High speed rail in the US

[dtugg]

Nope just the terminal for 10 hours because some airport that is not the one you are in or the one you are going to has some issue.

Nothing like that's happened to me in the dozens of flights I've taken.

 

[seayakin]

Amtraks only implementation of high speed rail has not been earth shattering so I'm very skeptical of them being able to implement it properly. If you look at the Acela, one of my biggest complaints is that it stops far too often. 14 stops between Boston and Washington DC plus you have additional slow downs and stops when other traffic is on the same rail. This is probably the worst example of a high speed rail implementation. I took the TGV from Paris to Rennes a number of years ago and I think it was only a little slower than air and I don't think it had any stops (I could be off on the time and number of stops for the TGV but if memory serves, it was far better than anything Amtrak has done).

 

[WildCat]

It continues to be subsidized today, the FAA got around 3 billion dollars last year from general funds. Highways got 10 billion it seems.

Nothing in your link supports that.

 

[jdp]

Nothing in your link supports that.

And actually if you look at the subsidy structures, we are awash in subsidies for all modes of transportation. There's a $10 billion a year cash transfer from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund. FAA gets $2.7 billion. We pay all security at Amtrak and yet there is a $1.5 billion subsidy that goes beyond any user fees for security in air travel.

Says Amtrak President.

 

[rwguinn]

I don't disagree that cost could be a problem, a trip from DC to PHL would cost about twice as much on Amtrak now but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for high speed intra-city rail. Driving truly sucks for most purposes primarily because of the traffic and that's just getting worse. Unfortunately, that's the only option in most circumstances.

This is true. That is because in the cities, there are more people.
Cities are destinations for airline and rail passengers.
Once you are there, you still have to get around.
Mass transit 1. takes forever; 2. usually doesn't go where you want or need to go; 3. has the same problems with traffic as POV's
Between cities, where HS rail is useful and will help, traffic is generally light enough not to be a problem.
example. From my house to Norman, Oklahoma is a 3 hour drive. From Norman to the other side of Oklahoma City is a 1 hour drive (minimum)
the first leg of that trip is 180 miles. The 2nd leg is about 35 miles. Speed limit is 60-65 mph all the way.
the further 90 miles to Tulsa CITY LIMITS is about 1 hour 20 minutes. Tulsa to Owasso (9 miles North of Tulsa) is 45 minutes.
HS rail doesn't work in the places it's needed...

 

[Ziggurat]

And the cost for small passenger numbers for airlines is prohibitive too.

No, it isn't: just fly fewer and smaller planes. That's how the airline industry started: with small numbers of small planes, and the number and size of planes increasing over time as infrastructure and demand slowly ramped up.

There are many commuter routes which only carry a few passengers a day which stay in service primarily through government subsidy. Without it the airline would close that route.

They should. But closing those routes doesn't stop air travel. High-speed rail isn't equivalent in this regard: there's no economic way to scale it back to something small, or slowly expand it from something small to something large. Even a single route is a multi-billion dollar investment. The same is simply not true of air travel. The challenges of high speed rail do not resemble air travel. I'm not sure why that's even a contentious assertion.

 

[jdp]

This is true. That is because in the cities, there are more people.
Cities are destinations for airline and rail passengers.
Once you are there, you still have to get around.
Mass transit 1. takes forever; 2. usually doesn't go where you want or need to go; 3. has the same problems with traffic as POV'sBetween cities, where HS rail is useful and will help, traffic is generally light enough not to be a problem.

I think this depends on how well developed the system is. I regularly use DC metro and hardly ever think of driving in the city, it's just nuts and forget about parking. The trains and buses on the other hand run on regular intervals, metro is like every 8 minutes during the day and 15 minutes at night and on weekends.

example. From my house to Norman, Oklahoma is a 3 hour drive. From Norman to the other side of Oklahoma City is a 1 hour drive (minimum)
the first leg of that trip is 180 miles. The 2nd leg is about 35 miles. Speed limit is 60-65 mph all the way.
the further 90 miles to Tulsa CITY LIMITS is about 1 hour 20 minutes. Tulsa to Owasso (9 miles North of Tulsa) is 45 minutes.
HS rail doesn't work in the places it's needed...

If you could do that trip in like an hour though and there was reasonable mass transit in the city would you use the train? I tend to spend more time sitting in creeping traffic around here when I am forced to drive.

ETA: In my case, even when I have to drive into a city I will park the car for the day and take a bus, subway, light rail, or whatever the rest of the day sometime a cab but often just walking. Since parking is very expensive and a pain to begin with. I don't see how arriving at the central train station would differ much to parking a car for the day.

 

[Corsair 115]

A plane might use more fuel but it doesn't require any infrastructure between takeoff and landing.

Air travel is, by far, the least fuel-efficient way of moving goods. Water is the most efficient, with rail a close second.

Quoting from the book How to Make War by James F. Dunigan, from Chapter 23 entitled "Logistics":

When supply is moved by sea or rail, the fuel required is not a significant factor. To move a ton of material 100 km by train requires 14 ounces of fuel. A large ship uses about half that amount. When material is moved by truck or air, it's a different story. By truck, 1 percent of the weight moved will be consumed as fuel for each 100 km traveled. By air, the cost will range from 2 to 5 percent, depending on the type of aircraft. Large commercial cargo jets are the most efficient. Helicopters are notorious fuel hogs and can consume 10 percent of their cargo weight for each 100 km traveled. Moving supply by animal, including humans, will have the same fuel cost as aircraft because of the food consumed.

If independence from foreign oil imports is to be U.S. goal, then a reliance on trucks as the pre-eminent way of moving America's goods will pose a bigger obstacle to achieving that goal.

 

[daenku32]

Why didn't you move downtown? Why blame others for making the same choice you made?

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

Public investment in the downtown. Most of the services such as schools are decades old and underfunded, the roads (I know, irony) are bad, there is lack of grocery stores, and most importantly, very poor choices in residential living.

In the mean time, there has been a lot of investment in "visitor" accommodations. Hotels, restaurants, hospitals, etc. Lots of people go to downtown every day, but nothing has been done to make it livable for the masses.

Then there is the fact that our jobs are in those small towns outside of the city. Moving into city would mean moving away from our jobs. But that is just our case, but this is not the case with over hundred thousand others.

 

[rwguinn]

I think this depends on how well developed the system is. I regularly use DC metro and hardly ever think of driving in the city, it's just nuts and forget about parking. The trains and buses on the other hand run on regular intervals, metro is like every 8 minutes during the day and 15 minutes at night and on weekends.

I spent 3 months in DC, and yes, the mass transit was good, if you wanted to go tho the museums or other federal buildings.
Don't try to get to NRL in a reasonable time, however. And the neighborhoods I had to travel through on the bus made me very, very nervous. I wouldn't do it at night.
My car broke down, and while it was in the shop, the 1.5 hour commute from Columbia, MD, to NRL turned into a 4 hour marathon, with a 2 mile hike at the Columbia end of it, and cost me like 20 bucks per day. In January.

If you could do that trip in like an hour though and there was reasonable mass transit in the city would you use the train? I tend to spend more time sitting in creeping traffic around here when I am forced to drive.

I could fly for $99 dollars. Took less than an hour.[/quote]
Still had to get to where I was going. I am unwilling to sacrifice my rural lifestyle for the lemming-like confines of a 2 bedroom flat surrounded by other lemmings, just so I won't have to drive...

ETA: In my case, even when I have to drive into a city I will park the car for the day and take a bus, subway, light rail, or whatever the rest of the day sometime a cab but often just walking. Since parking is very expensive and a pain to begin with. I don't see how arriving at the central train station would differ much to parking a car for the day.

define reasonable.

 

[pgwenthold]

Count me out of ever driving for anything like 4.5 hours :eek

When we lived in Lubbock, we told people we lived "6 hours from everywhere." If we wanted to go anywhere** we had to drive 6 hours, but if we did that, we could get a lot of places, including San Antonio, Dallas, Ok Cit, El Paso, Sante Fe, Mexico.

**Except Amarillo, but jeez, who wants to go there?

(Ok, this isn't quite all true - Palo Duro Canyon near Amarillo was nice, and in 3.5 hours we could get to Carlsbad Caverns, which are awesome)

 

[jdp]

I spent 3 months in DC, and yes, the mass transit was good, if you wanted to go tho the museums or other federal buildings.
Don't try to get to NRL in a reasonable time, however. And the neighborhoods I had to travel through on the bus made me very, very nervous. I wouldn't do it at night.

I'd say it's good to get most places. Sure the metro doesn't have stops everywhere that's what the buses are for. NRL is on the A4 or A5 I think and those run like every 10 minutes. I agree it's not in a nice part of the city but then again, there are a lot of places in many cities (DC included) I wouldn't travel at night, by bus or by car. At least with the bus the guy knows the neighborhood, a car you could get lost and wind up in a worse position. In a lot of cities though parking is very expensive and makes public transit more appealing.

My car broke down, and while it was in the shop, the 1.5 hour commute from Columbia, MD, to NRL turned into a 4 hour marathon, with a 2 mile hike at the Columbia end of it, and cost me like 20 bucks per day. In January.

Yes, infrastructure outside the beltway is not very well developed; I agree. This proposal/thread really doesn't deal with that issue though.

I could fly for $99 dollars. Took less than an hour.

Still had to get to where I was going. I am unwilling to sacrifice my rural lifestyle for the lemming-like confines of a 2 bedroom flat surrounded by other lemmings, just so I won't have to drive...

define reasonable.[/QUOTE]

Does that one hour include the arrival at the airport 1 hour a head of time to go through security and all that nonsense? Nobody is saying anyone has to give up their 'rural lifestyle'. Where was that suggested or implied? The only suggestion here is that under some circumstances high speed intercity rail deserves a look.

In the north-east corridor on many highways you spend most of your time staring at break lights often because of the daily accidents or all the mopes rubber necking but also just because of simple volume. In some of those cases high speed, intercity rail, wouldn't be a bad thing. Cost is an issue that should be looked at seriously I am sure there are ways to bring it down if we seriously looked at the problem. I am sure there are other corridors throughout the country that could also benefit.

And I am not sure what you mean by reasonable, define it for what?

 

[WildCat]

Says Amtrak President.

Wow, a whole $2.7 billion? That's covers the entire airline industry in the entire country.

$2.7 billion buys about 45 miles of high speed rail track.

I'll stick with the airlines thank you.

 

[WildCat]

Air travel is, by far, the least fuel-efficient way of moving goods. Water is the most efficient, with rail a close second.

Quoting from the book How to Make War by James F. Dunigan, from Chapter 23 entitled "Logistics":




If independence from foreign oil imports is to be U.S. goal, then a reliance on trucks as the pre-eminent way of moving America's goods will pose a bigger obstacle to achieving that goal.

What percentage of fuel use is for passenger rail? Is this really the best area to invest trillions of dollars?

 

[rwguinn]

I'd say it's good to get most places. Sure the metro doesn't have stops everywhere that's what the buses are for. NRL is on the A4 or A5 I think and those run like every 10 minutes. I agree it's not in a nice part of the city but then again, there are a lot of places in many cities (DC included) I wouldn't travel at night, by bus or by car. At least with the bus the guy knows the neighborhood, a car you could get lost and wind up in a worse position. In a lot of cities though parking is very expensive and makes public transit more appealing.



Yes, infrastructure outside the beltway is not very well developed; I agree. This proposal/thread really doesn't deal with that issue though.


Still had to get to where I was going. I am unwilling to sacrifice my rural lifestyle for the lemming-like confines of a 2 bedroom flat surrounded by other lemmings, just so I won't have to drive...

define reasonable.

Does that one hour include the arrival at the airport 1 hour a head of time to go through security and all that nonsense? Nobody is saying anyone has to give up their 'rural lifestyle'. Where was that suggested or implied? The only suggestion here is that under some circumstances high speed intercity rail deserves a look.

In the north-east corridor on many highways you spend most of your time staring at break lights often because of the daily accidents or all the mopes rubber necking but also just because of simple volume. In some of those cases high speed, intercity rail, wouldn't be a bad thing. Cost is an issue that should be looked at seriously I am sure there are ways to bring it down if we seriously looked at the problem. I am sure there are other corridors throughout the country that could also benefit.

And I am not sure what you mean by reasonable, define it for what?

I was referring to your "reasonable mass transit in the city" there.
I agree--for the highly developed areas, such as the East and West coast, and even the Houston-Austin-Dallas-Oklahoma City corridor, some sort of high-speed bypass around traffic makes sense. In the middle of the country, less so, if only for the reason that "the city" (or town) is only a gross approximation of most folks destination. You still have to get to specific locations, and believe it or not, there are large chunks of the US without bus, or even Taxi service. It might be a boon for the car rental companies--but there are places where even that is lacking.
As I discovered while I was in DC, (and in Philly), there is a sense of "what's good for us is good for everybody everywhere in the country". That problem of "1 size does NOT fit all" is what the last few Presidents and Congress have never quite come to grips with

 

[WildCat]

Public investment in the downtown. Most of the services such as schools are decades old and underfunded, the roads (I know, irony) are bad, there is lack of grocery stores, and most importantly, very poor choices in residential living.

In the mean time, there has been a lot of investment in "visitor" accommodations. Hotels, restaurants, hospitals, etc. Lots of people go to downtown every day, but nothing has been done to make it livable for the masses.

Then there is the fact that our jobs are in those small towns outside of the city. Moving into city would mean moving away from our jobs. But that is just our case, but this is not the case with over hundred thousand others.

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.

 

[WildCat]

Does that one hour include the arrival at the airport 1 hour a head of time to go through security and all that nonsense? Nobody is saying anyone has to give up their 'rural lifestyle'. Where was that suggested or implied? The only suggestion here is that under some circumstances high speed intercity rail deserves a look.

This will soon be a moot point. Congress is already looking to make rail security every bit the hassle airport security is.

 

[jdp]

I was referring to your "reasonable mass transit in the city" there.
I agree--for the highly developed areas, such as the East and West coast, and even the Houston-Austin-Dallas-Oklahoma City corridor, some sort of high-speed bypass around traffic makes sense. In the middle of the country, less so, if only for the reason that "the city" (or town) is only a gross approximation of most folks destination. You still have to get to specific locations, and believe it or not, there are large chunks of the US without bus, or even Taxi service. It might be a boon for the car rental companies--but there are places where even that is lacking.
As I discovered while I was in DC, (and in Philly), there is a sense of "what's good for us is good for everybody everywhere in the country". That problem of "1 size does NOT fit all" is what the last few Presidents and Congress have never quite come to grips with

I don't think anyone was suggesting anything different.

 

[Michael Redman]

I do know that 80% of airline fares don't need to be subsidized. . .

Don't need to be? Sure, as long as you ignore the fact that the airlines are losing money by operating the flights, and are only still in business due to cash infusions from the Federal government.

If your objection to rail is that it isn't profitable, you aren't going to make the case for air as an alternative.

Sorry for the derail.

 

[WildCat]

Don't need to be? Sure, as long as you ignore the fact that the airlines are losing money by operating the flights, and are only still in business due to cash infusions from the Federal government.

Still? I thought that was only right after 9/11. At any rate, I say let 'em die if they need government money.

If your objection to rail is that it isn't profitable, you aren't going to make the case for air as an alternative.

Sorry for the derail.

Airlines are profitable. Southwest is doing jsut fine, as are others. I see no reason to prop up basket cases like United.

*******************************************************

And here's some irony for you, courtesy of today's Chicago Tribune.

Story 1:

Illinois stands to receive far less money than it had expected from the Obama administration on Thursday to begin developing high-speed passenger trains and transform rail service as the preferred transportation option.

State officials were hoping that the state would be awarded grants totaling at least $2 billion to operate 110 mph trains between [URL="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/neighborhoods.html?region=1435491"]Chicago[/URL] and other Midwestern cities, starting with St. Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee and the Twin Cities.

But congressional sources who were briefed on the White House's plan said funding to the state will fall short.

Story 2:

The Tribune's Clout Street blog reports: Mayor Richard Daley today said CTA riders shouldn't expect another last-minute reprieve for the service cuts planned for Feb. 7, contending fewer buses and trains are preferable to higher fares.

The mayor said he doesn't believe anything can be done to stop 1,100 layoffs and less frequent buses on 119 routes and trains on seven lines.

So we're going to get some money, probably several hundred million (but not the $2 billion we wanted) for a "high speed" (in scare quotes because 110 mph isn't exactly a bullet train) rail line that few people will use.

Meanwhile, the CTA (which includes bus and light rail), which is heavily used, is getting service cuts.

It seems to me the greater good will be served by maintaining and expanding existing public transportation, rather than wasting it on feel-good and glitzy but ultimately far less useful "high speed" rail between cities. I mean, who the hell is going to take the train to whatever is left of Detroit?

Wouldn't that money be better spent on the CTA? It would take far more cars off the road than a rail line will, and thus save more fuel, relieve congestion, etc etc.

Our government in action.