HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So we shouldn't build it, because we're afraid? Then they've won. No but the reality is it's probably going to need to be subsidized anyway and to ignore the cost of security at the beginning will just end up putting it in the whole more later. Passenger trains for the most part don't work as well in the USA as Europe, we are to spread out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The high speed rail in the NE corridor isn't faster than car. It took me 12 hrs to get from Providence, RI to Richmond, VA by train & I've did it a car in 8 hrs. One of the problems is sharing the rails with freight trains & another is there are just too many stop in the North East. As far as the cost goes, it cost me $98 for the trip & I know gas & wear on my car is much more than $98 for that trip. I believe that was like 5 yrs ago & I'm not sure what tickets cost now, but with gas prices the way they are I'm sure trains still are cheaper than driving. What they need is a big savings over flying & they don't have that. Course, part of the problem is that you had to switch trains in DC, since that's where Acela ends. Either that, or you just took the regular line up, which 12 hours sounds about right. According to Wikipedia, the full Acela run takes 6.5 hours currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 No but the reality is it's probably going to need to be subsidized anyway and to ignore the cost of security at the beginning will just end up putting it in the whole more later. Passenger trains for the most part don't work as well in the USA as Europe, we are to spread out. So is China, but they're developing a high speed Rail System: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/01/12/high-speed-rail-in-china/ Will it have to be subsidized? Undoubtedly. The question is, are the benefits, both economic and otherwise, worth it to US society and commerce? I say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So is China, but they're developing a high speed Rail System: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/01/12/high-speed-rail-in-china/Will it have to be subsidized? Undoubtedly. The question is, are the benefits, both economic and otherwise, worth it to US society and commerce? I say yes. At this time and circumstance in the US I think the money would be much better spent maintaining and improving our faltering Interstate System. I just don't see the big boost this would provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 At this time and circumstance in the US I think the money would be much better spent maintaining and improving our faltering Interstate System. I just don't see the big boost this would provide. There's no doubt some other currently existing infrastructure needs work (some of the bridges in this country are literally crumbling). I would prefer to do both, and cut elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'emAlive Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Im sorry, but there is nothing that can be done to improve the interstate system in MD. do we really need another lane on I-270, or 495, or 70? This is ridiculous. So now we will have to go through another few years of roadside construction which will not alleviate the traffic because by the end of the construction, other lanes will need to be repaired and improved upon. Not only that, but there will now be even more people on the road, which means a need for even more lanes! High speed rail is exactly what this country needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So we shouldn't build it, because we're afraid? Then they've won. Exactly correct. We can be much more protected from terrorists by digging large holes in our back yards and living in them 24-7. Rail is certainly vulnerable to terrorist attacks but not significantly greater than airplanes as we have seen continously since the late 1960's.. We've had hundreds of air plane incidents, i've not heard of any rail incidents or attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 build the purple line in DC would help. forget this high speed rail crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Im sorry' date=' but there is nothing that can be done to improve the interstate system in MD. do we really need another lane on I-270, or 495, or 70? This is ridiculous. So now we will have to go through another few years of roadside construction which will not alleviate the traffic because by the end of the construction, other lanes will need to be repaired and improved upon. Not only that, but there will now be even more people on the road, which means a need for even more lanes! High speed rail is exactly what this country needs.[/quote']How will high speed rail alleviate traffic on the roads you listed? Hi volume local traffic is what causes the major nightmares except possibly for parts I70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Im sorry' date=' but there is nothing that can be done to improve the interstate system in MD. do we really need another lane on I-270, or 495, or 70? This is ridiculous. So now we will have to go through another few years of roadside construction which will not alleviate the traffic because by the end of the construction, other lanes will need to be repaired and improved upon. Not only that, but there will now be even more people on the road, which means a need for even more lanes! High speed rail is exactly what this country needs.[/quote']actually, it sounds like its what you feel MD needs. Why dcoesnt MD simply build it and pay for it if its that important? Why does Federal funding need to even enter the equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 At this time and circumstance in the US I think the money would be much better spent maintaining and improving our faltering Interstate System. I just don't see the big boost this would provide. That's like arguing against the interstate highway system in the 1950's advocating instead for upgraiding our local roads and old dirt paths for horse drawn buggies. High speed rail is an economic advantage for any industrialized country like a power grid, highway system, or telephone network. Think of how massive the development of each of these projects have effected our GDP. And that's what we are talking about. Either returning to a time in the 1840's or 1870's when we were a second rate country with a second rate infrastructure; or showing the vision of the generations who came after those who built the greatest infrastructure the world had ever seen and the greatest economy the world had ever seen to go along with it. Do we have the will and vision to remain a great nation. That's the question before us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 That's like arguing against the interstate highway system in the 1950's advocating instead for upgraiding our local roads and old dirt paths for horse drawn buggies. You're not really comparing a limited high speed rail system with a comprehensive Interstate Highway system. Apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I would say there is no need. Any rail, but particularly high speed due to the cost is dependent on ridership. Basically you need a lot of people who live in one area to want to consistently go to another area. The only area in the US right now where this feasible is in the NE corridor, which already has high speed rail. And even then, it costs 2x as much and saves only a half hour in a 3 hour trip. Ultimately even low speed rail is nearly the cost of a plane ticket, so where does that put high speed rail from a cost perspective. Oddly, flying has gotten less convenient, less comfortable, more expensive and more dangerous over the past few decades. At this point, unless I'm going across the country I'll drive instead. And, while I can't speak for anyone else, if there was a viable third alternative I'd take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 How will high speed rail alleviate traffic on the roads you listed? Hi volume local traffic is what causes the major nightmares except possibly for parts I70. Well in virginia our plan is to use high speed rail in parellel with congested highway cooredors like I-66, I 95, and I-81. Folks will drive their cars onto trains and the trains will zoom them along their way at higher speeds than we presently allow on the roadways.... I also think trains on the eastern cooridor will compete both with air travel and highway travel along that route. We all know hnow 95 backs up all up and down the eastern seaboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 No but the reality is it's probably going to need to be subsidized anyway and to ignore the cost of security at the beginning will just end up putting it in the whole more later. As if traveling by plane doesn't pose huge security concerns? We'll pay security costs no matter how we travel. Passenger trains for the most part don't work as well in the USA as Europe, we are to spread out. That's kinda hard to know since we don't really have high-speed trains here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 .....BTW, congrats on getting your NNT removed. I think you have me confused with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Well in virginia our plan is to use high speed rail in parellel with congested highway cooredors like I-66, I 95, and I-81. Folks will drive their cars onto trains and the trains will zoom them along their way at higher speeds than we presently allow on the roadways.... Now this I had not heard. To me it makes much more sense. I wasn't aware high speed rail had freight capabilities. I thought it was mainly passenger based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You're not really comparing a limited high speed rail system with a comprehensive Interstate Highway system. Apples and oranges. Yep I am. Apples and Oranges are both food. High speed rail and modern infrastructure investment is the lifes food for the economy. Bottom line though is if the seed money commited to high speed rail is sucessful it will convince folks to make further infrastructure investments until we have a modern rail network. We didn't build the existing rail network over night. Took many decades, High speed rail won't take that long, but it won't happen at all if it's not started. The current plan is a very very modest one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 That's kinda hard to know since we don't really have high-speed trains here. Heck of a time to take a gamble to see if it'll work or not. We broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 I will just reiterate that Trains are about 1000% ( 3 orders of magnatude more efficient than Trucks. ) It takes a train 1 gallon of fuel to move 1 ton of material 436 miles.http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/freight-train-miles-gallon A modern infrastructure is a necessity for the nation to remain compeditive into the 21st century. Without it we continue to hemerage capital into the oil producing nations to the detriment of prosperity and investment domestically. High speed rail is not only an essential part of any national engergy plan, it's also a no brainer infrastructure improvement which will more than pay for itself over the coming decades of useful operational life. We're talking passenger service here. Spending money to expand the use of freight transportation could possibly make sense, although I don't think anyone in congress or the executive has proposed such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 We're talking passenger service here. Spending money to expand the use of freight transportation could possibly make sense, although I don't think anyone in congress or the executive has proposed such. Is there even a high speed rail for freight running anywhere in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Now this I had not heard. To me it makes much more sense. I wasn't aware high speed rail had freight capabilities. I thought it was mainly passenger based. Feasibility Plan for Maximum Truck to Rail Diversion in Virginia’s I-81 Corridor Final Version... http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/files/I-81%20freight%20rail%20study%20final.pdf Executive Summary The primary objective of this report is to comply with the requirements of Virginia’s 2007 Appropriations Act, Item 442, which calls for: “development of a feasibility plan to define the conditions that would be necessary to divert the maximum amount feasible of the long-haul, through-truck freight traffic to intermodal rail in the Interstate Route 81 Corridor.” It follows and expands on several prior studies of the issue, including: • Desirability and Feasibility of Establishing Additional Intermodal Transfer Facilities (2001); • The Potential for Shifting Virginia’s Highway Traffic to Railroad (2001); • The Northeast-Southeast-Midwest Corridor Marketing Study (2003); and • The I-81 Corridor Improvement Study (2007). .... Strategy #5 could be implemented alongside Strategies #1 through #4, or it could be implemented as a stand-alone strategy independent of any other improvements. It aims to establish a very high-speed (perhaps 120 mph) open technology service between Knoxville and Harrisburg. Such a service might potentially attract intermodal and non-intermodal trucks that are passing through Virginia using I-81. These trucks could be “intercepted” (arriving trucks would hand off cargo to the railroad, and different trucks would pick up the freight at the other end of the line) or “shuttled” (arriving trucks and their drivers would be carried from one end of the line to the other, like a ferry boat on land). This would require a new dedicated high-speed double-track rail corridor. Strategy #5 targets long-haul intermodal and non-intermodal trucks passing through Virginia using I-81 only. Funding Strategies for State Sponsored Intercity and High Speed Passenger Rail. http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/files/SJ63%20Final%20Report.pdf Richmond to South Hampton Roads High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/files/SHRExecutiveSummary.pdf ■Southeast High Speed Rail Recommendation Report (PDF) http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/files/sehsr_recommend_rpt.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Is there a study like this for I95 also? I'd be more for smaller targeted projects like this that could pay for themselves than "If we build it they will come" scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Is there even a high speed rail for freight running anywhere in the world? Ok, I guess I should claify that. No they should not spend for high speed freight. I was responding to JMS assertion (an accurate assertion at that, go figure) that train transportation was 1000% more efficient than trucking. I was just saying expanding the capability of freight shipping could (COULD) make sense (certainly more sense than focusing on a high speed passenger service). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 We're talking passenger service here. Spending money to expand the use of freight transportation could possibly make sense, although I don't think anyone in congress or the executive has proposed such. Doesn't matter which you speak of. Both make sense for the same reasons. Both would save money, lower costs, grow the economy, and create a more efficient reliable and compeditive infrastructure for 21st century America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.