high-speed rail in the United States.

[caketastydelish]

As an American, I feel it is embarrassing that our high-speed rail is few and far between.

The Republican solution: NO

Democrat solution: Yes, the government should do it. Lets invest lots of money to build high-speed rail even though we're in tons of debt.

My solution: Give a major tax increase to all corporations that are gas guzzlers (the oil companies and car companies), and a major tax break to all major corporations that use high speed rail (the rail companies... obviously)

Europe has high speed rail, and theirs is vastly superior to ours. What's sad about it, is I believe America has potential to have actually a BETTER high-speed rail system than Europe. This is because since all of America is one country, and we all speak the same language, going from one place to another would actually be easier.

What do you think?

 

[Ajidica]

As much as I love trains and passenger rail, I really don't think high speed rail is suitable for America. High speed rail works best and intercity transit over moderate distances, however, it costs as much as flight and takes about the same amount of time. We already have invested vast amounts in our airports (and need to invest alot more in the ATC systems) so building a high speed network would for the most part be redundant.

and a major tax break to all major corporations that use high speed rail (the rail companies... obviously)

The closest thing we have to high speed rail right now is the Northest Corridor run by Amtrack (and it is barely high speed, I don't think they ever top 80 mph in good condition, and that is getting rare due to deferred maintnence because of budget cuts). The Northest Corridor just manages to break even because of the very high population density, city density, and urban structure (lots of people work in DC, but very few people want to live in DC). It was already expensive getting the new infrastructure in, such as the cantenary capable of handling the Acela trainsets (which were overpowered for the system and even after modification still had a bad habit of creating a 'brown-out' in the system), and that was with all of the basic infrastructure already there! The cantenary towers were there, along with the heavily graded track, superelevated curves, station complexes, trainsets for the HPH-8000 series engines, signaling, and so on was all left over from the PRR days.

Trying to get a private company to shell out enough cash to build the railroad, buy the trainsets, avoid eminant domain issues, get the stations to where people can actualy use them, and so on is astronomical. The existing railroads have no interest in high speed rail, they ditched passanger travel for a reason. Their entire operating system is geared toward freight, not passenger travel. Adjusting to passenger travel would trash the carefully built up system they have of moving freight and would create bottlenecks in critical areas.

In my opinion, investing in subway systems, more efficient airplane engines, and retrofitting our airports would be a better use of money.

 

[warpus]

Having taken a 10 hour long train from Los Angeles to San Jose recently, I gotta say.. you guys need faster rail! (and so do we here in Canada)

Can we look at the construction of all your highways as a case study for job creation? That was a huge project, right? It was expensive.. but did it bring a net benefit to American society, in terms of job creation, infrastructure, etc.?

If so, it would perhaps be a good case for the construction of high-speed rail in America.. and not the fake "high speed" you guys have running between New York and Washington (or whatever it is), real high speed like they have in Europe and Japan.

 

[Dreadnought]

Travelling from Pittsburgh to Newark NJ by Amtrack takes more than nine hours, which is slower than driving. It's cheaper though and more convenient.

Would more high speed rails be cool? Sure! Would it be practical? I don't really know.

 

[caketastydelish]

As much as I love trains and passenger rail, I really don't think high speed rail is suitable for America. High speed rail works best and intercity transit over moderate distances, however, it costs as much as flight and takes about the same amount of time. We already have invested vast amounts in our airports (and need to invest alot more in the ATC systems) so building a high speed network would for the most part be redundant.


The closest thing we have to high speed rail right now is the Northest Corridor run by Amtrack (and it is barely high speed, I don't think they ever top 80 mph in good condition, and that is getting rare due to deferred maintnence because of budget cuts). The Northest Corridor just manages to break even because of the very high population density, city density, and urban structure (lots of people work in DC, but very few people want to live in DC). It was already expensive getting the new infrastructure in, such as the cantenary capable of handling the Acela trainsets (which were overpowered for the system and even after modification still had a bad habit of creating a 'brown-out' in the system), and that was with all of the basic infrastructure already there! The cantenary towers were there, along with the heavily graded track, superelevated curves, station complexes, trainsets for the HPH-8000 series engines, signaling, and so on was all left over from the PRR days.

Trying to get a private company to shell out enough cash to build the railroad, buy the trainsets, avoid eminant domain issues, get the stations to where people can actualy use them, and so on is astronomical. The existing railroads have no interest in high speed rail, they ditched passanger travel for a reason. Their entire operating system is geared toward freight, not passenger travel. Adjusting to passenger travel would trash the carefully built up system they have of moving freight and would create bottlenecks in critical areas.

In my opinion, investing in subway systems, more efficient airplane engines, and retrofitting our airports would be a better use of money.

The reason why they're not making money is because people don't use them. The average European consumes about 50% of what the Average American does in terms of gas, if I remember correctly.

If people would stop using their cars, and start with the high-speed rail the rail companies would make more.

Amtrack's problem is lack of service if you ask me. I hear in Europe you can get a "pass" or something that allows you to ride as much as you want, wherever you want within the EU. Nothing like that exists here.

 

[warpus]

The reason why they're not making money is because people don't use them. The average European consumes about 50% of what the Average American does in terms of gas, if I remember correctly.

If people would stop using their cars, and start with the high-speed rail the rail companies would make more.

Amtrack's problem is lack of service if you ask me. I hear in Europe you can get a "pass" or something that allows you to ride as much as you want, wherever you want within the EU. Nothing like that exists here.

People don't use it because it's slow. I met a guy in San Francisco who claims that it took 50 hours to travel via Amtrak from Chicago to San Fran.

It is super cheap though, cheaper than rail in Canada. That part you guys have right. Customer service on the trains themselves appears to be fairly good.

High speed rail wouldn't work everywhere, but it would work in highly populated parts of your country, like california, the north-east, etc.

 

[caketastydelish]

People don't use it because it's slow. I met a guy in San Francisco who claims that it took 50 hours to travel via Amtrak from Chicago to San Fran.

It is super cheap though, cheaper than rail in Canada. That part you guys have right. Customer service on the trains themselves appears to be fairly good.

High speed rail wouldn't work everywhere, but it would work in highly populated parts of your country, like california, the north-east, etc.

So you're saying it's slow. This is a problem, and we need to fix it.

 

[Synobun]

America could use a highly-efficient transportation grid. However it's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[amadeus]

What's wrong with air travel? Why do we need a redundant infrastructure?

 

[Synobun]

What's wrong with air travel? Why do we need a redundant infrastructure?

Generally it's good to be able to fall back on another efficient method of travel, plus there is a pretty large percentage of people that are afraid of flying, and they should get the luxury of a high-speed rail system as a replacement.

 

[caketastydelish]

What's wrong with air travel? Why do we need a redundant infrastructure?

Air travel uses fuel, which is a bad habit we need to grow out of.

 

[warpus]

What's wrong with air travel? Why do we need a redundant infrastructure?

People look at and/or touch your genitals when you fly. Not so when you take the train!

If you are against "redundant infrastructure", why don't we get rid of the highways then?

Building high-speed rail would be very american, IMO. It would force the airlines to compete with the newly established rail lines. COmpetition - a very capitalist and American ideal.. right?

 

[caketastydelish]

People look at and/or touch your genitals when you fly. Not so when you take the train!

If you are against "redundant infrastructure", why don't we get rid of the highways then?

Building high-speed rail would be very american, IMO. It would force the airlines to compete with the newly established rail lines. COmpetition - a very capitalist and American ideal.. right?

An actual serious argument would be that we need to stop with consuming more gas than any other country on a per capita basis (or probably any basis) and starting looking for alternative sources of energy. Electricity is a good choice. Coal is terrible, but at least we get it here rather than from other countries, not to mention there is a lot more coal left than there is gas.

Realistically, I say we should switch to electricity first, which as much as I hate to admit, would probably be largely coal-based. However, as technology progresses we could grow out of coal, and find non-polluting ways for energy.

 

[warpus]

Cars do have a place in the solution, even gas guzzling ones.

But what you guys need to do, I think, is build a real high-speed line between two major cities.. Say.. Washington and Baltimore or New York and Boston. Make it as fast as the trains in Spain or France and use it as a case study for future high speed rail development.

I doubt it will ever happen - I bet you that the airlines have a vested interest and thus have been contributing money to Washington to kill any high-speed rail project. Which, I should say, seems very unAmerican.

 

[Synobun]

Cars do have a place in the solution, even gas guzzling ones.

But what you guys need to do, I think, is build a real high-speed line between two major cities.. Say.. Washington and Baltimore or New York and Boston. Make it as fast as the trains in Spain or France and use it as a case study for future high speed rail development.

I doubt it will ever happen - I bet you that the airlines have a vested interest and thus have been contributing money to Washington to kill any high-speed rail project. Which, I should say, seems very unAmerican.

This. Wasn't there a really innovative electrical car engine that was being designed but was canceled because an oil tycoon bought it out?

 

[downtown]

What's wrong with air travel? Why do we need a redundant infrastructure?

Air Travel is the best for longer distances, but there is an underserved market for shorter trips, and longer distance commuter rail (which be high speed). Train ticket expenses are more stable than flights, and don't use the same crappy fuel.

We're never going to take a train from NYC to LA...or even NYC to Chicago for that matter. Nearby city train service gives you more options to find cheaper flights, reduces urban traffic, boosts land values outside of the urban core, and will help businesses expand the geographic area from where they can recruit.

Driving to Madison or Milwaukee is kind of a pain in the ass. If I could take a train there quicker, I totally would. I might even use their airports more.

 

[emzie]

High speed rail from LA to New York would never work. A high speed (200 mph) would take 12 hours to go from LA to NY -- assuming you never made stops to pick up passengers, never had slow downs due to weather, and were able to maintain 200mph avg even when going through the Rockies and Appalachians. In practice, I'd expect a transcontinental high-speed route to take 18-24 hours. A flight is a quarter of that, even when taking into account security, waiting to take off, waiting to land and taxiing.

High speed rail makes sense from DC to Boston and San Fran to San Diego. Not much else.

I still really like El_Mac's idea of having transcontinental trains that you can drive your car onto. Instead of driving cross country, you take a cleaner train, are able to cut the time by a factor of 3-4 and have a vehicle when you get to your destination. They just need to be able to average 50mph to make that a worthwhile alternative to driving.

 

[JollyRoger]

What's wrong with air travel? Why do we need a redundant infrastructure?

We could get rid of air travel.

 

[Archbob]

Driving to Madison or Milwaukee is kind of a pain in the ass. If I could take a train there quicker, I totally would. I might even use their airports more.

I would drive any day because I can drive at my convenience for this trip rather than wait at a station for a specific train. Now for a farther trip like Chicago to St. Louis, I take high speed rail over driving.

 

[Darkwind]

If course US should build their own high speed railways, it is much more energy efficient and those old and smelly rail station need to go anyways.

A reliable and efficient transportation system is the backbone of almost all economies; and I could tell US need a kick in their economy growth right now. The infrastructure development and the management of it afterwards will create job opportunities.

Of course it need to done in a step by step approach; where you build the most useful route first and spread it out later. (Unlike the super fast speed in China, which is a waste.)