High speed rail in the US

[jdp]

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

Bailouts and subsidies aside the airlines need tons of government money to maintain air traffic control corridors and related infrastructure.

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.

That would probably be a reasonable use for this kind of money.

 

[WildCat]

Bailouts and subsidies aside the airlines need tons of government money to maintain air traffic control corridors and related infrastructure.

And doesn't that money come from taxes on airlines, tickets, and fuel?

 

[Furcifer]

Linky

Why in the hell are they pushing this? The Sec. of Transportation was on the Daily Show a few weeks ago crowing about it. Sure, it'll be great for the northeast, where cities are densly packed and not far apart. But normal-speed trains work just fine there.

I even get the single-link ideas, like San Fran to LA, Orlando to Tampa, etc. But this...

Did they learn nothing from Amtrack? The US is just too damn big and spread out for rail to be a viable option.

I just heard this on NPR today. Well heard about it again. I noted the top speed was 110 mph. I think the proposal is for commercial high speed and not transportation. If you've driven around Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Ontario you'd notice there are millions of trucks on the road. I'd hate to see all those truckers out of work, but we really need to improve efficiency. Hopefully the truckers will find work maintaining and operating a greener means of transport. Assuming this all goes through. It really is a sign of progress IMHO.

 

[jdp]

And doesn't that money come from taxes on airlines, tickets, and fuel?

And general funds too.

ETA: According to this FAA proposal general funds account for nearly 20% of this money; so no, it isn't all usage taxes. And the highways are also not maintained exclusively by usage taxes. All forms of transportation suck money from tax payers generally and are also funded with bonds as well as usage taxes.

 

[WildCat]

I just heard this on NPR today. Well heard about it again. I noted the top speed was 110 mph. I think the proposal is for commercial high speed and not transportation.

See my last post, which links this story.

It's for passengers, not for cargo.

 

[Tailgater]

As opposed to flying which would with airport delays and such take what 12-14 hours? I think they might even let you bring a liquid on a train.

Till someone tries to blow one up. I'm surprised the US has not had a train attack. Seems like it would be alot easier to derail a train than take down a plane.

 

[Furcifer]

See my last post, which links this story.

It's for passengers, not for cargo.

Ahh, thanks for the link, that's much more detailed. It doesn't say what the study for the 110 mph track from Chicago to St. Louis is for though? I only caught a bit of the NPR story, I was busy, but it seemed to imply the 110 mph was for freight. The article you linked talks about 110 mph passenger train so I suppose that's what this would be for as well.

 

[Random]

Till someone tries to blow one up. I'm surprised the US has not had a train attack. Seems like it would be alot easier to derail a train than take down a plane.

That’s actually one of the reasons why there is less security at train stations then airports. It’s tough to attack a plane in transit, so you need to get something or someone on the plane. If you can stop the bad guy at the airport, you are pretty safe. It’s relatively easy to attack a train in transit by sabotaging the tracks and switches (although there are some safeguards against this that I will not get into) so there is less point in putting heavy security at the stations.

 

[Michael Redman]

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

A couple of small, niche airlines are profitable. That doesn't meant that air travel is, or could be, a profitable unsubsidized means of public transportation.

If you let all unprofitable airlines fail, the cost for the remaining few airlines is going to increase a great deal, as the overwheliming majority of the infrastructure costs are borne by the unprofitable airlines. In addition, an airline industry that only flies profitable routes is not going to meet the transportation needs of the country.

Our air transportation system is vital. It is also subsidized. The same goes for roads. Maybe nation wide high speed rail is a good idea, maybe not. But the fact that it would need to be subsides does not place it in a different category than its alternatives.

 

[WildCat]

Our air transportation system is vital. It is also subsidized. The same goes for roads. Maybe nation wide high speed rail is a good idea, maybe not. But the fact that it would need to be subsides does not place it in a different category than its alternatives.

The size of the subsidy alone puts it in an entirely different league.

Meanwhile, public transportation light rail and bus routes are in trouble all over the country. We should be maintaining what we already have, rather than pouring trillions into long-distance train lines few will use.

Why not wait and see how the California high-speed rail works out before we duplicate it in far less populated areas elsewhere?

 

[WildCat]

Till someone tries to blow one up. I'm surprised the US has not had a train attack. Seems like it would be alot easier to derail a train than take down a plane.

It already happened, in October 1995:

Apparently using little more than a wrench and a red electrical wire, saboteurs last week demonstrated that it does not take much to derail a moving passenger train. As Amtrak's cross-country Sunset Limited approached a bridge in the Arizona desert early Monday, it fell off the track and plunged down a 30-foot-ravine, killing one crew member and injuring 77 other people.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/15/w...o-simple-devastating-deadly.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Beerina]

That number came from the first link featured, it was talking about comparative fuel costs, trains vs airplanes.

I just checked the cost of a train ride to PA.

We are SO doing it. It'll take almost 2 days, but getting to stretch out on a bed, and getting to 'see' the land...that sounds good to me!

With the room it was right at $700 for 2 adults.

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.

 

[jayh]

...

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

Rail travel is VERY efficient.

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

 

[corplinx]

If high speed rail flops, its a huge loss that will expand since government will refuse to shut it down. And the opportunity cost is a killer.

The money that went into the failed rail line could have done many other things, included not being collected in the first and being used more efficiently in the private sector.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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

Have you seen a map of Japan and compared it to a map of North America. Japanese geography does not lend itself to rail for cargo.

As a rule of thumb, rail efficiency starts at about 350 to 500 miles (600 to 850 km). Below those distances, truck is more efficient and ultimately cheaper. Most freight in Japan, whether domestic or international, travels about 60% of that distance.

Japan moves massive numbers of people by train, very well. It does not move freight by train, as the distances are not sufficient to require same. They have three main ports of entry/exit, and they all serve the industries and consumers within their reaches.

Europe is similar, just larger, so really more comparable to China (than Japan). The rail network is massive, but it's used chiefly to move passengers. Most trips are 50 to 300 km, though. They are only now starting to look at rail for cargo, and that's because of the opening of the markets and production facilities in the former Soviet Union and satellites. Prior to that? Not much sense in railing from (say) Paris to Basel. But Bucharest to Antwerp? That's a different story.


The USA is massive and lends itself rather nicely to rail transit. And when the need is there, it can move quite efficiently.

If I could get you on a train on Saturday that would get you to downtown Chicago on Monday, would you take it? We're talking 40 hours, roughly, and through some fairly interesting country, including the lower Rockies. (That same train makes Colombus on Wed and New York on Thursday.) It exists. It moves containers, though, not people. And this isn't like the Maglevs we have over here - just good old American container freight trains. If they cut out the whistle stops the currently available quote-end quote high speed trains in the USA could make it in about 18 hours (Maglev in under 10).

And the thing with passenger rail is that you can get up, move around the train, have a decent meal, stretch your legs, use your computer, etc.... Try doing any of that on the United flight from LAX to ORD.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If high speed rail flops, its a huge loss that will expand since government will refuse to shut it down. And the opportunity cost is a killer.

The money that went into the failed rail line could have done many other things, included not being collected in the first and being used more efficiently in the private sector.

Simple solution: Do what Shanghai did. Contract out your Maglev and give the deal to someone to build and operate, with an ironclad contract that it has to run for a decade. If you don't think the engineering giants will fall all over themselves for the contract to upgrade America's rail system, you don't know big business. Only catch: They need the same rights-of-way that Shanghai was able to provide and that the USA originally gave the rail barons.

 

[dtugg]

The USA is massive and lends itself rather nicely to rail transit. And when the need is there, it can move quite efficiently.

I disagree. The US being so large and with a relatively low population density makes it a very poor choice for rail transit.

If I could get you on a train on Saturday that would get you to downtown Chicago on Monday, would you take it?

Absolutely not.

And the thing with passenger rail is that you can get up, move around the train, have a decent meal, stretch your legs, use your computer, etc.... Try doing any of that on the United flight from LAX to ORD.

I always sleep on planes.

 

[dtugg]

Simple solution: Do what Shanghai did. Contract out your Maglev and give the deal to someone to build and operate, with an ironclad contract that it has to run for a decade. If you don't think the engineering giants will fall all over themselves for the contract to upgrade America's rail system, you don't know big business. Only catch: They need the same rights-of-way that Shanghai was able to provide and that the USA originally gave the rail barons.

Even if this would work it would still require huge investment from the government. And since the morons that run this country are spending $1trillion+ more year than they are taking in, that is most certainly money we do not have.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Even if this would work it would still require huge investment from the government. And since the morons that run this country are spending $1trillion+ more year than they are taking in, that is most certainly money we do not have.

The rail lines exist, and they're based on government largesse a century ago. 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. What other infrastructure investment is needed. The company that builds the thing pays for everything - that's part of the deal.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I disagree. The US being so large and with a relatively low population density makes it a very poor choice for rail transit.

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).