Business Insider: Obama Wants To Build High-Speed Trains!

[mjah]

Unfortunately for DC citizens I think you are wrong on that one [infrastructure - ed.]. To go to the T's you walk down steps or catch the train curb side. To get on a Metro train you typically have to decent hundreds of feet below the surface using huge escalators. The Metro escalators are very important to the riderships and htey are all about 10 years beyond their life expectancy. the company which manufactures them is out of business, and the Metro is left to fabricate spare parts on the fly when they break.

The Metro infrastructure is a disaster, compared to the functional boston system which is 90 years older.

I just meant that the general state of cleanliness, repair, and odor in the Metro are better than that of the T, and the trains are in better shape too. I agree that T stops are easier to get into and out of, and T stops are in WAY better locations overall than the spread-out Metro. While Metro is absurdly escalator-dependent, the T has its escalator woes too. I remember a couple of incidents in which Blue Line escalators stopped suddenly and hurled passengers down the steps.

But at least the T's designers were smart enough to keep the escalators under cover by design...!

[DCSaints_fan]

There's no way that figure is accurate. 45million per mile? Why? What the hell are these new high speed railways made of? Aren't current high-speed railways made of a much higher quality track and overhead cables? That costs 45mill per mile?!

Appx 226/27 miles from DC to NY. At a cost of 45mill per mile would equal 10,170,000,000. 10 billion dollars for a railway? GTFO! There's no way thats accurate.

Hmm, well my figures were slighty off and this was from memory. Florida got $1.25 billion of the $8 billion funding for high speed rail, thats going almost entirely to the Orlando-Tampa rail line. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23train.html

The total cost of the line a bit hard to pin down . I found one source that says $2.5 billion. That appears to be on the low end, so we'll take that number The proposed line has a distance of 84 miles. $2.5 billion/84 miles ~ $30 mlllion a mile. I realize this is probably not exactly a linear function because there are fixed costs, and a longer track would have a economy of scale, etc. but thats about what we are looking at.

The wikipedia page cites a projected of ridership of 2 million yearly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_High_Speed_Rail#Phase_1:_Tampa_to_Orlando_route I believe thats a bit optimisitc, but we'll work with that number. Now lets say over 30 years, you want to repay the cost of construction only - how much would you have to charge per rider? Well $2.5billion/ (2 million riders/year * 30) years ~ $41 per rider you have to recoup. That doesn't sound too bad, but that doesn't include any maintence, only the initial investment. Realistically, I bet they would have to charge around $70-$80. When most of the population can simply drive, I'm not sure that makes sense. It looks like this thing is going to get built so we'll see.

As I mentioned before, a Boston to DC line (stopping in NYC, Philly and Baltimore at least) makes alot of sense. In addition to the population density and distance, NYC and Boston are probably two of the most car unfriendly cities in the US and both have pretty good public transit, so it would make alot of sense to build high speed rail linking those two cities and probalby extending it all the way down to DC.. And in fact, there is a line - the Acela. But it isn't all that high speed, because they had to utilize exisitng track which had lots of grade crossings which limits the speed of the line. So your Boston to DC trip is takes about 5-6 hours if I remember right (a flight would take about an 1.5, not including boarding, etc. but rail has some of that overhead as well, especially as it gets more popular and crowded that advantage it currently enjoys will become nullfied).

[Larry]

As I mentioned before, a Boston to DC line (stopping in NYC, Philly and Baltimore at least) makes alot of sense. In addition to the population density and distance, NYC and Boston are probably two of the most car unfriendly cities in the US and both have pretty good public transit, so it would make alot of sense to build high speed rail linking those two cities and probalby extending it all the way down to DC.. And in fact, there is a line - the Acela. But it isn't all that high speed, because they had to utilize exisitng track which had lots of grade crossings which limits the speed of the line. So your Boston to DC trip is takes about 5-6 hours if I remember right (a flight would take about an 1.5, not including boarding, etc. but rail has some of that overhead as well, especially as it gets more popular and crowded that advantage it currently enjoys will become nullfied).

I think another reason the NE corridor is a good place to try high speed rail is because all of the airports in those cities are jam packed, with corresponding traffic problems and no doubt really high landing fees.

(Biggest drawback I see to making that the first project? I doubt there's a place in the US where it costs more to obtain the land needed for the line.)

[JMS]

I think another reason the NE corridor is a good place to try high speed rail is because all of the airports in those cities are jam packed, with corresponding traffic problems and no doubt really high landing fees.

(Biggest drawback I see to making that the first project? I doubt there's a place in the US where it costs more to obtain the land needed for the line.)

The North Eastern Air corador is the most heavily trafficed air coridor in the world.

I believe the already approved north eastern line goes Boston-> NY-> Phili-> Baltimore-> DC-> Richmond-> Atlanta...

The land isn't an issue because they are going to upgrade existing services.

[mjah]

I think it would be impossible to improve northeastern rail without a plan to use existing right-of-ways.

I'd stop a northeastern line at DC. The idea behind high-speed US rail is to connect major cities that are within a certain distance of each other. Richmond is not a major city; its inclusion would mostly be for DC commuting purposes which, given the cost of taking high-speed rail to work everyday, doesn't bode well for ridership. Besides, there's little sense in saddling a regional project with the mandate to be a commuter line too.

Atlanta is too far south to be practical; it's substantially farther from DC than Boston is. DC-Atlanta airfares in either direction are very cheap, very plentiful, and it's hard to imagine that changing. The time savings associated with flying is very substantial between DC/Atlanta, and it probably would cost more to take the train round-trip than to fly.

I wonder if NJ would find a way to wrangle a high-speed stop out of the deal. NJ is currently home to the most useless Acela stop, Metropark. I guess I can see a stop in or around Newark due to the incredible hassle of moving between there and NYC to get to the train, but that's it. It runs the risk of being another Richmond/DC situation.

[Larry]

I think it would be impossible to improve northeastern rail without a plan to use existing right-of-ways.

But those existing right-of-way are at ground level, and are currently used for lots of other traffic. And if your high speed service has to share the rail with existing freight, then it's dead.

So, what do you do? Build elevated track above existing freight lines, without disrupting said freight lines?

Still, I agree: NE corridor is where the customers are.

[mjah]

But those existing right-of-way are at ground level, and are currently used for lots of other traffic. And if your high speed service has to share the rail with existing freight, then it's dead.

So, what do you do? Build elevated track above existing freight lines, without disrupting said freight lines?

Still, I agree: NE corridor is where the customers are.

I agree -- you can't share with freight for several reasons. You wouldn't own the track; freight is unpredictable and therefore would interrupt service; there would be major implications if a junky old freight train became disabled in the wrong place; etc. Basically all of the problems we have now, with our existing "high" speed rail service.

The easiest solution would be to work with the infrastructure we have now. Eliminate some less useful Acela stops; buy tracks outright from their current owners with promises to lease sufficient usage back at favorable rates; make major improvements to the sections of track that need them, to enable 150 mph in the open stretches; and flip the routing priorities so Acela gets first shot in scheduling and contingency planning.

That would eliminate the majority of current problems -- though not all of them, as you would still get a disabled train in the wrong place here and there -- at lower cost than building an entirely new infrastructure from scratch.

Interestingly, although Amtrak's northeast corridor isn't profitable, it is said that Acela as a standalone operation apparently is. I'm not sure how fair that claim is, as they may not include enough overhead to reflect Acela's share of the northeast expense pie, etc. But it goes to show that in near-ideal conditions (as railways go), it is possible to approach breakeven. And I believe that's about as good as it gets in rail.

[isle-hawg]

This is one of the rare things Obama proposed that I agree with. I would of preferred he would of directed all the 1 trillion + bailout to this project instead of ****ing most of it away. At least this way there is something to show for it and hopefully reduces our dependence on fuel from the middle east.

Plus I like trains

[China]

Central Valley to get high-speed rail before Bay Area

The Bay Area will not be the first region of the state to have a high-speed rail line.

Members of the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s board of directors voted unanimously Thursday in Sacramento to put its first line in the Central Valley, either from Merced to Fresno or Fresno to Bakersfield. They will select one of those to receive $4.3 billion in federal funding at their next monthly meeting Dec. 2.

Rod Diridon, a former Santa Clara County supervisor and current member of the rail authority’s board of directors, said Thursday he was disappointed the San Jose-to-San Francisco segment of the 800-mile, $43 billion project connecting the Bay Area and Sacramento to Southern California would not be on its leading edge.

“It’s heartbreaking for me and many others who have been working for that to happen for up to 30 years,” Diridon said.

He said one of the reasons the Central Valley was chosen is the opposition to the project that has arisen in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Belmont and Burlingame, which comprise the Peninsula Cities Consortium.

Some residents and public officials in those communities contend the high-speed line would cause noise and visual pollution in their cities if the rail authority does not choose the expensive option of tunnelling through the area. Officials in Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park filed a second lawsuit last month against the rail authority, claiming it violated state laws when it approved a comprehensive study evaluating the Bay Area-to-Central Valley segment of the network. A similar earlier suit by Atherton was dismissed.

[Sticksboi05]

Metro is better than the T. By far. T stations are mazes and are dirtier and not all are handicap accessible for those who need it. But it was poorly planned and they are dealing with it now.

[China]

LaHood to GOP governors: No trains, no money

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has a message for Republican governors who campaigned against the president's high-speed rail program: Build the trains or give back the money.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Tuesday rejected a request from Gov.-elect John Kasich in Ohio to use the $400 million in federal funds pledged to that state's train project on other projects like road construction or freight lines.

"I would like high-speed rail to be part of Ohio's future," LaHood wrote. But if the state won't go forward, it's necessary "to wind down Ohio's involvement in the project so that we do not waste taxpayers' money," he said.

A day earlier LaHood sent the same message to Wisconsin officials about the $810 million in rail money pledged to that state. Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker campaigned against the Madison-to-Milwaukee line, including creating a website opposed to the project.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated an initial $8 billion for a high-speed rail program, doesn't allow the money to be spend for other purposes, said Ross Capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers.

Click on the link for the full article

[nonniey]

LaHood to GOP governors: No trains, no money

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has a message for Republican governors who campaigned against the president's high-speed rail program: Build the trains or give back the money.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Tuesday rejected a request from Gov.-elect John Kasich in Ohio to use the $400 million in federal funds pledged to that state's train project on other projects like road construction or freight lines.

"I would like high-speed rail to be part of Ohio's future," LaHood wrote. But if the state won't go forward, it's necessary "to wind down Ohio's involvement in the project so that we do not waste taxpayers' money," he said.

A day earlier LaHood sent the same message to Wisconsin officials about the $810 million in rail money pledged to that state. Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker campaigned against the Madison-to-Milwaukee line, including creating a website opposed to the project.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated an initial $8 billion for a high-speed rail program, doesn't allow the money to be spend for other purposes, said Ross Capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers.

Click on the link for the full article

Damn another $13 billion wasted. Wish they had just gone ahead and used that for NASA's heavy lift rockets. So now states have to find ways to waste it on a rail system that will never be built (none of the states can afford their share).

[88Comrade2000]

Ohio's so called speed rail was joke. It was going to run at 39mph. Going to Cleveland to Cincinnati basically would be quicker by car and the proposed times were limited.

[PeterMP]

High speed lines one the NE corridor won't work on the existing tracks because PA (SEPTA) and NJ (New Jersey Transit) already run local commuter trains on those tracks. Those trains go slow and make lots of stops. You won't be able to accomodate them and real high speed trains, and the powers that be (unions and governments) aren't going to give that up.

[Ellis]

Every time I read about speed trains, I immediately think of that scene in Singles where the guys idea is shot down because "people love their cars."

Can we ever reach a point of abandoning our vehicles for mass transit?

[The 12th Commandment]

Interestingly, although Amtrak's northeast corridor isn't profitable, it is said that Acela as a standalone operation apparently is. I'm not sure how fair that claim is, as they may not include enough overhead to reflect Acela's share of the northeast expense pie, etc. But it goes to show that in near-ideal conditions (as railways go), it is possible to approach breakeven. And I believe that's about as good as it gets in rail.

Not sure about moving people, but for freight I know the cost of fuel has a HUGE impact.

[boobiemiles]

They say China has the fastest trains in the world. Seems like we are playing catch up in so many ways. Wow!

[China]

They say China has the fastest trains in the world. Seems like we are playing catch up in so many ways. Wow!

And China want in on California's high speed rail plans:

China Eyes State Rail Plan

Profit and prestige are seen in building, operating the system.

FRESNO -- In the 19th century, laborers from China helped build railroads spanning California and linking the U.S. coasts. In the 21st century, the Chinese may be back -- not for backbreaking labor, but with financial and technological muscle.

The People's Republic of China has more miles of track for high-speed trains than any country in the world, but California has none.

The Chinese want in on the state's fledgling high-speed rail project. They're eager to help bankroll and build the system and, eventually, provide the trains to operate on the tracks.

China's not alone. Eight nations have agreements with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to share information about high-speed rail -- and each wants a piece of California's business.

"Other countries want to be a part of this because they know high-speed rail can be profitable," said Jeffrey Barker, the authority's deputy executive director. "Their ultimate interest is operating the system."

Experts suggest that China's economic might -- and government-backed companies -- give it an advantage.

"China is cash-flush, and its highly subsidized industries are bankrolled with surplus government funds," said Usha Haley, a professor of international business at Massey University in New Zealand and an expert on China's worldwide business strategies. "They're investing in infrastructure around the world ... and if they're bidding in an open-bid process, China will get that bid."

Click on the link for the full article

[JMS]

Not sure about moving people, but for freight I know the cost of fuel has a HUGE impact.

ve r

The reason Obama want's to improve / modernize our nations rail system is because rail is about 200x more efficient than trucks. 1 ton of frieght can be moved 436 miles on one gallon of fuel by freight.

Which means rail improvement and expanded use needs to be part of any meaningful national energy plan. When gas hits $4.50 again sometime this summer; we will be wishing we had such efficient alternatives to moving frieght by trucks.

[shk75]

I really hope this comes true one day. One I am terribly afraid of flying and this would be a great alternative lol. But seriously I envy the systems of Europe and Japan, having used them countless times they are just so efficient. I know that mid distance traveling, i.e. 200-400 miles is quicker on a rail (door to door time) than any other form of transportation (well other than Doc's Delorean).

[Sticksboi05]

It won't ever happen. Not true high-speed. It's too expensive and if we even want half-assed high speed it's still too expensive right now.

To raise the overall mph average of Acela by 5 mph it would cost billions.

We will suffer the consequences of not doing this when it wouldn't have been so absurdly expensive. Kind of like major growing cities without a subway system.

Our infrastructure is just way too old.

[Hubbs]

ve r

The reason Obama want's to improve / modernize our nations rail system is because rail is about 200x more efficient than trucks. 1 ton of frieght can be moved 436 miles on one gallon of fuel by freight.

Which means rail improvement and expanded use needs to be part of any meaningful national energy plan. When gas hits $4.50 again sometime this summer; we will be wishing we had such efficient alternatives to moving frieght by trucks.

I don't recall seeing any plans for high-speed freight rail. All I've seen are plans to link population centers, usually just along the coasts, for passengers. Why would high-speed freight rail be more fuel efficient?

It won't ever happen. Not true high-speed. It's too expensive and if we even want half-assed high speed it's still too expensive right now.

To raise the overall mph average of Acela by 5 mph it would cost billions.

We will suffer the consequences of not doing this when it wouldn't have been so absurdly expensive. Kind of like major growing cities without a subway system.

Our infrastructure is just way too old.

I'm not sure I understand when it would have been less expensive. When technology was less advanced? Why would that have been cheaper?

[PeterMP]

I'm not sure I understand when it would have been less expensive. When technology was less advanced? Why would that have been cheaper?

Because the land you will need would have been cheaper.

We should be setting tracks of land aside and free from development for future infrastructure improvements. Anybody building a 4 land highway shoudl be made to make shoulders/medians large enough to add two more lanes.

[mjah]

We will suffer the consequences of not doing this when it wouldn't have been so absurdly expensive. Kind of like major growing cities without a subway system.

Many of our large cities had FAR more extensive public transportation networks as recently as 50-60 years ago, before the almighty automobile and its powerful manufacturers kindly bought up many of those systems and hastened them to appointments with oblivion.

All hail the almighty auto.

[Sticksboi05]

Many of our large cities had FAR more extensive public transportation networks as recently as 50-60 years ago, before the almighty automobile and its powerful manufacturers kindly bought up many of those systems and hastened them to appointments with oblivion.

All hail the almighty auto.

Cincinnati half built their subway and never finished.