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

[TheGoodBits]

That's what I'm saying, if the majority of people would use it, then fine, I wouldn't personally. All of my family lives in the same city I do, I don't travel except on vacation, I have no use for it. I'd be curious to see how many people would honestly use it.

Yeah I hear you. I wonder if they built one all the way down the east coast how long it would take to get to Florida. I can see a lot of people using it for vacations if it meant only like 5-6 hours from VA to FL and cheaper than airfare.

[armstrong001]

Wouldnt the builders of the rail lines most likely be contract workers rather than official federal employees though?

You'll have to have government inspectors and Contracting Officers (with a warrant to obligate money on behalf of the government). You can get away with hiring some inspectors from private industry, but those in charge of dolling out the money have to be government employees. Those doing the actual construction of the railroads will be contractors.

Then of course, you'll have the security personnel after completion. My guess is that TSA will take over this duty.

With as long as it takes to design and build roads for the Federal Government (the field I am in), and the length of railways we are talking about, you are looking at YEARS to get through all of the environmental impact statements, land use permits, public comments, design revisions, etc. before you can even start to build this. And God help us if there is a dispute in the bid results (do we bid this sole source? Best value? Lowest price? ). Of course the government could mandate cutting through the red tape, but then environmentalists will throw a fit, private land owners, NIMBY activists, etc. The whole thing is a big headache.

[Skinz4Life12]

how fast do the trains move?

[TheGoodBits]

how fast do the trains move?

Well the ones in Japan go REALLY fast, like 150 mph or more I think. There would of course be a lot of stops along the way, like every 100 miles or so, but I could see the VA to FL trip being around 6 hours.

[Skinz4Life12]

Well the ones in Japan go REALLY fast, like 150 mph or more I think. There would of course be a lot of stops along the way, like every 100 miles or so, but I could see the VA to FL trip being around 6 hours.

a 6 hour trip to florida would be sick.

i drove from leesburg to miami and it took like 15 hours so if you could do it in 6 without flying that would be awesome

[TheGoodBits]

DC to Orlando is 846 miles according to Google Maps. 846/150= 5.64 plus like an hour for stops along the way brings you to about 6.5 hours. Assuming average moving speed is 150mph.

[SkinInsite]

how fast do the trains move?

The new one in China build for the Olympics can do around 215mph.

[December90]

Wouldn't use it and as a non-user wouldn't want to pay for it.

If this is truly viable, then allow private industry to do it (what is a better drive the Dulles Greenway or the BW Parkway? - in terms of road conditions not just traffic congestion)

With profit motive comes the need to be competitive. Why take the train if you can fly unless the train is better or cheaper or both?

NO MORE GOVERNMENT FIASCOES PLEASE!!!

if this goes thru as proposed the 13 billion would more closely represent the annual interest cost of the program than the total cost of the program.

[Skinz4Life12]

imagine if you could hop on this and be in atlantic city in an hour

[codeorama]

Wouldn't use it and as a non-user wouldn't want to pay for it.

If this is truly viable, then allow private industry to do it (what is a better drive the Dulles Greenway or the BW Parkway? - in terms of road conditions not just traffic congestion)

With profit motive comes the need to be competitive. Why take the train if you can fly unless the train is better or cheaper or both?

NO MORE GOVERNMENT FIASCOES PLEASE!!!

if this goes thru as proposed the 13 billion would more closely represent the annual interest cost of the program than the total cost of the program.

You said it best... Let a private industry do it, keep the govt out.

[TheGoodBits]

You said it best... Let a private industry do it, keep the govt out.

Gov't funds would just be to help it get off the ground. It not like it would be a federally owned rail system (at least I don't think).

[Midnight Judges]

You'll have to have government inspectors and Contracting Officers (with a warrant to obligate money on behalf of the government). You can get away with hiring some inspectors from private industry, but those in charge of dolling out the money have to be government employees. Those doing the actual construction of the railroads will be contractors.

Then of course, you'll have the security personnel after completion. My guess is that TSA will take over this duty.

With as long as it takes to design and build roads for the Federal Government (the field I am in), and the length of railways we are talking about, you are looking at YEARS to get through all of the environmental impact statements, land use permits, public comments, design revisions, etc. before you can even start to build this. And God help us if there is a dispute in the bid results (do we bid this sole source? Best value? Lowest price? ). Of course the government could mandate cutting through the red tape, but then environmentalists will throw a fit, private land owners, NIMBY activists, etc. The whole thing is a big headache.

It would obviously be best value as there are numerous contractors out there who can do this type of work, particularly if they allow foreign concerns to make an offer (bid is not technically the right term here) which they will under the buy American act thus giving domestic contractors a 6% advantage (12% if they're small, which they won't be). Lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) is feasible, but it's just not en vogue right now.

Politically speaking, foriegn contractors probably shouldn't waste their time.

Also, I think you're overestimating environmental because the existing rail lines merely have to be upgraded to support high speed rail (which I think is what they did with ascela). The paths are largely if not completely already in place.

I agree, this will take years to get going. But it should have been done long ago IMO.

[Predicto]

Why do you think they are doing it now? They can claim prices are much lower and get a better deal on the land.

Why does everyone keep talking about grabbing land?

Railway right of ways already exist along these corridors. I assume that they are going to use the same routes that the current rail line run on. That won't require buying any land.

The biggest reason an urban light rail expansion costs so much is to buy all the land along the route - because it goes thru the heart of a metropolitan area on a route that never had a train tracks before.

Am I incorrect in this assumption?

[TheLongshot]

imagine if you could hop on this and be in atlantic city in an hour

Unfortunately right now there isn't a direct line to AC from here. You have to get off and switch trains.

Personally I'm a big fan of train travel. I've done it a couple time from here to Atlanta and it is a pretty decent trip. Getting a faster train will cut down the time from the current 12 hours to something more manageable.

I've also taken Acela and the trains are nice even if it isn't that much faster than the regular trains. (Damn our crappy infastructure..)

[Midnight Judges]

(Damn our crappy infastructure..)

It is crappy. When I was in Spain I was able to hop on a train on a few hours notice and be across the country in a very short time, at a low cost, and it was actually very smooth-much smoother than Amtrak.

Anyway, our infractructure is simply not worthy of our status as the number #1 superpower and by far the #1 economy. If we're supposed the be the leaders of innovation, how come we're riding around in these dumpy old trains?

And what has prevented private industry from making these improvements so far? In which countries has private industry taken it upon themselves to build a high speed rail system?

Somebody recently posted a budget breakdown for the USA. IIRC, .4% of your tax dollars go to the department of transportation. That's nothing! Considering the DOT is something that everyone takes advantage of, it seems to me to be a worthy expenditure-much more worthy than a lot of Defense programs (24%) entitlements (roughly 50%) interest on debt ((9%) which should have been about half what it is right now) the Iraq war (???%) etc.

[Elessar78]

Train travel is great. Best option available in my opinion between DC and Boston and everywhere in between. Problem is ticket price. Much more expensive than even flying these days. And I don't think Amtrak is even profitable with those prices. I wonder how much this thing will cost even after it is built.

Is it more expensive? When you factor in the cost of getting to and from the Airport(s) in NYC, not to mention the time it takes to get to and from the airport. I think the difference is price is worth it.

I don't know if it's profitable, but as long as they're break even or close to it, I wouldn't mind. Since it's a gov't entity, it can take the loss and it allows business people and tourists who are actually making money/generating money to get where they need to go. I kinda see it like the highway system. Who cares if they're profitable, because it allows commerce to take place.

[Elessar78]

It is crappy. When I was in Spain I was able to hop on a train on a few hours notice and be across the country in a very short time, at a low cost, and it was actually very smooth-much smoother than Amtrak.

Anyway, our infractructure is simply not worthy of our status as the number #1 superpower and by far the #1 economy. If we're supposed the be the leaders of innovation, how come we're riding around in these dumpy old trains?

And what has prevented private industry from making these improvements so far? In which countries has private industry taken it upon themselves to build a high speed rail system?

Somebody recently posted a budget breakdown for the USA. IIRC, .4% of your tax dollars go to the department of transportation. That's nothing! Considering the DOT is something that everyone takes advantage of, it seems to me to be a worthy expenditure-much more worthy than a lot of Defense programs (24%) entitlements (roughly 50%) interest on debt ((9%) which should have been about half what it is right now) the Iraq war (???%) etc.

Ever notice that the Metro Trains in DC are built in Italy?

[armstrong001]

It would obviously be best value as there are numerous contractors out there who can do this type of work, particularly if they allow foreign concerns to make an offer (bid is not technically the right term here) which they will under the buy American act thus giving domestic contractors a 6% advantage (12% if they're small, which they won't be). Lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) is feasible, but it's just not en vogue right now.

Politically speaking, foriegn contractors probably shouldn't waste their time.

Also, I think you're overestimating environmental because the existing rail lines merely have to be upgraded to support high speed rail (which I think is what they did with ascela). The paths are largely if not completely already in place.

I agree, this will take years to get going. But it should have been done long ago IMO.

You sound like you know your way around government contracting. What do you think will happen when you select best value on a project this big? You'll get contractors contesting the results, saying theirs was the best "value".

And while upgrading existing lines, we'll be putting them out of service for a while. How will that affect existing rail use?

I don't know the specifics of this proposal, but I could forsee having to expand the footprint of the railway (I don't know how wide these corridors need to be for trains doubling or tripling in speed). I don't know if the new rail will be designed for use with existing freight trains or not. It might not be the best idea to mix 150mph trains and 65mph trains on the same track. If mixing the two isn't achievable, then you are looking at additional rails.

[Midnight Judges]

You sound like you know your way around government contracting. What do you think will happen when you select best value on a project this big? You'll get contractors contesting the results, saying theirs was the best "value".

Protests have gone up exponentially over the past few years. The key is to have a qualified source selection team and get the idiotic political-appointees-who-don't-know-squat-about-procurement out of the room. -That's hard to do on a high profile project like this. My reply is going to sound simplistic, but if the FEDS just do what they say they are going to do in the request for offer, everything should be fine. Easier said than done, but it can be done.

There will be protests. The question is whether or not those protest will be successful.

And while upgrading existing lines, we'll be putting them out of service for a while. How will that affect existing rail use?

I don't know the specifics of this proposal, but I could forsee having to expand the footprint of the railway (I don't know how wide these corridors need to be for trains doubling or tripling in speed). I don't know if the new rail will be designed for use with existing freight trains or not. It might not be the best idea to mix 150mph trains and 65mph trains on the same track. If mixing the two isn't achievable, then you are looking at additional rails

From what I've read, you would have to slightly increase the footprint because high speed trains lean more, thus requiring more space. It's already been done in the USA though.

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

[armstrong001]

Protests have gone up exponentially over the past few years. The key is to have a qualified source selection team and get the idiotic political-appointees-who-don't-know-squat-about-procurement out of the room. -That's hard to do on a high profile project like this. My reply is going to sound simplistic, but if the FEDS just do what they say they are going to do in the request for offer, everything should be fine. Easier said than done, but it can be done.

There will be protests. The question is whether or not those protest will be successful.

I don't care about the protests being successful. They'll just take a long time to clear up.

From what I've read, you would have to slightly increase the footprint because high speed trains lean more, thus requiring more space. It's already been done in the USA though.

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

I can't remember what the acreage is before you have to start doing environmental studies, etc. But even a few feet of width over the length of these tracks would put these over that area, I would imagine.

Of course, I don't believe that it is within the Federal Government's power to do something like this, but that's a different story.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't care about the protests being successful. They'll just take a long time to clear up.

I can't remember what the acreage is before you have to start doing environmental studies, etc. But even a few feet of width over the length of these tracks would put these over that area, I would imagine.

Of course, I don't believe that it is within the Federal Government's power to do something like this, but that's a different story.

LOL, havent you realized by now EVERYTHING is within the Federal Gov't power! General Welfare, dont ya know?

[Larry]

Why does everyone keep talking about grabbing land?

Land, land. See 'snatch'.

So, your assumption is that the plan is going to be to take an existing railroad line, close that rail line down to the existing traffic, upgrade it, re-open it, and then allow our new, high-speed train to begin sharing that rail line with all of the freight that were using the line before the upgrade?

[Larry]

LOL, havent you realized by now EVERYTHING is within the Federal Gov't power! General Welfare, dont ya know?

Nah, they'll use "interstate commerce" on this one.

(And in this case, they won't even be lying.)

[Elessar78]

Wouldn't use it and as a non-user wouldn't want to pay for it.

Well, I would use it and I would pay for it.

If this is truly viable, then allow private industry to do it (what is a better drive the Dulles Greenway or the BW Parkway? - in terms of road conditions not just traffic congestion)

Yeah cause private industry has already done something about it. Private industry doesn't have the political will or scope to handle a project like this. Dulles and BW Pkwy are apples and oranges. One was built back in the day isn't built for today's volume of traffic. Either end of the Greenway doesn't even come close to the population density of BW Pkwy's.

With profit motive comes the need to be competitive.

Without a direct train competitor all you'd see is a reduction in service/quality over time.

if this goes thru as proposed the 13 billion would more closely represent the annual interest cost of the program than the total cost of the program.

I had to deal with the Iraq war. Now it's your turn to stomach initiatives you don't like.

[Predicto]

Land, land. See 'snatch'.

So, your assumption is that the plan is going to be to take an existing railroad line, close that rail line down to the existing traffic, upgrade it, re-open it, and then allow our new, high-speed train to begin sharing that rail line with all of the freight that were using the line before the upgrade?

No. My assumption is that you can run parallel rail lines.

My understanding is that the high volume main rail corridors are more than one train wide. Am I incorrect?