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

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

What's the "short line in Charlotte"?

Oh, and I don't know what the costs are, I only know what I hear. It sounds like the general consensus is that its affordable and there's no reason not to do it. But, I can't say I've really wasted team trying to determine if its affordable.

[mjah]

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

Awesome.

Fixed that for you.

There's traffic when big things get built. It's true. Hey, how about that traffic in Tysons Corner before they started construction on the Metro?

Spending any time near Tysons makes one a glutton for punishment. Zero sympathy points awarded.

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.

Public transportation in PA has never turned a profit, at least not during our lifetimes. Nor has it turned a profit anywhere else in the US. Even the NYC subway is subsidized.

And with the exception of some jam-packed Asian subways and literally two modest European rail lines, modern passenger rail doesn't turn a profit anywhere in the world.

Committing to workable public transportation is about something wholly different from profit motive. That's why all the goats bleating about, say, Amtrak not being profitable are largely ignored: they out themselves as not understanding why it exists in the first place.

[MattFancy]

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

See I think this will be the main use for this. It would make traveling to and from work so much easier. No more traffic and you could live and work just about anywhere. It could conceivably make the east coast into one big metro area since it would be so easy to get from Boston to NY to Phill to DC.

[SnyderShrugged]

What's the "short line in Charlotte"?

Oh, and I don't know what the costs are, I only know what I hear. It sounds like the general consensus is that its affordable and there's no reason not to do it. But, I can't say I've really wasted team trying to determine if its affordable.

There is a short, inter-city high speed rail line in Charlotte that is just a couple years old. It ended up being very costly and from what I can gather, it's really mainly used by the very low income folks and a bunch of people who dont want to drive drunk after some uptown events.

It was supposed to be a huge draw and traffic eliminator but it hasnt come close to meeting its intended goals.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There is a short, inter-city high speed rail line in Charlotte that is just a couple years old. It ended up being very costly and from what I can gather, it's really mainly used by the very low income folks and a bunch of people who dont want to drive drunk after some uptown events.

It was supposed to be a huge draw and traffic eliminator but it hasnt come close to meeting its intended goals.

That can't be "high speed" trains. I think the minimum for "high speed" trains is a speed of somewhere in the 150 mph range. That sounds like a subway, light rail, or elevated train system that is for suburb to city commuters.

[SnyderShrugged]

That can't be "high speed" trains. I think the minimum for "high speed" trains is a speed of somewhere in the 150 mph range. That sounds like a subway, light rail, or elevated train system that is for suburb to city commuters.

Whoops! I think you are correct, I misnamed it. I think it is considered a "light rail" not a high speed rail. Sorry for the confusion.

[DCSaints_fan]

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

High speed rail costs around $45 million per mile.

The only areas where high speed makes sense in the US, is connecting two high population areas that are far apart enough where driving is time consuming yet close enough where the time overhead and hassle of getting in and out of the airport vs. a slower rail trip makes rail attractive.

This is not the Metro we are talking about - we are talking ticket princing of at least of $100+ a trip

Up and down the east coast from Boston to Washington makes alot of sense. (And there already is a quasi high speed rail in the Acela, though its dirt slow compared to the even the British rail, its not much faster than a car) Ditto for the West coast from Seattle to San Diego.

No one would pay $100+ to ride a rail line from Richmond to D.C., when a car trip cost under $20.

[SnyderShrugged]

High speed rail costs around $45 million per mile.

The only areas where high speed makes sense in the US, is connecting two high population areas that are far apart enough where driving is time consuming yet close enough where the time overhead and hassle of getting in and out of the airport vs. a slower rail trip makes rail attractive.

This is not the Metro we are talking about - we are talking ticket princing of at least of $100+ a trip

Up and down the east coast from Boston to Washington makes alot of sense. (And there already is a quasi high speed rail in the Acela, though its dirt slow compared to the even the British rail, its not much faster than a car) Ditto for the West coast from Seattle to San Diego.

No one would pay $100+ to ride a rail line from Richmond to D.C., when a car trip cost under $20.

Oh dont worry about that cost! The American taxpayer will subsidize the $80 difference.

[Busch1724]

Oh dont worry about that cost! The American taxpayer will subsidize the $80 difference.

See that's what concerns me. Someone mentioned in an earlier post, 45 million bucks to build per square mile. I haven't had time to look it up or verfiy it, but that's very expensive.

To me it would be unfair for someone in the midwest to subsidize a high speed rail on the east coast or west coast. Likewise, I think it's unfair for someone in Shippensbur, PA to subsidize the same thing connecting Philly to Boston. It takes over 2 hours to drive to Philly from where I am and then have to pay for the train ride to Boston. It's a more viable to just drive to Boston.

Once again, the folks outside the metro areas pay for services in metro areas they will never use.

[skinfan133]

:secret: We should turn the W&OD back into rail and make it run as commuter lines to DC. Jus' sayin. Hindsight is 20/20

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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

That's very, very interesting. I never thought of the impact it might have on expanding the "suburbs" of some major US cities. DC already has commuters from Fredericksburg, imagine if it could consider Richmond a suburb?

If you could do that to many of the major cities, I think that could be quite beneficial for employment.

[Larry]

And with the exception of some jam-packed Asian subways and literally two modest European rail lines, modern passenger rail doesn't turn a profit anywhere in the world.

The monorail at Disney.

[JMS]

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.

I think your point is the classic argument. My point is the parameters of that argument have changed. When Gas was 1$ a gallon and readily available folks who shipped goods could make due with trucks, and consumers could afford to pay the higher shipping fees trucks entailed. When gas is 3$ a gallon and likely $4+ when the economy begins to grow again, then we can no longer afford the inefficiencies of using trucks as our primary mechanism for shipping goods...

A more efficient and faster way to ship good would be with a rail backbone and trucks distributing from satillite depositories..... That's got to be part of any national energy policy... has to be.

Now once we modernize the rails, I disagree consumers won't flock to it. The United Stats airways in 2010 are a shaddow of their former selves. Airlines are the worst possible way to travel today. People would love a more timely, comfortable, pleasant and econmical way to travel.

[JMS]

And with the exception of some jam-packed Asian subways and literally two modest European rail lines, modern passenger rail doesn't turn a profit anywhere in the world.

The monorail at Disney.

Curiously the nations roads don't turn a profit either. The nations power grid doesn't turn a profit. The nations telephone grid didn't turn a profit for decades after it was built. Get ready for a big shock... The nations existing rail system doesn't turn a profit either!

Are you suggesting we do away with roads, electricity, and telephones? Hell I'm not even sure Airlines turn a profit on a regular basis for the last half decade, much less the air traffic control system. We can throw both of them on the trash heap too.

The for profit model just isn't a reasonable yard stick to put up against every service. Sometimes you simple have to invest in your economy like Eisenhower and Truman invested in the 1950's to give us the interstate highway system. That's a good role for government, to play in the economy. Figure out excellent infrastructure projects and get them done.

The reason being they have a huge multiplier effect on businesses and jobs even if they don't directly turn a profit themselves.

The monorail at Disney.

I saw an excellent documentary on Disney which went into the monorail system. Evidently Walt employed all these model builders. Brilliant and creative guys. The monorail system was prototyped by one such dude. He did a 1/72 scale mock up of the monorail for Walt. After a few iterations Walt said to the guy... I like it, go build it. They guy had never made a full scale anything, and all the sudden he's in design mode for one of the first monorails in the country.... Went into how he went about it. really facinating stuff.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think your point is the classic argument. My point is the parameters of that argument have changed. When Gas was 1$ a gallon and readily available folks who shipped goods could make due with trucks, and consumers could afford to pay the higher shipping fees trucks entailed. When gas is 3$ a gallon and likely $4+ when the economy begins to grow again, then we can no longer afford the inefficiencies of using trucks as our primary mechanism for shipping goods...

A more efficient and faster way to ship good would be with a rail backbone and trucks distributing from satillite depositories..... That's got to be part of any national energy policy... has to be.

Now once we modernize the rails, I disagree consumers won't flock to it. The United Stats airways in 2010 are a shaddow of their former selves. Airlines are the worst possible way to travel today. People would love a more timely, comfortable, pleasant and econmical way to travel.

I really disagree here on only one point and that is the "flocking" to it. Americans love their cars and it would take a station every couple of miles throughout the entire urban sprawl to make them want to give them up.

Think of it this way....why would someone who lives in the burbs want to take a train that they would have to drive to get to initially when they could just drive to the destination to begin with. The only way I see it becoming viable is if getting to a station to catch the train is within walking distance. That isnt remotely feasable with our Urban sprawl in most places.

Again, it's just my personal opinion so take it for what its worth. I'd really love to see viable rail transportation become dominant again (As an Atlas Shrugged fan, how could I not!)

[JMS]

I really disagree here on only one point and that is the "flocking" to it. Americans love their cars and it would take a station every couple of miles throughout the entire urban sprawl to make them want to give them up.

Couple of points...

#1 We use roads to ship more things than just people. Even if rails don't replace the cars for the morning commute they are still and important part of the infrastructure to upgrade and the effect will multiply across the economy as well as reduce the need for energy imports.

#2 About Americans "loving their cars". Let's be honest. Americans really weren't given a choice but cars. Where subways were constructed they have been very popular. It's just that most rapid transit systems in this country have been systematically attacked and destroyed by the auto industry over the years. I personally would love the choice to ride in a clean fast train for 20 minutes in the morning, rather than spend 80 minutes waiting in traffic on 66 or 495.

Think of it this way....why would someone who lives in the burbs want to take a train that they would have to drive to get to initially when they could just drive to the destination to begin with. The only way I see it becoming viable is if getting to a station to catch the train is within walking distance. That isnt remotely feasable with our Urban sprawl in most places.

I agree with the first part of your argument... Boston in the second oldest transit system in the country does an excellent job at doing just that. You should ask yourself why the Federal governmetn built the metro system the way it did.... A big beutiful expensive model, which goes nowhere... Rather than a Boston model of smaller less expensive trains which go everywhere.

Again, it's just my personal opinion so take it for what its worth. I'd really love to see viable rail transportation become dominant again (As an Atlas Shrugged fan, how could I not!)

The high speed rail obama is talking about is more for intercity travel, not for commuting. That's where the bulk of my argument is applicable... I do believe city mass transit is just a matter of priorities. Big business has traditionally killed such projects because they cost car sales, unless the transit systems still require cars to us, like DC's metro.

[Hubbs]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I've lived in both Boston and DC, and I consider the Metro to be vastly superior to the T. I loathed that damn thing when I was up there. Why are you hating on the Metro, JMS? I don't get the "goes nowhere" claim at all.

[mjah]

Public transportation in PA has never turned a profit, at least not during our lifetimes. Nor has it turned a profit anywhere else in the US. Even the NYC subway is subsidized.

And with the exception of some jam-packed Asian subways and literally two modest European rail lines, modern passenger rail doesn't turn a profit anywhere in the world.

Committing to workable public transportation is about something wholly different from profit motive. That's why all the goats bleating about, say, Amtrak not being profitable are largely ignored: they out themselves as not understanding why it exists in the first place.

Curiously the nations roads don't turn a profit either. The nations power grid doesn't turn a profit. The nations telephone grid didn't turn a profit for decades after it was built. Get ready for a big shock... The nations existing rail system doesn't turn a profit either!

Are you suggesting we do away with roads, electricity, and telephones? Hell I'm not even sure Airlines turn a profit on a regular basis for the last half decade, much less the air traffic control system. We can throw both of them on the trash heap too.

The for profit model just isn't a reasonable yard stick to put up against every service. [...]

LOL.

Somebody didn't actually read my post.

On the separate topic of the T vs. the Metro... both are well-suited for the cities they serve, and they really can't be compared directly because they serve two totally different strategic purposes. (No, "move people around" is not a fully realized strategy.)

The T is designed to move people around largely within the city, between densely spaced stops located almost everywhere you want to go, with some limited service outside urban areas. It is the yin to the Boston commuter rail's yang. And the commuter rail up there is astounding in its breadth of service. It's truly a viable option to and from dozens and dozens of Boston area towns.

Metro attempts to serve both functions, compromising on each but delivering a more seamless experience (less train hopping) from suburbs to city -- if you live anywhere near a stop, which is far from assured, and if your destination is anywhere near a stop, which is also far from assured. The Metro stations and trains are a near-median compromise between commuter rail comfort (which they don't reach) and a typical spartan subway experience (which they easily exceed). It's a showpiece line which, happily, also happens to be useful.

Very different systems.

In terms of simple comfort in the stations/trains, as a commuter I actually found the T to be the far better experience. Even though you get crowds in the T during rush hour or on summer ballgame days, they're absolutely nothing like the horrific locust-esque crush of self-important bureaucrats/tourists/jackass kids that clog the Metro stations and trains from entrance to exit during rush hour or on any DC event day. The scale of it is just grotesque. Yes, Metro's infrastructure is far better than the T's, largely due to the fact that its oldest station is about 80 years younger than the T's. But that hardly matters when it just means the stations are crammed full of even more people, all pushing and shoving for decent platform position to get aboard the train that will arrive two trains from now. I commuted on the T for almost 10 years, but 6 months on the Metro was more than I was willing to put up with.

[Hubbs]

I guess it depends on where you live in each city. I had the same kind of "really ****ing crowded" experiences on the T at rush hour that I have now on the Metro at rush hour.

[mattsb84]

High speed rail costs around $45 million per mile.

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.

[mattsb84]

10 char duplicate

[JMS]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I've lived in both Boston and DC, and I consider the Metro to be vastly superior to the T. I loathed that damn thing when I was up there. Why are you hating on the Metro, JMS? I don't get the "goes nowhere" claim at all.

The Metro is designed to be used with a car. You drive to the metro and ride. Even then the metro doesn't really service all of DC.

The T by contrast runs everywhere. Is walking distance to most Boston homes and stops walking distance to most business.

The metro has 86 stops in the entire system. only 41 stops are inside DC.

The Green line along has nearly 75 stops when they finish the new expansion!... Altogether the T is a much smaller service area, yet has about 120 stops.

[Larry]

I have to admit that my opinion on high speed rail, which used to be "Hell, yeah!", has changed over time.

I find myself asking myself what difference it would make in my life if we had such a system, right now.

I live in Gainesville, Florida. Small college town. About the only long distance traveling I to (or did, before I had to stay with Mom 24x7) was to go to Disney.

Now, the way I used to go to Disney was:

Drive to Disney (2:30)

Now, I've seen the proposals for high speed rail in Florida, so I know what the proposals were. The plan was for a line which would pass through my town, and would go to Tampa or Orlando. (It would travel to Ocala, then split at that point to go to Tampa or to Orlando.)

So, if high speed rail were here, and if it followed the proposal, they my theoretical trip to Disney would be:

Drive to train station. 0:20 (Assume it's located at the airport.)

Train to Orlando, with 1 stop in Ocala. 0:50 (Assuming 40 minutes of direct time, and that the stop adds an additional 10 minutes.) (This also assumes that I spend zero time waiting for the train in Gainesville.)

Now I'm at the Orlando downtown/train station/airport.

Rent car. 0:30

Drive to Disney 0:30

Total travel time: 2:10

In short, given my 2:30 drive, right now, and if I assume that the train covers the same distance in 40 minutes, the train still saves me a grand total of 20 minutes. And that's making some pretty optimistic assumptions.

Now, I once made a trip down near Miami. And one, once, to Atlanta. Those trips were more like 6:00 driving time. A high speed train might cut those 6 hour drives down to more like 1:30, if there are no stops between here and there.

(Also observe that that 1:30 on the train becomes longer when you add the time spent renting a car and driving to my destination.) (Or cab, or whatever.)

Unfortunately, if there aren't any stops between here and there, then the train is driving past a lot of "fly over country" that isn't getting any benefit from the train. If the train has to stop every 50 miles or so, (so that everybody is within 25 miles of a train station), then that kills a lot of your speed savings.

I could see myself taking a high speed train to go to Atlanta or Miami. The 5 hour time savings would more than make up for the time spent renting a car.

But, at least the way I figure it, that's about what high speed rail is good for: It can replace trips where the "drive time" is more than 3-4 hours, but that aren't long enough for "Eff it, I'm taking a plane".

That's a real niche customer base.

That's why my opinion on high speed rail is: Connect the cities of the northeast. DC-Balto-NYC-Boston. That kind of run. If it works there, then you can think about going, say, to the cities of Ohio. Maybe connecting the cities of Tenn, and going from there to Richmond.

What you're looking for are major metro areas that are too far apart to drive, but too close to fly.

IMO, if you can't make money going DC-Boston, then it won't work anywhere. (OK,

maybe

the California coast.)

[JMS]

LOL.

Somebody didn't actually read my post.

Sorry, My bad.

On the separate topic of the T vs. the Metro... both are well-suited for the cities they serve, and they really can't be compared directly because they serve two totally different strategic purposes. (No, "move people around" is not a fully realized strategy.)

...

Very different systems.

I agree with your analysis/comparison. I disagree with our conclusion. I was around when the great Metro debate was held back during the Carter administration. Carter championed the Metro in part as a response to the Arab oil embargo's of the 1970's. It was part of his own energy plan to help lessen the nations dependence on foreign oil. The Metro was purposely designed to require a car in order to use. That's the only way they could get then powerful rust belt states to drop their objections to the project. It was a stupid comprimise to make, and is an entirely stupid one to continue.

We got a great big expensive pink elephant which goes noplace. Rather than the small nimple less expensive system we needed that goes everywhere. Which is what Boston has.

In terms of simple comfort in the stations/trains, as a commuter I actually found the T to be the far better experience. Even though you get crowds in the T during rush hour or on summer ballgame days, they're absolutely nothing like the horrific locust-esque crush of self-important bureaucrats/tourists/jackass kids that clog the Metro stations and trains from entrance to exit during rush hour or on any DC event day.

Yep you could fit probable ten green line T trains on one orange line Metro train. The metro is a monster... It's huge and expensive.

Metro's infrastructure is far better than the T's, largely due to the fact that its oldest station is about 80 years younger than the T's.

Unfortunately for DC citizens I think you are wrong on that one. 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.

[Hubbs]

The T's Green Line is horrible specifically because it has eleventy billion stops. It takes forever to get anywhere. And God forbid you use it during rush hour. Standing in a cramped, overheated car that starts and stops every twenty seconds (prompting everyone to rearrange their positions over and over again as people get on and off) is an awful experience.

And again with the "goes nowhere" comment. "The Metro doesn't stop right next to absolutely everywhere I want to go" does not equate to "the Metro goes nowhere." I'm taking the Metro to the Nats game tonight. I take it to work every day. In fact, I've now taken it to work every day for three different jobs. I've taken it to Wizards and Caps games. I took it to a co-worker's apartment when he broke his leg as he was moving in and needed help putting his bed together. I've taken it to Eastern Market. I've taken it to interview for a job on Capitol Hill. I've taken it to Union Station and Reagan when I was going on trips.

I'm pretty sure the Metro "goes somewhere."