High speed rail system in U.S.

LunarCompSys1
LunarCompSys1 Posts: 35
in A Moving Train
Can we get one now? Baby booms gave us the highways we ride on still today...
«1

Comments

  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Given the times, it makes more sense to focus the resources required for something of that magnitude on more pressing issues. 
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    Because I've supported both the National Association of Rail Passengers (NARP) and Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada (RailPAC) for several year, I've been reading their news letters and emails for some time.  Both organizations have been pushing for high speed rail for years. 

    While I support the work of both organizations and believe railroading to be the most essential and economical mode of transportation there is (railroad are capable of moving more freight and people per energy unit than any other form of transportation besides walking), I honestly believe high speed rail is no longer a viable option.  I'll go out on a limb and say that window of opportunity closed several years ago- probably decades. 

    The main problem today is cost and that problem is two fold.  First of all, none of the last several administrations have taken high speed rail seriously, regardless of which party has been in control.  And now with the pandemic and the need to give out stimulus checks, those funds are even more unlikely to see the light of day any time soon.  Secondly, what was once in the past an affordable option (as proven by the construction of high speed rail in both Europe and Japan a good while ago), the cost of that kind of construction has outpaced inflation and greater funding than ever would be needed to make it a reality today.   Look how long a single route in California has been proposed and moved along slowly over the last several years.  I just don't see it happening.

    Others who follow rail progress and are in the know suggest that the better option would be to refurbish and improve on existing infrastructure and continue to build, as much as possible, more efficient locomotives such as the ones being developed by Siemens, and the zero emissions battery-electric locomotives for smaller jobs that are being developed  by RPS (Rail Propulsion Systems). 

    You're not going to get a lot of this kind of information through the general media.  It just isn't being provided unless you look for it.  And yes, high speed rail is still mentioned in quarterlies like Steel Wheels, but I'm not seeing it make front page news much these days. 

    That's my two cents anyway.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    edited February 2021
    it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    Meltdown99 said:
    it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...
    I still don't think it's viable.

    The cost of doing eminent domain?  Man that would get costly.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,097
    i would use it if we had one. a few years ago they were talking about having one go from st louis to kansas city in a very short amount of time, maybe like 75 minutes or something. i would have been all over that.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Meltdown99 said:
    it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...
    I still don't think it's viable.

    The cost of doing eminent domain?  Man that would get costly.
    I think you are right.  These should have been built in the 70’s.


    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    i would use it if we had one. a few years ago they were talking about having one go from st louis to kansas city in a very short amount of time, maybe like 75 minutes or something. i would have been all over that.
    I’d rather invest in rail over giving money to the airline industry.

    ’
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    If Andrew Yang is right, there will be a driverless Super highway in the future across country so maybe we can utilize that?
  • LunarCompSys1
    LunarCompSys1 Posts: 35
    If they build a prison specifically for politicians and their assistants, it may be affordable and efficient.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,385
    LunarCompSys1 said:
    If they build a prison specifically for politicians and their assistants, it may be affordable and efficient.
    My guess is you won't be around long for us to enjoy all this goodness that you have to share.
  • jpgoegel
    jpgoegel Posts: 415
    its certainly an enjoyable way to travel.   i took my kids from Boston to Wash DC and it wasnt any less time consuming, and was far more relaxing.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    It's looking like high speed rail in California is an epic fail.  In 2008, Californians voters (not all!) approved $9 billion in bonds to build a high speed rail system here.  14 years later and $5 billion spent, and not a single mile of track has been laid. 
    Some of us have long suggested that the way to go is to upgrade existing rail service by improving existing tracks, engines and cars and making the experience a relaxed, pleasurable way to travel.  Instead, we flushed a shit load of money down the drain. 
    Way to go, California!

    Train to nowhere: can California’s high-speed rail project ever get back on track?



    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    What a waste of money in California.   Would be great to get a system in the US or at a minimum regionally.  
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    Meltdown99 said:
    it’s expensive.  Cut you war mongering budget by 75% and you can afford...
    I don't know.  Eventually resources will dry up on the planet and it will be an all out world war.  
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    bootlegger10 said:
    What a waste of money in California.   Would be great to get a system in the US or at a minimum regionally.  

    We really blew it waiting this long.  Between the high cost, lack a resources, and (I'm guessing) not enough workers, it probably will never happen.  We should have started a long time ago like these countries did (dates are for beginning of high speed rail service in each country):
    Japan: 1964
    Canada: 1976
    England: 1976
    France: 1981
    Italy: 1988
    Germany: 1991
    Australia: 1998
    Spain: 2007
    China: 2007
    Austrian: 2008
    Russia: 2009


    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited May 2022
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Cropduster-80
    Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited May 2022
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,410
    High speed rail would be so awesome in this country. It would change how I travel in the US.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    Cropduster-80 said:
    brianlux said:
    Cropduster-80 said:
    If you stopped subsidising small airports with federal money that’s a start. 

    The amount of cities that can’t reasonably support an airport and have one anyway is absurd 

    take the train once from London to Paris, then fly it. No one would rather fly unless you want to waste your entire day 

    Generally, I would totally agree, but not in all cases. Ketchikan, Alaska for example, only has a year around population of only a little over 8,000, but they have a commercial airport large enough for passenger jets.  The city is on an island and though small in population, it does a lot of fishing and lumber, and tourism commerce.  Losing that airport would be a huge burden for it's residents.

    There are likely some other similar exceptions, but on the mainland, I would say, yeah, stop subsidizing them and get the railroads back up to snuff!
    Every time a how do we fund something comes up I’m always reminded of rural america.

    it costs a lot to live that isolated.  I end up paying for them to be able to have that convenience.  Mail is another one.  It probably costs 10 cents to mail a letter within my city. Probably costs 15 bucks to deliver a letter to my brother in laws house as that delivery person is probably handling 2-3 deliveries an hour.  

    high speed rail has the purpose of connecting cities. Cities (the ones that voted Biden for instance) represent 71% of the economy and thus tax revenue. It’s about time cities get their share of what they pay in taxes.

     Rural states and rural areas almost exclusively get more spending than what they pay in taxes.  There is plenty of money, it’s how it’s allocated that’s a problem 

    the reason high speed will never happen is totally related to that. It benefits cities and you would have to use eminent domain to seize rural land to build it. That’s not happening on any large scale.  It’s entirely probable that a hypothetical rail link from Dallas to Houston connecting 10 million people would be derailed (pun intended) by 7 ranchers 
    I would be careful not to over-generalize rural areas.  I have lived in big cities, and I have live in rural areas.  There are advantages and disadvantages, and good aspects and bad aspects of both.  At this point in my life, having to deal with hyperacusis and agoraphobia, I'm happiest when more isolated.  When I was younger, I loves living in the city.  And I paid plenty of taxes in both places.

    The other thing to remember is that a lot of the food you eat comes from rural areas.  Star Trek food replicators have not been invented yet, lol.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

Categories