Thoughts on High Speed Railroad in the U.S.?
brianlux
Posts: 42,051
(No, I don't mean how can we make A Moving Train go faster... 
)
Seriously, what do you think? I know my friends abroad can't imagine living without their high-speed rail systems and don't understand why we don't have one. Personally, I love the idea of high-speed rail but I'm not sure it's tenable at this time in our history. Although in 2008 we voted for a high-speed rail system here in California, not much progress has been made and the projected costs keep rising. A nationwide system would be even more expensive despite adding more jobs.
The best argument I've heard is the idea of adding those new jobs and providing an alternative to driving by refurbishing our existing rail system and building light rail in our urban areas. Doing so, it is argued, would be much more financially feasible and even our older, standard rail systems are much more energy efficient than trucking, air and auto transport.
I support the rails through RailPac and NARP (The National Association of Railroad Passengers) but I'm just not sure about high-speed.
Any thoughts? Any rail buffs who have information to add and shed light on the discussion?
)Seriously, what do you think? I know my friends abroad can't imagine living without their high-speed rail systems and don't understand why we don't have one. Personally, I love the idea of high-speed rail but I'm not sure it's tenable at this time in our history. Although in 2008 we voted for a high-speed rail system here in California, not much progress has been made and the projected costs keep rising. A nationwide system would be even more expensive despite adding more jobs.
The best argument I've heard is the idea of adding those new jobs and providing an alternative to driving by refurbishing our existing rail system and building light rail in our urban areas. Doing so, it is argued, would be much more financially feasible and even our older, standard rail systems are much more energy efficient than trucking, air and auto transport.
I support the rails through RailPac and NARP (The National Association of Railroad Passengers) but I'm just not sure about high-speed.
Any thoughts? Any rail buffs who have information to add and shed light on the discussion?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It could be used as a commuter rail between L.A. and Riverside during the week, with some full length trips. L.A. to Vegas runs on the weekends.
Anyone who has had to deal with the L.A. to Vegas trip on I-15 knows what I'm talking about.
...
Regarding the L.A. to S.F. rail... I'd visit San Fran more often than I do.
P.S. Add a stop for the Bridge School Benefits.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm alright with it as long as the MTA doesn't run it. Metro North is a disaster. Always broke, always looking for more money, and now they are taxing people who NEVER use the train.
+1. I guess its been pretty difficult to get the right of way through all the various towns and counties, though.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It would be easier to build it in the Midwest due to available farmland, but I don't believe it is necessary and would be a waste of federal funds. I'm staring at a map of the U.S., and there is so much open land between major cities, I don't see it serving an effective purpose for the majority of citizens.
For the west coast, the environmentalist groups would go ape-shit on proposals and expensive concessions and re-routes would have to be made so that a pond with an endangered turtle would not be disturbed. And I could see it being used from San Diego to L.A., but would it make sense to extend it to San Francisco considering the drive or flight isn't that long?
When I lived in Seattle, they debated putting in a local rail system and it was a political clusterfuck .... and this was in Seattle! When I left, they were moving forward with an expensive plan that in reality would not serve it's main purpose ... to alleviate traffic.
The biggest issue is that the traffic and logistic engineers from the 1950's did not plan or foresee using rail in the future. A high speed rail system sounds great in a speech, but not so much on paper.
No, it's because we have a bit more land to try and cover.
uhhh ... are you trying to say that a high speed rail network in the northeast corridor doesn't make sense?
boston-NYC-philly-DC-baltimore??
if people demanded it, it would be done. but we are fine with driving our couple of hundred million cars because "we have the freedom" to not lower ourselves enough to use mass transit...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
That is true. And there certainly are some areas where it makes sense and is doable.
I don't know about China's setup, what rails systems do they have? Is it just from big city to big city? Our suburbs make it difficult. Would have been nice if it was included in urban/city planning a long time ago.
Huh? where did I say that?
I said as a country, a high speed rail system is difficult because of how spread out everything is.
It would be nice to have it. We need to make cuts to the budget to justify the $100B allotment though. The cuts would have to be on top of the cuts proposed in the so-called "ten year plan". Otherwise we will never dig ourselves out of the debt-hole.
So what do we cut to afford a high-speed rail? Defense? Social Security? Education? Panetta is already crying about proposed military cuts. Unions will defend Education. AARP will defend Social Security. We can't even figure out how to make budget cuts. Does adding another $100B to the debt make sense?
But it would be cool.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
for sure ... windsor --> london --> kw --> guelph --> mississauga --> toronto --> oshawa --> kingston --> ottawa --> cornwall --> montreal --> trois rivieres -- quebec city ...
germany probably has more regulation and labour is likely more expensive and they have it ...
i would say the first thing to do is to eliminate the subsidies for things that ultimately only provide mass profits for corporations and limited benefit to the public ...
I totally agree. It's very frustrating to look back and think- why didn't we start building high speed when we could afford it, when it was becoming the norm in places like Europe?
Maybe we still can afford high speed rail in places like New England or all of the eastern seaboard where there is a higher population density. For the rest of the country it seems to make more sense to refurbish existing lines. According to The National Association of Railroad Passengers, we have many rail cars and engines that need some work but are still quite useful. If these systems were fixed and cleaned up we could expand rail service in the US and reduce our dependence on oil. Gimmesometruth27 pointed out that we don't want to give up our driving freedom and lower ourselves to using mass transit. That is the way most American's think but I also think it is possible for us to change our thinking. If rail service were made pleasurable (personally, I think it mostly is but it could be much better) and people learned to appreciate the extra time maybe it would catch on. Good food service, a well run and stocked lounge car, comfortable seating, free internet service on board, clean bathrooms, PJ radio, frequent rail miles- all kinds of things could be used an incentives to ride the rails. Think of all the posts you could make here while sipping on your favorite beverage, and glancing up at the scenery once in a while!
we can do it if the people want to do it.
but i stand by my opinion that people don't want to do it for 2 reasons...one, they like to drive and will not lower themselves to mass transit, and 2 people don't want to pay the taxes they pay now and nobody is willing to cut spending on anything...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
According to wikipedia, the US and China are essentially tied for 3rd largest countries in the world. And if you were to take away Alaska, the US would drop below Brazil to be number 5.
Hell, if the trip to Montreal was cheaper now I'd be there more often now, too much of a hassle to drive it some times (and plus, part of Montreal is enjoying a few beverages on a patio).
This is the other thing I keep thinking about- places I'd visit more often if we had high-speed rail. I don't fly so it's either drive, take the train or dream (usually dream).
The other thing I wonder about is this: One of the things I love about rail travel is taking in the view. I've never been on high-speed rail though so I wonder- does the fast rate of speed make the view go by too quickly and make it less interesting?