Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

China

By China
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted
I'm skeptical of the 13 billion. Houston wants to add 30 miles to the light rail system here and it's estimated to cost 1.46 Billion.

Thats my only concern. 13 billion sounds VERY low for this type of deal (in particular with the amount of right of way that'll need to be purchased on the east coast)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
Posted
I said in another thread on the subject that IMO, if you can't make a profit with high speed rail between DC and Boston, (and the cities in between), then you can't make a profit anywhere.

I don't think high speed rail is even required. I don't know why they can't turn a profit on that route now. Unless they do turn a profit there and it is just the rest of the system that stinks.

I dunno. 3000 miles is an awfully long way. It makes sense to take a plane that far. Even a highspeed train would take 12-15 hours with no stops.

What makes no sense is to take a plane from DC to NYC (or Chicago to St Louis or Boston to Philly etc.) when the time for downtown to airport to airport to downtown takes 3 times as long (and causes more traffic) than a direct downtown to downtown highspeed train link.

Yeah, I don't know about the cross country trip. It would be a fun, but in a vacation all in itself kind of way.

I have logged quite a few trip to NYC and back on the regular Amtrak now...and the once in a while Acela trip. It is definitely the best way to travel between here and there. Problem is the cost. I would prefer the current method...cheaper...than a faster system that costs the same, or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duckus

Duckus

Posted
Posted
This vision is as good as I have seen

You have several "clusters" which makes it easy to reach nearby cities (as opposed to flying from Reagan to JFK)

Now airlines can focus on the cross country money making flights

Agreed. I just moved down to Austin, Texas. There is no rail transportation here. You either fly or drive. That is it. Most people have never even been on a train in their LIVES down here.

But when I look around it is PERFECT for high speed rail.

Austin - the Capital and head of government right in the middle (16th largest city in the US)

Dallas - 190 miles away north (9th largest city in the US)

Houston - 180 miles away east (4th largest city the US)

San Antonio - 80 miles south (7th larges city in the US)

4 large US cities all within 200 miles of the state capital.

The fact that these cities are not properly connected by rail is astonishing to me. It is perfect for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
I'm skeptical of the 13 billion. Houston wants to add 30 miles to the light rail system here and it's estimated to cost 1.46 Billion.

OTOH, I'd bet that the price of land in metro Houston is a bit higher than it is halfway between LA and Vegas. :)

(But I agree with you. $13B won't pay for a tenth of this system.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted

I take the Acela quite regularly and love it. It's comfortable, has AC outlets (shuttles don't) and I can use my aircard. I can buy a beer or a cup of coffee, a quick snack or a hamburger. It usually takes about 3 hours but I can show up at 7:50 for an 8 AM departure and the fact that you can take it from downtown DC to midtown NY is awesome. Ever try to get from LGA to midtown in the morning by cab? It sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
Posted
Around 2 billion (if i recall correctly)

However in the northeast, you gotta purchase the right of way for all these rails. In places like New Jersey, NYC, Boston etc, all that land is already taken up

I thought it was something like that. I can't imagine 13 billion gets us much past the "feasibility study" phase of this project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
necessary? is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No but I do it anyways because its sterile and i like the taste

you're about as useful as a poopy flavored lollipop.

but yes i think the high speed train system is necessary. think about the jobs it will create and the ability to do business faster. it will also give people more job oppurtunities. instead of most people usually living near where they work, you could live in dc and work in new york and get there in maybe about an hour or so. i think its a great idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duckus

Duckus

Posted
Posted
Ummm . . . dumb question here

Do we really need this?

Depends on how you view the future of travel and infrastructure.

Personally, I see it as a smart investment. With the rate of growth in this country, our highways are going to be like parking lots (even more so then they are today).

Was it necessary at the time to build the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s under Eisenhower? No, but could we imagine life without it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted

I don't think $13B will even begin to cover this, even at the Federal level. But I can see it being very useful, particularly for east coast business travelers.

I take the DC/Philly/NYC/Boston Acela sometimes, as an alternative to physically touching any exposed surface at Philadelphia International Airport. Direct round-trip flights from Philly to Boston on short- to medium-range notice can run something like $1,000 (seasonally) thanks to a lack of equally rapid competition. It's criminal and utterly unaffordable for traveling families. The same round-trip to Providence costs only about $200, but then leaves me on my own for the last 40 miles. Neither option is good, and nobody wants to move in to USAir's competitive space on the direct route so the prices will stay sky-high.

A rail route from DC/Baltimore/Philly to NYC/Providence/Boston at up to perhaps 185 mph would be a viable alternative to the irritations of air travel, even if it did make 5 stops en route. As it is, the Acela would be a viable alternative too -- if the track and infrastructure allowed it to motor the way it's designed to.

Philly to Boston: An hour to get from home to the airport gate + an hour delay + an hour flight + the better part of an hour to get from wheels-down to my final destination (4 hours total) isn't much better than 30 minutes from home to the platform + a four-hour ride + 15 minutes from the platform to my final destination (4:45 total). The total cost of the train ride is dramatically better, and that four-hour train ride assumes that ObamaRail has shaved only 1 hour off the total travel time. That would be easy to do by combination of faster travel (improved track) and perhaps the loss of a couple of stops along the way. Acela currently averages about 65mph for this trip. I'm willing to bet ObamaRail could average a bit more than 80.

Get the total anticipated rail travel time to within 45 minutes or so of the airlines, at the same rough cost and with less headache and greater comfort, and I think you're in business.

There are a whole lot of people like me who would use ObamaRail for business travel at a far greater frequency than we do today. Then you have all the folks who really have no idea how quickly they can get from DC to NYC when a 200 mph right-of-way is cleared for them. Their eyes will open quickly when they see how quick and easy it is for Mom and Dad to go to NYC for a Broadway weekend.

I assume the northeast corridor work would involve updating the existing right-of-ways. Purchasing a new 350 mile x 70 foot foot swath of land, plus grade work and bridge building, seems out of the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Punani

Johnny Punani

Posted
Posted

This whole idea is idiotic its not even funny!!! More government waste! Yippie!!

If you want more people using rail instead of driving then use the money to expand mass transit in major cities. No one is going to use high speed trains for long distances when flying is faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buenosdiaz

buenosdiaz

Posted
Posted
This whole idea is idiotic its not even funny!!! More government waste! Yippie!!

If you want more people using rail instead of driving then use the money to expand mass transit in major cities. No one is going to use high speed trains for long distances when flying is faster.

obviously nobody is going to go from cali to ny unless you're just scared of flying

but for a trip like NYC to DC if you could cut the length in half to about an hour and a half...it would be the same as flying in time and a lot more convenient probably

I think if it was to emphasize mid-distance travel it would be a great idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted
This whole idea is idiotic its not even funny!!! More government waste! Yippie!!

If you want more people using rail instead of driving then use the money to expand mass transit in major cities. No one is going to use high speed trains for long distances when flying is faster.

Depends of if people accurately figure in the 3-4 hours roundtrip they wait at the airport before takeoff and delay times that occur with alarming frequency.

Again, if we are talking about trips under 300-400 miles, and the prices are competitive, I assume that rail would compete quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buenosdiaz

buenosdiaz

Posted
Posted
There is no way the rail network shown in the map on page one costs 13 Billion.

its adjusted for obama-nomics and the dollar depreciation that will ensue

disclaimer: I'm a liberal but all you on the opposite end of the spectrum can use my jokes :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...