High speed rail in the US

[dtugg]

How much did it cost to lay the ribbions of highway back in the 1950s and 60s that we now take for granted?

I have no idea. Was the government running trillion dollar deficits back then? And besides with those ribbons of highway and commercial air travel, high speed rail is an unnecessary waste of money.

 

[WildCat]

How much did it cost to lay the ribbions of highway back in the 1950s and 60s that we now take for granted?

The highway was laid out primarily for military uses, so the military could move about the country quickly. Inspired by the German Autobahn, which was created for much the same purpose. That passenger cars and commercial trucks can also use it is a side benefit.

And it's not like we can tear up the Eisenhower Expressway system if we build high-speed rail.

Or the huge amount of miles of tracks we laid out before that?

Which are just fine for hauling ginormous amounts of freight. And economical. High-speed rail will likely be nothing but a drain on tax dollars, much like Amtrak is today. Airports pay for themselves eventually, and plane tickets don't need to be subsidized. In fact, they're taxed.

 

[mortimer]

Right now the fastest speeds achieved are in China and just over 200 mph.

That TX to PA in just under 7 hours.

Not to shabby considering it uses 1/10 of the fuel a plane would.

Rail travel is VERY efficient.

That's TX to PA in just under 7 hours, nonstop.

Realistically, it will be much longer, as the train stops at every major town and city along the way, with at least one transfer (and likely layover).

 

[daenku32]

Which are just fine for hauling ginormous amounts of freight. And economical. High-speed rail will likely be nothing but a drain on tax dollars, much like Amtrak is today. Airports pay for themselves eventually, and plane tickets don't need to be subsidized. In fact, they're taxed.

The highway system is an enormous drain on not just tax dollars, but when you drive you are also causing wear and tear on your car. So it is an enormous "tax" on our nation's auto fleet. You just don't notice it because it is spread so thin.

Re: Airports, Ok, so since they pay for themselves, so why not stop the subsidizing of highways?

I live just outside of Indianapolis, and they just did a massive upgrade of the airport and during the 13 years I've lived here, have upgraded 100 miles of the highway in and around the city. I refuse to believe that all this work is "paying for itself". They could have saved a bundle by redesigning the city's zoning.

I mean, the city with all of its small adjacent towns has maybe one million people. Yet, we have 10 lane highways (5 each way) all over the place. How much has that cost over the years?

Now it could be that high-speed rail is a catch-22, but that is why I think it, and the federal dollars it brings, should be used as a leverage for better city design.

 

[TjW]

But how do you go anywhere? Hell I can drive much longer than that and not get out of my state, let alone into another one.

And I am not talking abotu driving that long and only going in a trip that would idealy take 45 minutes.

I've had cars like that.

 

[WildCat]

The highway system is an enormous drain on not just tax dollars, but when you drive you are also causing wear and tear on your car. So it is an enormous "tax" on our nation's auto fleet. You just don't notice it because it is spread so thin.

But them's highway miles daenku!

Re: Airports, Ok, so since they pay for themselves, so why not stop the subsidizing of highways?

You pay for highways through gas taxes, vehicle taxes, and property taxes. And highways would be necessary even if nobody owned a car. Goods and services still have to move, and the military (the reason they were built in the first place) still wants the option to mobilize on them.

Just remember, everything in your house was on a highway at some point. How do you think you'd even have built your house and moved in without them?

I live just outside of Indianapolis, and they just did a massive upgrade of the airport and during the 13 years I've lived here, have upgraded 100 miles of the highway in and around the city. I refuse to believe that all this work is "paying for itself". They could have saved a bundle by redesigning the city's zoning.

You think Indianapolis would be better off without a viable highway system? Why would a business want to move there? Why would people want to live there? You said you live "outside" of Indianapolis. Why didn't you move downtown? Why blame others for making the same choice you made?

I mean, the city with all of its small adjacent towns has maybe one million people. Yet, we have 10 lane highways (5 each way) all over the place. How much has that cost over the years?

Now it could be that high-speed rail is a catch-22, but that is why I think it, and the federal dollars it brings, should be used as a leverage for better city design.

What would it take to get you to move into the city?

 

[Beerina]

I think federal funding for high speed rail would be a great incentive to get states to increase urbanization. Part of the energy reduction efforts in the US needs to be greater urbanization, and this would nicely go with that. And doing all this change would create a whole lot of jobs.

I have no desire to be forced into a setting with an ever-larger group of buffoons voting for this or that stupid idea-of-the-month. For while economies of scale work well for companies, they suck for governments, which go in the opposite direction.

Whu? Evidence? 'k. Detroit

 

[Lurker]

Riding the train across country is an older American tradition, FWIW.

But generally has been replaced by the "roadtrip". Before the train ride it was the wagon ride across the country but we don't see much of that anymore either.

You some sort of rail enthusiast or something?

 

[King of the Americas]

It's efficient only if you ignore all the infrastructure needed (thousands of miles of it), and maintaining that infrastructure. A plane might use more fuel but it doesn't require any infrastructure between takeoff and landing.

California's initial estimates as far as costs are $40 billion for 700 miles of track. That's over $57 million per mile, and of course I'd bet they go way over the estimated costs. They also think they'll get over 90 million passengers per year, I'd be surprised if they get even a third of that.

I'd prefer to wait and see how it goes in California before committing more money we don't have to this potential white elephant.

Sounds like a "jobs" program to me...

Just wait until you hear the protests over property grabs. The "Trans-Texas Corridor" was supposed to include a lane for high-speed rail. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison is running against GOP incumbent Rick Perry with this as one of her center pieces. She wants to END any such notion of a super highway/high speed rail system.

I spoke to a conductor just months ago, who said it IS coming. However, it won't replace present diesel rail for decades, and that his 'lines' weren't sent up for travel faster than 140 mph. Not the rails themselves, but the curves built into the land. We'd really need a new set of lines across America.

1/10 the cost of operation...Cover the whole thing with solar cells, and it could make money for Us.

 

[King of the Americas]

That's TX to PA in just under 7 hours, nonstop.

Realistically, it will be much longer, as the train stops at every major town and city along the way, with at least one transfer (and likely layover).

At present, it takes the better part of a day, 8-12 hours including the layover, to get to PA from here. We'd make the trip more often, if it were 1/10th the cost.

 

[Upchurch]

You some sort of rail enthusiast or something?

You know, I'm really not. I would ride the local metrolink more if it were more accessible to where I live. (There is a station pretty close to where I work, but I'd have to walk 5ish miles from my house to hop on.)

I do take exception to the notion that coasts are somehow more deserving than the midwest.

 

[dtugg]

I do take exception to the notion that coasts are somehow more deserving than the midwest.

Not more deserving. More cost effective though. For the record, I don't want to pay for either.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's efficient only if you ignore all the infrastructure needed (thousands of miles of it), and maintaining that infrastructure. A plane might use more fuel but it doesn't require any infrastructure between takeoff and landing.

Really? But why ignore the costs of takeoff and landing? (Also the costs of the airplanes themselves are surely "infrastructure".) So that huge multi-million dollar runway extension at Lambert field wasn't necessary? (Turns out it wasn't, since Lambert is no longer actually an international airport.) And airplanes themselves aren't any cost? You can't compare improving the rail infrastructure to zero investment in air transportation. (Heck you can include periodic infrastructure investments in air traffic control and so on to the infrastructure costs of a high speed rail--and then add in the greater fuel efficiency of rail.)

Also, if we're looking to stimulate the economy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, it seems to me building this infrastructure would be a good use of stimulus money that would address both issues.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have no idea. Was the government running trillion dollar deficits back then?

I believe we are getting back to near the levels of debt vs GDP we had then so fairly similar. But people take subsidies for roads with out thinking about them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've had cars like that.

You have had cars with security people screening you for liquids to get in?

What the hell do you drive?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have no desire to be forced into a setting with an ever-larger group of buffoons voting for this or that stupid idea-of-the-month. For while economies of scale work well for companies, they suck for governments, which go in the opposite direction.

Whu? Evidence? 'k. Detroit

So you are saying the problem with the american auto industry is that it needed to be bigger?

 

[WildCat]

Really? But why ignore the costs of takeoff and landing? (Also the costs of the airplanes themselves are surely "infrastructure".) So that huge multi-million dollar runway extension at Lambert field wasn't necessary? (Turns out it wasn't, since Lambert is no longer actually an international airport.) And airplanes themselves aren't any cost? You can't compare improving the rail infrastructure to zero investment in air transportation. (Heck you can include periodic infrastructure investments in air traffic control and so on to the infrastructure costs of a high speed rail--and then add in the greater fuel efficiency of rail.)

Hey, I wasn't even counting the cost of the locomotive and cars. I do know that 80% of airline fares don't need to be subsidized, unlike Amtrak*.

Also, if we're looking to stimulate the economy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, it seems to me building this infrastructure would be a good use of stimulus money that would address both issues.

No, it's a terrible use of stimulus money. White elephants are not good investments.

*eta: and Amtrak doesn't even own or maintain the rail lines.

 

[jdp]

It's efficient only if you ignore all the infrastructure needed (thousands of miles of it), and maintaining that infrastructure. A plane might use more fuel but it doesn't require any infrastructure between takeoff and landing.

Not sure about that one. Air traffic control equipment is necessary and that costs a ton. All of which is maintained by federal agencies if I am not mistaken.

 

[dtugg]

I believe we are getting back to near the levels of debt vs GDP we had then so fairly similar.

Debt vs GDP is probably pretty close but it was only those levels back then because of WWII. But deficit vs. GDP, no way. Not even close.

But people take subsidies for roads with out thinking about them.

What's that got to do with anything? If the US is ever connected by high speed rail, do you think that the highways are going to go out of use?

 

[WildCat]

The numbers for Amtrak for FY2009:

Total passenger related revenue: $1.857 billion.

Total expenses: $3.434 billion.

Source

Yeah, let's expand that program!