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

[deejaydana]

hee! One lame shot deserves another

Lame is Obama's first, what, 8 weeks? I knew he would be a disaster yet I hoped for the best of a bad situation. So, now he's going to install high speed rail everywhere. Hmmmm. Does anyone know how prohibitively expensive and largely illogical that proposal is? He should just step back and watch California try to link SF to LA via rail and see how bankrupting that is going to turn out. Imminent domain alone will be its downfall but hey, why think about reality? Maybe these rail lines can be as profitable as, what's their name? Oh yeah, Amtrak.

[Larry]

Hey, I don't know if it's still true, but California used to be home of the only monorail in the world that made a profit.

[Larry]

BTW,

Y'all do understand that my photo was a reference to the state of this thread, don't you?

[Predicto]

Lame is Obama's first, what, 8 weeks? I knew he would be a disaster yet I hoped for the best of a bad situation. So, now he's going to install high speed rail everywhere. Hmmmm. Does anyone know how prohibitively expensive and largely illogical that proposal is?

Everyone knows it will be expensive. A lot of people think it also is very logical.

[Larry]

Everyone knows it will be expensive. A lot of people think it also is very logical.

But not as we know it.

[mjah]

[sigh] remember when the Simpsons were funny?

That episode was funny, but it also signaled that the writers (including soon-to-be-famous ones) were allowing themselves to wander off in very surreal directions when they weren't sure where to go. The end of that episode foreshadowed the forced humor the Simpsons were to become, with the escalator to nowhere etc. At first the new surrealism was fine, but eventually Bad Things resulted.

Strange that an animated series was much better when it was somewhat more grounded. But, it was.

As, what once was...

[zoony]

The Simpsons golden age was when Conan OBrien was the head writer

[Sticksboi05]

The U.S. for some reason thinks roads are the only way to expand transportation. Instead of building mass transit in large cities we make more lanes which just eventually breeds more traffic. It is a flawed system and won't end until we get a clue and use other transportation methods. The "most advanced" country in the world has only ONE high speed rail network i nthe country which can only achieve those speeds for short distances and not at 100% of its maximum. That's embarrassing.

[Sticksboi05]

It makes more sense to make it between urban centers, not cross country. And actual high speed, not Acela which is marginally high speed, especially compared to Europe and Asia's real high speed networks.

[Sticksboi05]

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.

It's for travel between relatively close urban centers (ie the Megalopolis) or say Chicago to Cleveland. Not for Boston to La, that just makes no sense.

[deejaydana]

Everyone knows it will be expensive. A lot of people think it also is very logical.

Sweet. Why was I trying to justify the math in my head? Train tracks to everywhere I say! Let me know how it turns out friend & while you're at it, let me know also where the immediate demand is for rail lines across the U.S., how you expect to conjure demand for this service (Americans love to drive cars) and how you expect to pay for it w/o gigantic and long lasting tax hikes. I'm waiting for your answer. Show me some inventive math, you know Obama-style 'new' math. If these rail lines can happen on any level they have to connect just major metropolitan areas that are geographically very close, but I could be wrong. Longer distances just don't make sense to me for a number of reasons. I could be wrong but I'd love to hear an informed voice on the matter.

[Predicto]

Sweet. Why was I trying to justify the math in my head? Train tracks to everywhere I say! Let me know how it turns out friend & while you're at it, let me know also where the immediate demand is for rail lines across the U.S., how you expect to conjure demand for this service (Americans love to drive cars) and how you expect to pay for it w/o gigantic and long lasting tax hikes. I'm waiting for your answer. Show me some inventive math, you know Obama-style 'new' math. If these rail lines can happen on any level they have to connect just major metropolitan areas that are geographically very close, but I could be wrong. Longer distances just don't make sense to me for a number of reasons. I could be wrong but I'd love to hear an informed voice on the matter.

Actually, I agree with you. I have already said that I do not think that it makes sense cross country. Connecting major downtowns in the same region of the country - that is exactly want I was talking about.

Glad we agree.

[Larry]

The interstate Highway system, right now, connects LA to NYC.

How many people routinely drive from LA to NYC?

The fact that a rail system connects the coasts, doesn't mean that it's target customer is riding from coast to coast.

How many people, y'all figure, routinely ride Metro from end to end? They get on at a point, and they get off some time later. The train may go from end to end, but the only person who's on it for the entire trip is the driver.

[China]

High-Speed Rail Would Save Oil, Create Jobs, Study Finds

By Chad Vander Veen

Jun 18, 2010

OMAHA, Neb. -- A frank discussion about realities of high-speed rail's economics and viability was one of the high points of this week's Meeting of the Minds conference on sustainable cities this week. With billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars being spent on high-speed rail projects, panelists sought to sort out facts from fiction.

Stephen Robillard, vice president of High Speed Rail USA at Siemens AG -- which builds trains and light rails -- said that if 10 percent of drivers switch to high-speed rail ridership, the U.S. would save 550 million barrels of oil annually and that one high-speed railcar equates to taking 200 cars off the road.

Robillard cited a study that Siemens AG prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors that investigated the economic impact of high-speed rail service to various cities. By 2035, Los Angeles would see 55,000 new jobs created and $7.6 billion in new revenue; Orlando, Fla., would support 20,000 new jobs and see more than $2 billion added to the local economy; while high-speed rail to Albany, N.Y., would generate 4,700 new jobs and $500 million.

The numbers induced some howling from the audience, some of whom wondered how realistic the figures were. Robillard admitted the numbers were estimates only.

"It's hypothetical, but it's based on experiences from other countries," he said, pointing to Germany, France and Spain, where high-speed rail flourishes. "Spanish high-speed rail has taken 50 percent of the business from airlines. Between Cologne and Frankfurt, air travel has disappeared, replaced by high-speed rail. Paris and Lyon as well."

Robillard and the other panelists agreed that key to making high-speed rail succeed is investment in intercity rail.

"Intercity rail has been a neglected stepchild for 30 years. It is the missing link," said Bruce Agnew, director of the Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a group working to get high-speed rail service in the Pacific Northwest. "There has to be commitment at all levels of government to make it work."

Click on the link for the full article

[thebluefood]

Okay, fine. I like to take train.

But, where are we gonna get the money to build this thing?

[Skin'Em84]

Okay, fine. I like to take train.

But, where are we gonna get the money to build this thing?

I'd be okay with taxes for this thing; mainly because the jobs building it will create will hopefully stimulate the economy.

Ceaser built roads to improve Rome's economy.

[BadKarma]

How about that traffic in Tysons Corner since they started construction on the monorail?

Awesome.

[SnyderShrugged]

I know Europe is often looked at as the example for rail usage, but our country and it's gigantic suburbia just isnt well suited for effective high speed rail use.

[JMS]

Sweet. Why was I trying to justify the math in my head? Train tracks to everywhere I say! Let me know how it turns out friend & while you're at it, let me know also where the immediate demand is for rail lines across the U.S., how you expect to conjure demand for this service (Americans love to drive cars) and how you expect to pay for it w/o gigantic and long lasting tax hikes. I'm waiting for your answer. Show me some inventive math, you know Obama-style 'new' math. If these rail lines can happen on any level they have to connect just major metropolitan areas that are geographically very close, but I could be wrong. Longer distances just don't make sense to me for a number of reasons. I could be wrong but I'd love to hear an informed voice on the matter.

You are like a horse an buggy guy complaining about paving the roads. "Dirt was always good enough before!!"

You are missing the entire point of high speed trains. You like to drive your corvert, so you see not use in trains? The deal is trains are the most efficient way to transport goods from point A to point B. It takes 1 gallon to move 1 ton of material 423 miles on rail. Which is about 20 times more efficent than any other form of transportation. 50 times as efficient as airplanes.

That's why if your goal is efficiency, modernizing the rail infrastructure of the country which hasn't undergone an update since the 1960's is a huge priority. It also takes trucks off conjested roads, and yes even takes planes out of the sky. Have you flown lately? Flying domestic in the united states today is similary to flying in honderas during the 1970's. Complete with chickens in the ailse..... Flying in the US used to be about luxury and it was really something special.... then it went to common place.. Today it's how many people can we pack in the cabon... It's the worst possible way to travel. I would personally rather drive my car 11 hours than fly 1 hour. Takes about the same time.... Given you have to get to the plane now several hours ahead of time, and the enevitable delays.

The more money we sink into modernizing rail, the better for the county.

[JMS]

I know Europe is often looked at as the example for rail usage, but our country and it's gigantic suburbia just isnt well suited for effective high speed rail use.

1 ton, 423 miles, on one gallon of gasoline.. And modern trains are nearly as fast as planes and more efficent. How can you be a first world country and not have a modern rail system?

[SnyderShrugged]

1 ton, 423 miles, on one gallon of gasoline.. And modern trains are nearly as fast as planes and more efficent. How can you be a first world country and not have a modern rail system?

In my opinion (FWIW), our population density is too dispersed for it to be as effective as in other countries. We are too spread out in the burbs.

I remember when I lived in germany for a summer, *(loved taking the train everywhere!). They didnt really have any suburbs to speak of, just a dense population then rural, then another dense population. That made it effective for rail travel.

Dont get me wrong, if it could be worked out effectively and efficiently, I'd be all for it. I just have my doubts on viability due to the different direction our population centers took.

[Busch1724]

I"m all for this if it's economically feasible long term. Here is PA, public transportation hasn't turned a profit in many years. Then again it could work if drivers and misc. workers weren't paid union labor. That's another discussion. However, how many people are going to take a high speed train from metro area to metro area everyday to make it feasible. It's a nice idea in theory, but we have other matters at hand.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

In my opinion (FWIW), our population density is too dispersed for it to be as effective as in other countries. We are too spread out in the burbs.

I remember when I lived in germany for a summer, *(loved taking the train everywhere!). They didnt really have any suburbs to speak of, just a dense population then rural, then another dense population. That made it effective for rail travel.

Dont get me wrong, if it could be worked out effectively and efficiently, I'd be all for it. I just have my doubts on viability due to the different direction our population centers took.

It wouldn't be feasible for everywhere. Its not like you'd take a high speed train from NYC to L.A. But, there are major arteries of travel where it would be useful. Low speed trains in the Northeast are debatably already more efficient than planes (at least from D.C. to NYC). If you can get to NYC and/or Boston faster on train than plane, you'd do it. That entire corridor (Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Richmond, and maybe all the way to Charlotte for you) could be helped. Another corridor could be from Atlanta down to Miami. Western corridors from S.F. to San Diego would work. A line to Vegas would work. I'm sure there is a midwestern corridor that would work (Chicago to Indy to St. Louis?)

Point is, this is not going to replace air travel all together. But, it can be a better option for a lot of travellers at a cheaper price while generating jobs for people and income for state and federal governments.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I"m all for this if it's economically feasible long term. Here is PA, public transportation hasn't turned a profit in many years. Then again it could work if drivers and misc. workers weren't paid union labor. That's another discussion. However, how many people are going to take a high speed train from metro area to metro area everyday to make it feasible. It's a nice idea in theory, but we have other matters at hand.

I was talking to a friend of mine about how this would really change things.

Imagine having a "richmond to DC" line, with 4 stops along the way.

The economy of both Richmond, DC and in between could change. If you could live in Richmond, for far cheaper, and get to DC in 45 minutes stress free no traffic, many people would do it, and you'd have plenty of positive externalities

[SnyderShrugged]

It wouldn't be feasible for everywhere. Its not like you'd take a high speed train from NYC to L.A. But, there are major arteries of travel where it would be useful. Low speed trains in the Northeast are debatably already more efficient than planes (at least from D.C. to NYC). If you can get to NYC and/or Boston faster on train than plane, you'd do it. That entire corridor (Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Richmond, and maybe all the way to Charlotte for you) could be helped. Another corridor could be from Atlanta down to Miami. Western corridors from S.F. to San Diego would work. A line to Vegas would work. I'm sure there is a midwestern corridor that would work (Chicago to Indy to St. Louis?)

Point is, this is not going to replace air travel all together. But, it can be a better option for a lot of travellers at a cheaper price while generating jobs for people and income for state and federal governments.

I think thats a reasonable discussion. In fact, I had heard rumor of a planned high speed rail line from Atlanta to Charlotte way back in 2000. Not sure if any progress was ever made. I think the theory was that the I85 corridor would become a manufacturing hub (BMW has a large plant in it already among others) and that would open up a potential labor pool from Atlanta, Greenville, Spartanburg and Charlotte.

It's a neat idea, but I'm still not sure if the costs could be justified for such a limited scale. To me, high speed rail lines are an all or nothing proposition. Just seeing the issue with the new very short line in Charlotte makes me feel that way.