards Orlando. Pretty much as soon as you get out of TB metro area, then it is wide open driving even during rush hour. I was actually thinking about making the trip an extended one and going to Orlando on my last trip. If the HSR was already there now, I really do not think I would use it. I would not want to have to keep getting rental cars for each side of the trip and haul my luggage around and then on top of it pay $25. Now, if gas was $10 a gallon, then maybe it becomes an option but with gas around $3-4.... I don't think so.

Living between Orlando and Daytona Beach, it would take me close to 45 minutes to get to one of the 2 proposed HSR stations (Disney and OIA) and then another 45 minute ride to TB. The only time I go to Tampa is when the Bruins are playing the Lightning and using the HSR would cost me $60 round trip not counting transportation cost from the station in TB to the arena and back. And oh yeah, I would have to do all this on THEIR schedule. So that's $60+ and 1½ hours travel time. If I was to go with any friends, add on another $50pp.OR, I could drive the 1:45 - 2 hours each way on MY schedule costing me $40 (gas/parking) and that price doesn't increase when more people go with me.

Another way of looking at it, a group of 4 would pay $200+ to use the HSR compared to $40 to save ½ hour travel time each way.

Seems to me just another waste of money. Also, the jobs this is suppose to create............won't happen for at least another year, just like all those shovel-ready jobs the 1st Stimulus package was suppose to be for.

Agreed. But at what point could your mind change about that if gas prices increased? $3 a gallon? $5 a gallon? $7 a gallon? Whether by market or taxes, gas is going to be going up in the future. The only real question is how much. And then, if at what point does your thinking change? At what point does it become a choice of going by HSR or staying home?

 

[Koya]

Simple fact is, rail increases property values. Light Rail. Commuter Rail. High Speed Rail.

It is a catalyst for real estate development, higher and better uses of land and economic development.

Social benefits are tremendous - and result in further economic development opportunities. So much so, a concept called "value capture" is taking hold, where essentially you leverage future years of profit from real estate development to "bond" for dollars to pay for additional transit infrastructure today. In fact, in the early 20th century, developers would literally build their own streetcars / rail to new land they bought out far from the city core, because the future value they would gain by the connectivity would easily pay for that infrastructure to be built. While today we have (perhaps to a a fault) infrastrucure paid by the govt, especially with major infrastructure, the fact remains:

Done right, transit will pay for itself many times over - NOT by revenue from ridership, but from the economic development, increased property values, higher tax revenues (real estate, sales tax etc), cultural uses supported and other social benefits.

The costs of building roads is increasingly becoming a burden we can't afford. Rail transit will enable our current road system to work much better by lifting usage/burden (better rail also means faster movement of freight). The added efficency in just a dollar perspective is tremendous.

Just like the Eisenhower highways gave the U.S. tremendous advantages through increases in mobility, connectivity and efficiency, rail transit can become an economic catalyst (and in this case, merely catch up to the rest of the world).

People talk about the upfront cost of rail. First, its an investment (with exceptionally positive returns). Second, nations like Argentina are building high speed rail helping their economies grow. While rail in the U.S. is not necessarily analogous to Argentina, if "they can do it" seriously - we cant? At all?

And at the end of the day, if Wiliam Buffet invests in something, that's an added level of confidence.

 

[snitwitch]

I tend to think high speed rail would get used in the NE corridor, and to a lesser extent on the west coast, but not much elsewhere. The maps I've seen seem to have a ton rail planned for the southeast.

 

[cstu]

I believe the price of gas is heading towards $10 / gallon in Obama's first term, so I actually think something like high speed rail could see unexpectedly heavy demand if it were implemented in the next 3-5 years. The problem is these things won't be up and running in 3-5 years. When the oil crisis hits, proposals like this will be held up by detractors as an example of "too little, too late".

It's better to have the ball rolling on it when (and I mean when) gas hits $10 a gallon rather than having to start it from scratch during a crisis.

 

[cstu]

if they decide to build only ONE, I hope it's from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. I hate that drive...

If it is comparable in travel time with a flight and significantly less.... I could see this being successful. Party trains to Vegas where you do not have to worry about your condition to drive. Plus, when you are in Vegas, you do not need a car so that is not a negative.

The big issue for me on short flights in a pain in the ### of getting checking in, baggage checked, going through security, waiting for delays, etc., etc.Give me HSR at a comparable cost ($100 RT) and I'll take it every time.

 

[Sand]

if they decide to build only ONE, I hope it's from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. I hate that drive...

If it is comparable in travel time with a flight and significantly less.... I could see this being successful. Party trains to Vegas where you do not have to worry about your condition to drive. Plus, when you are in Vegas, you do not need a car so that is not a negative.

The big issue for me on short flights in a pain in the ### of getting checking in, baggage checked, going through security, waiting for delays, etc., etc.Give me HSR at a comparable cost ($100 RT) and I'll take it every time.

Anything less than 6 hours away and these days you are better off driving.IN an overall sense I can see HSR for the NE and the west coast. However, I am hearing reports that HSR might be coming my way, though Birmingham, AL. I have to ask - WTF? That train will be EMPTY.

 

[Osaurus]

Just wait until the Fall to see if FL taxpayers agree to pick up the tab for the rest of the project. Referendums for any tax increase don't generally get a lot of support.

 

[culdeus]

There has been one discussed freqently connecting houston/austin/san antonio/Dallas/oklahomacity. Of the southern states this makes the most sense. Connecting up the West Coast makes sense also although I'd hate to be on one going 120mph in an earthquake.

The reason why this makes sense to some extent is if the stations were downtown based you cut down the airport->downtown travel time significantly. All of these metro areas have airports out in the middle of nowhere. The thing is getting the speed up to even TGV level is just not feasible though for many reasons.

And this has been mentioned, but the biggest cost here is real estate, and the Governor election here could shape the way these types of things are handled in Texas for hundreds of years.

 

[pantagrapher]

There has been one discussed freqently connecting houston/austin/san antonio/Dallas/oklahomacity. Of the southern states this makes the most sense. Connecting up the West Coast makes sense also although I'd hate to be on one going 120mph in an earthquake.The reason why this makes sense to some extent is if the stations were downtown based you cut down the airport->downtown travel time significantly. All of these metro areas have airports out in the middle of nowhere. The thing is getting the speed up to even TGV level is just not feasible though for many reasons. And this has been mentioned, but the biggest cost here is real estate, and the Governor election here could shape the way these types of things are handled in Texas for hundreds of years.

I don't know the specifics, but hasn't Southwest Airlines been working overtime to make sure high-speed rail doesn't happen in Texas?

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison gets talked about a lot. It makes perfect sense to link those cities in the Midwest.

Long term, you can then run it to Minneapolis as well.

 

[Captain Placeholder]

Simple fact is, rail increases property values. Light Rail. Commuter Rail. High Speed Rail.

It is a catalyst for real estate development, higher and better uses of land and economic development.

Social benefits are tremendous - and result in further economic development opportunities. So much so, a concept called "value capture" is taking hold, where essentially you leverage future years of profit from real estate development to "bond" for dollars to pay for additional transit infrastructure today. In fact, in the early 20th century, developers would literally build their own streetcars / rail to new land they bought out far from the city core, because the future value they would gain by the connectivity would easily pay for that infrastructure to be built. While today we have (perhaps to a a fault) infrastrucure paid by the govt, especially with major infrastructure, the fact remains:

Done right, transit will pay for itself many times over - NOT by revenue from ridership, but from the economic development, increased property values, higher tax revenues (real estate, sales tax etc), cultural uses supported and other social benefits.

The costs of building roads is increasingly becoming a burden we can't afford. Rail transit will enable our current road system to work much better by lifting usage/burden (better rail also means faster movement of freight). The added efficency in just a dollar perspective is tremendous.

Just like the Eisenhower highways gave the U.S. tremendous advantages through increases in mobility, connectivity and efficiency, rail transit can become an economic catalyst (and in this case, merely catch up to the rest of the world).

People talk about the upfront cost of rail. First, its an investment (with exceptionally positive returns). Second, nations like Argentina are building high speed rail helping their economies grow. While rail in the U.S. is not necessarily analogous to Argentina, if "they can do it" seriously - we cant? At all?

And at the end of the day, if Wiliam Buffet invests in something, that's an added level of confidence.

You're comparing Argentina's room to grow economically with the U.S.'s? Seriously? There's nothing magic about economic development around rail systems, but you're right, it does or at least can happen. To me you solve the local problems first with local rail. The major transportation issues we have are intracity not inter-city. That's where the dollars should go because we already know the demand is there - we see it every day on the backed-up roads during rush hour.

 

[culdeus]

There has been one discussed freqently connecting houston/austin/san antonio/Dallas/oklahomacity. Of the southern states this makes the most sense. Connecting up the West Coast makes sense also although I'd hate to be on one going 120mph in an earthquake.The reason why this makes sense to some extent is if the stations were downtown based you cut down the airport->downtown travel time significantly. All of these metro areas have airports out in the middle of nowhere. The thing is getting the speed up to even TGV level is just not feasible though for many reasons. And this has been mentioned, but the biggest cost here is real estate, and the Governor election here could shape the way these types of things are handled in Texas for hundreds of years.

I don't know the specifics, but hasn't Southwest Airlines been working overtime to make sure high-speed rail doesn't happen in Texas?

That's the rumor at least. The Observer has been trying to nail them on this for a while with little real results. The cost barrier for the whole package is still just out of control. With the current state of things it's just so exceedingly unlikely that they probably have little to worry about.

 

[Chadstroma]

There has been one discussed freqently connecting houston/austin/san antonio/Dallas/oklahomacity. Of the southern states this makes the most sense. Connecting up the West Coast makes sense also although I'd hate to be on one going 120mph in an earthquake.The reason why this makes sense to some extent is if the stations were downtown based you cut down the airport->downtown travel time significantly. All of these metro areas have airports out in the middle of nowhere. The thing is getting the speed up to even TGV level is just not feasible though for many reasons. And this has been mentioned, but the biggest cost here is real estate, and the Governor election here could shape the way these types of things are handled in Texas for hundreds of years.

Japan has many more earthquakes than we do on the west coast and yet they have trains traveling faster than 120.

 

[QUEZILLA]

A few good points brought up here by Chadstroma & Koya.

-The only way people are going to ride it is if it's better than the option of driving. Several factors could make a high speed rail more attractive than driving. a) Gas prices are too expensive b) Traffic is too bad c) parking is too expensive

I took an urban planning course last spring and learned that urban planners love congestion. You pretty much need congested chaos for projects like these to make sense.

Another issue is that usually infrastructure is playing catch-up to population growth. In the HSR case, and the Ybor City Trolley, the infrastructure will be there first.

Also, like Koya mentioned you are never going to see direct revenue from an infrastructure project. How much money is made off of an interstate?

 

[the moops]

if they decide to build only ONE, I hope it's from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. I hate that drive...

That line should be way down the list if it comes to fruition.NE corridor, LA to SF, St Louis to Chicago should all take precedence over a Vegas line.

 

[QUEZILLA]

if they decide to build only ONE, I hope it's from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. I hate that drive...

That line should be way down the list if it comes to fruition.NE corridor, LA to SF, St Louis to Chicago should all take precedence over a Vegas line.

Just get California to legalize gambling. The weed thing seems to be doing alright. Unless you go to Vegas for the hookers.

 

[QUEZILLA]

So what happens when a suicide bomber blows one of these HSR up? Full body scanners!!!

 

[Joseph]

And at the end of the day, if Wiliam Buffet invests in something, that's an added level of confidence.

you were doing so well until that last sentence...

 

[flufhed]

High speed rail is great in concept and in limited application in the United States.

There is no reason for the US to be on the forefront of a national high speed rail system. We're just too big. The cost of the infrastructure over the thousands of miles just isn't worth it. Japan, Germany, France.... all these countries are about twice the size of the state of Minnesota. So it's more worthwhile to connect the country. You never read about China, Russia, or Brazil moving to the lead on this.

That said, there are limited corridors where it makes sense. The most popularly discussed is the Boston-NYC-DC pathway but Dallas-San Antonio and Chicago-(destinations vary) also get discussed often. And I think there would be tremendous utility there. And I imagine there are some other main travel areas that would also be good. The problem is getting the real estate.

Good idea? Yes. Ready application? Yes. Tougher than people think? Yes. Should we do it? Depends on what the final numbers look like. I don't think that it's something that involves social morals akin to taking care of the elderly or regulating industrial emissions to protect infants. So it's a straight-forward NPV calculation, taking into consideration time gained by travelers and factoring in any lower emissions and congestion. And if the NPV is positive, sure. If it's negative, I don't see a screaming need. It's kind of embarrassing where we are relative to other countries but there is a good reason for it.

Did you see the part about China's investment in High Speed Rail?

 

[flufhed]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

This is more about symbolism than anything else. It's the backyard swimming pool of public projects - it looks pretty and is a luxury item, but it's not going to be used enough to justify its existence.

Don't people regularly fly and drive between major cities?

 

[Horses Mouth]

You never read about China, Russia, or Brazil moving to the lead on this.

read the OP.

 

[Captain Placeholder]

Traveling between cities and major metropolitan areas is not our problem. Commuting to and from cities and major metropolitan areas is the problem. And all of these massive taxpayer-funded boondoggles do not address our real need.(And I'm not even suggesting government would effectively address that need either.)

This is more about symbolism than anything else. It's the backyard swimming pool of public projects - it looks pretty and is a luxury item, but it's not going to be used enough to justify its existence.

Don't people regularly fly and drive between major cities?

Unless you anticipate that I'm going to answer, "No, they go by submarine", this is a rhetorical question. What's your point?