High speed rail in the US

Foolmewunz said:
The rail lines exist, and they're based on government largesse a century ago.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, they are not suitable for high speed trains.

The government just needs to grow a pair and stop subsidizing the current losers who are running the the rail into the ground (similar to the car companies, the banks, the airlines) and offer it out.
Click to expand...

You mean like the government owned corporation Amtrak?

What other infrastructure investment is needed. The company that builds the thing pays for everything - that's part of the deal.
Click to expand...

Well then I highly doubt that would work. No company is going to spend that kind of money on a project that is sure to lose money. The prices would have to be exorbitant to cover costs. Amtrak tickets are often more expensive than plane tickets and they still lose money. And this new company would still have to make back a huge initial investment.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You base that on what? I was talking about freight in the instance I mentioned, and I contend the opposite. I do this for a living.

Distance is a requirement to make it an efficient proposition. Below a certain linear distance and local drayage/trucking is cheaper, beyond a certain distance and some form of waterborne transportation is cheaper(if it's available - not so in the case of LAX/ORD).
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about people since you said "transit."

I am sure with freight that you are right.

My rational for people is that the bigger and less densely populated the area, the more miles of tracks you must build per potential user.
 
Beerina said:
Novelty sightseeing trips on sleepers continue to be available. But that's hardly a rationale for a hundred billion for a couple of hundred miles. Wait, $57 million / mile * 700 miles, seven times seven if 49 carry the 4 thirty five plus four is 399, let's call it $40,000,000,000.


Well, private industry would do it for a hell of a lot less, if it were to be profitable, which it isn't, which is why it's government boondoggle on top of boondoggle.
Click to expand...

There are things 'private industry' can't be held responsible for. Acting in the national interest, rather than their bottom line is one of them.

Efficient Railroads build and maintain nations. Ours at present, is desperate need of renovation, if not outright replacement.

If we can create a system of travel that uses NO fossil fuel, and gets us where we are going 4 times faster than driving, even at some cost, we'd be fools not to pursue it.

A high speed, solar powered, passenger & freight train...?

WHY NOT???
 
jayh said:
FAR FROM IT. I don't know where you get that 1/10 figure, but it does NOT apply to high speed trains. Interestingly despite all the belief that European and Asian nations are ahead of us in train usage, a far larger portion of our freight traffic goes by train than either Europe or Japan

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/modalspliteuusjapan.html

Freight is ideal because it does not require terminals, tight scheduling systems, it does not have to worry about half empty trains or layovers of a few hours while another train hooks up. And freight is heavy (unlike most passengers) which makes it an ideal rail cargo. Rail systems tend to optimize for one or the other (not both) and our does a damned good job of freight hauling.

But lacks the sex appeal that politicians love: No big glamourous stations with photo-ops, it does not have the ultra modern green panache (even though it is a relatively green technology). Politicians (remember Mussolini?) built their reputation on glitzy train systems.

Check this article using graphs from DOE figures comparing transportation energy consumptions

http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
Click to expand...

So we just need a much more efficient manner of car exchange, freight vs. passenger.

EVERY line that leaves carries either person or freight. NO empty cars leave the yard.
 
WildCat said:
Well there you go! You want a 2,500 square foot house and a yard and good schools, just like everyone else. Do that in the city and you've just made a very large sprawling suburb, which kind of defeats the whole purpose doesn't it? Except for the schools, good luck finding any big city with a public school you'd send your kids to.

Until Americans want to live in small houses or condos and send their kids to crappy schools we will need roads so they can drive cars in the suburbs.
Click to expand...

Our suburb (actually a small town) house is about 1400 sq ft. A 4th bedroom would be nice and that is not impossible even in an apartment building.

The yard, well, it's about 1/4 of an acre but still requires effort to keep looking nice.

Good schools? Why does that require a suburb? Really. There is no reason you cannot have a good inner city school as long as it gets the appropriate funding. I made it clear in the first post that I propose investing into downtown areas in order to improve the schools.

What better way to increase state side investment in downtowns than tying it to federal high-speed rail funds?
 
King of the Americas said:
There are things 'private industry' can't be held responsible for. Acting in the national interest, rather than their bottom line is one of them.

Efficient Railroads build and maintain nations. Ours at present, is desperate need of renovation, if not outright replacement.

If we can create a system of travel that uses NO fossil fuel, and gets us where we are going 4 times faster than driving, even at some cost, we'd be fools not to pursue it.

A high speed, solar powered, passenger & freight train...?

WHY NOT???
Click to expand...

I don't think it's cost effective. And even if it was, where the hell does the money come from?
 
dtugg said:
I don't think it's cost effective. And even if it was, where the hell does the money come from?
Click to expand...

Ahh, the Federal Reserve...duh!

We can just print up as much as we want, right?

That's the way it's been going, why change what works?

---

Wouldn't be cost efficient?

Like fighting wars to procure cheap oil is cost efficient???

Build a train that runs on the run and wind, then we cat cut operation costs of oil and the army to go fight for it.

I see vast savings everywhere.
 
Last edited:
daenku32 said:
Our suburb (actually a small town) house is about 1400 sq ft. A 4th bedroom would be nice and that is not impossible even in an apartment building.

The yard, well, it's about 1/4 of an acre but still requires effort to keep looking nice.
Click to expand...
So what is it about the housing in Indy you said you didn't like?

Good schools? Why does that require a suburb? Really. There is no reason you cannot have a good inner city school as long as it gets the appropriate funding. I made it clear in the first post that I propose investing into downtown areas in order to improve the schools.
Click to expand...
Chicago spends ~$13,500 per year per student, probably even more now. Probably more than your suburban school district spends. I really don't think funding is the problem.

What better way to increase state side investment in downtowns than tying it to federal high-speed rail funds?
Click to expand...
High-speed rail doesn nothing for Chicago. What would be great is money to shore up our existing light rail system. It's broke now, and yet another round of service cuts is in the works. Some lines take twice as long to get downtown than they were designed for because the tracks need repairs and the trains have to go slow. Money to fix these things would be a far better investment than a 110 mph train to Detroit.
 
America would be far better off spending the stimulus on building nuclear power plants than mowers, repaving and passenger trains. :D
 
King of the Americas said:
Guys...

Pay attention.

An American-made trans-continental H.S.R. for both passenger and freight, powered by renewable energy IS MUCH BETTER than importing fossil fuels from people who don't like us.

Right?
Click to expand...
Trains consume a tiny fraction of fossil fuels. If you're going to spend trillions of dollars to "go green" there's far better uses of those monies.
 
King of the Americas said:
Guys...

Pay attention.

An American-made trans-continental H.S.R. for both passenger and freight, powered by renewable energy IS MUCH BETTER than importing fossil fuels from people who don't like us.

Right?
Click to expand...

Most of it comes from Canada and Mexico. I thought we were friends.
 
WildCat said:
Trains consume a tiny fraction of fossil fuels. If you're going to spend trillions of dollars to "go green" there's far better uses of those monies.
Click to expand...

It's also a jobs program...we'd have to build an entire industry.

But in the end, we'd have massively increased our over all economical efficiency, weened ourselves from foreign fossil fuel efficiency, and created the beginnings of a sustainable world.
 
WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...
No shovel even hit the ground yet, and the cost estimate has already ballooned to $98 billion.
$114 million per mile of track. That's $2,580 for every California man, woman, and child just to cover the cost of building the trains, never mind operating expenses and maintenance.
 
And, if I'm not mistaken, those numbers are just for phase 1.
If you include all phases the numbers are between $122.8 to $141.1 billion and that does not include the cost of vehicle and heavy maintenance facility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom