Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The US can't afford high-speed rail. Or can we? (Original Post) Scuba Nov 2013 OP
Denmark. Price per gallon of gasoline: $8.22 seveneyes Nov 2013 #1
Amtrak spent a lot of money on Acela, but didn't need to Vox Moi Nov 2013 #2
Those are good ideas. Let's tax the oil companies to pay for them. Scuba Nov 2013 #3
I agree … that was the point of your post and I'll go you one better Vox Moi Nov 2013 #5
+1 Scuba Nov 2013 #6
Good post. n/t Le Taz Hot Nov 2013 #8
There's plenty of money ...if you cut some military spending. L0oniX Nov 2013 #4
Plenty of $$$ in this country - TBF Nov 2013 #7
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt Enthusiast Nov 2013 #9
One of the problems with high speed rail Jenoch Nov 2013 #10
But China, which is about the size of the U.S., is building a high-speed system Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #12
China does not have the interstate Jenoch Nov 2013 #14
With dedicated tracks, high-speed rail could easily reach Chicago in four hours or less Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #24
Service is shit outside of the east coast corrider. I used to look into getting madinmaryland Nov 2013 #22
Amtrak has been starved for funds since its founding in 1970 Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #25
Huh, what? Are you saying 100 miles is farther in bigger country than in a smaller one? Scuba Nov 2013 #16
Nope. I'm saying that Jenoch Nov 2013 #18
Um, people going from Boston to New York don't need to visit California on the way. Scuba Nov 2013 #20
You are correct. Rail is great between Boston and New York. Jenoch Nov 2013 #21
Their HSR system will probabbly be joined with Germany's I'm sure. ErikJ Nov 2013 #23
It dependa upon who is paying for the rail installation. Jenoch Nov 2013 #32
We have a serious aversion to spending forward... Laxman Nov 2013 #11
The right-wing noise machine has conducted a decades-long campaign Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #13
With all that new revenue coming in from taxing religious organizations we could! Initech Nov 2013 #15
Where you going to get the track from? MicaelS Nov 2013 #17
Can't afford it FarCenter Nov 2013 #19
Negative attitudes are the main reason we can't do it here Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #26
Don't you wish those who say it can't be done would step aside ... Scuba Nov 2013 #28
Right now we can't afford it tularetom Nov 2013 #27
A few cancelled weapons systems, an end to corporate welfare, and raising taxes to Lydia Leftcoast Nov 2013 #31
We need to rearrange some priorities in this country Warpy Nov 2013 #29
All about priorities, and who sets them. Scuba Nov 2013 #30

Vox Moi

(546 posts)
2. Amtrak spent a lot of money on Acela, but didn't need to
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:49 AM
Nov 2013

The time for a trip between New York city and Boston was shortened by about an hour, but only about 15 minutes of that was due to the speed of the new trains. The rest was due to improved rail beds, signaling and the electrification of the entire line.
The new trains were very expensive and a big distraction when most of the time savings were also realized with previously existing trains.

It takes over 16 hours to train from San Francisco to Portland. A lot of that time is taken up by accommodating freight traffic. With direct routing, the time could be shortened considerably.

The point is that passenger train service could be improved greatly with existing trains and right-of-ways. Yes, it would be nice to have high-speed service but I think that leveraging existing capabilities for improved service deserves more emphasis.

Vox Moi

(546 posts)
5. I agree … that was the point of your post and I'll go you one better
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:57 AM
Nov 2013

Let's start by redirecting the subsidies we give to Big Oil to mass transit.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
10. One of the problems with high speed rail
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:10 PM
Nov 2013

in the U.S. is the sheer size of our country. Denmark is about the size of Delaware and Maryland combined. In my state of Minnesota, that clean rail in Denmark would be about the distance from the Twin Cities to Rochester or the Twin Cities to Duluth. Those destinations can be done in about two hours by motor vehicle. The cost of high speed rail might be too great when considering the distances vs. the benefits.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
12. But China, which is about the size of the U.S., is building a high-speed system
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:56 PM
Nov 2013

and Japan, which is the size of California, started theirs in 1964 and is continually expanding it. I first went to Japan in 1977. Since then, they have added three high-speed lines, one to northern Japan, one to the west coast, and another to Kyushu. They are planning a second line between Tokyo and Osaka.

Minneapolis to Chicago is less than the distance from Tokyo to Hiroshima, a high-speed rail trip that I took in the summer of 2012. So is Chicago to Cleveland or Cleveland to Pittsburgh.

You don't have to build the whole system at once.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
14. China does not have the interstate
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 07:58 PM
Nov 2013

highway system that we already have.

That high speed rail proposed from the Twin Cities to Chicago will take 6 hours. You can drive it in a car in 8 hours. I can understand rail between large cities on the east coast, it works. I just don't think reinstating passenger service between St. Paul and Duluth is a good use of money. That passenger service was stopped just a few years ago because of lack of passengers.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
24. With dedicated tracks, high-speed rail could easily reach Chicago in four hours or less
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:02 AM
Nov 2013

Each section be paid for by cancelling one new weapons system.

Do you truly think that an interstate highway system is a substitute for high-speed rail? Driving is exhausting; train travel is relaxing. 500 people driving pollutes the air. 500 people on a train pollutes the air 1/500 as much. Each car uses up umpteen gallons of gas driving to Chicago. Trains can run on other fuels. (The ones in Japan are all electric.)

When Japan came to the World Bank to ask for financing to build the first Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, the World Bank told them that trains were passé and that they should build a freeway instead. However, at that time, few Japanese had cars, so they went ahead and built the Shinkansen themselves.

Before it was completed, Japanese naysayers sounded exactly like American naysayers: Nobody will ride it, it's too expensive, you should have built a highway instead, cars are the wave of the future, yadda yadda yadda.

Once it was up and running, everyone wanted one.

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
22. Service is shit outside of the east coast corrider. I used to look into getting
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:29 PM
Nov 2013

a train from DC to Pittsburgh and there was only one train a day, and it got into Pittsburgh at 2 in the morning. That's really convenient, and then they wonder why no one takes the train.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
25. Amtrak has been starved for funds since its founding in 1970
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:04 AM
Nov 2013

Here's a fact that puts it in perspective:

After 9/11, Congress gave $35 billion to the airlines to compensate them for their losses during the period when they were ground.

That lump sum was more than Congress had allocated for Amtrak during its entire existence.

Nobody would ride planes if there was only one flight per day in each direction.

However, some trains, like the Empire Builder and the Coast Starlight sell out months in advance.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
18. Nope. I'm saying that
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:13 PM
Nov 2013

100 miles in Denmark will probably take someone from one end of the country to the other while in the U.S. it would take thousands of miles of new rail. i'm not say don't build rail, my point is that it is ridiculous to use a tiny country like Denmark as an example.

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
23. Their HSR system will probabbly be joined with Germany's I'm sure.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 09:42 PM
Nov 2013

And the rest of Europe. I think the LONGER the distance the more sense it makes. And if oil prices keep rising in the future jet travel will be too expensive.

Laxman

(2,419 posts)
11. We have a serious aversion to spending forward...
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:14 PM
Nov 2013

in this country. We have zero political will for investing in infrastructure that will benefit the economy and our society for generations to come. Past generations made serious investments, even in the depths of the depression, in infrastructure that we built this nation on and continue to use today. We are not showing that same commitment to future generations and it is inexcusable. The net economics of investments like this show the return far outweighs the expenditures.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
13. The right-wing noise machine has conducted a decades-long campaign
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:59 PM
Nov 2013

against any alternative to the internal combustion engine, so that accommodating planes, cars (and buses, if you're poor or disabled, because no one else would ride them in the right-wing universe) is good, while infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, light rail, or intercity rail is "a waste of the taxpayers' money."

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
17. Where you going to get the track from?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:11 PM
Nov 2013

Amtrak runs over tracks owned by private RR companies.

I worked as a Freight Brakeman / Conductor for 17 years. The RRs back then did NOT want passenger trains on their tracks. AFAIK, they still don't. The only reason they tolerate Amtrak is because the US Government gives them so much money to allow trackage rights. Frankly, we freight crews hated Amtrak back then. Because oft times we had to wait for Amtrak, and that delayed us getting over the road, and either getting home, or getting to the terminal at the other end of the road, and getting our rest. The one who really hated Amtrak were Maintenance of Way people who could only come out, work for a few hours, then stop, and clear Amtrak one direction, then repeat the process for Amtrak the other direction.

In the US we have High-Speed passenger rail traffic in the only place the population density is high enough, which is the Northeast Corridor with multiple main lines.

If we want widespread High-Speed passenger rail in this country, then we will have to spend the money to build dedicated High-Speed passenger only rails lines and all that entails. That means no rail crossing at grade. No chances of any car / truck and train ever colliding. Ever. Bridges / overpasses everywhere train and surface roads meet. How much will that cost to build per mile? I have seen estimates from $20 million a mile to $2 billion a mile. And that is just the track, no rolling stock.

The legal bullshit would be monumental. Everyone would have both hands out thinking they won the Lottery because the government was going to buy their land for rails lines. Politicians would fight tooth and nail to have the train come thought their city or town. There would be the NIMBYs who would try to stop they whole thing because of the noise, or it ruined their quality of life or their view, or some other excuse, just like they do with wind energy. Then the environmentalists would get into the act claiming animals would be driven to extinction or the local ecology would be irreparably damaged, or some other excuse.

We can't even build wind turbines to help us become energy self sufficient without someone whining and crying about THEIR view being spoiled, or birds being slaughtered, or the desert ecology being destroyed, or someone suffering from some nervous complaints because of noise and vibration from wind turbines, or some other excuse, and you think we're going to get widespread High Speed Passenger rail in this country?

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
19. Can't afford it
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:15 PM
Nov 2013

In populated corridors, like Boston-Washington, the cost to acquire a roadbed capable of 300+ kph trains would be astronomical. Think about how you would get a new roadbed from Newark to New Haven!

In less densely populated corridors, there isn't enough traffic to support high-speed rail.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
26. Negative attitudes are the main reason we can't do it here
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:09 AM
Nov 2013

People expressed exactly the same negative attitudes before Japan's Shinkansen was built. I translated a history of the Shinkansen a few years ago and I was astounded to see that Japanese naysayers in the early 1960s sounded exactly like the naysayers we have today. Exactly.

Now the Shinkansen system is the price of the country, and every region is asking, "When do we get ours?"

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
28. Don't you wish those who say it can't be done would step aside ...
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:29 AM
Nov 2013

... so the rest of us can get on with doing it?

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
31. A few cancelled weapons systems, an end to corporate welfare, and raising taxes to
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:58 AM
Nov 2013

Kennedy era levels (adjusted for inflation, of course) would do the trick.

Warpy

(110,900 posts)
29. We need to rearrange some priorities in this country
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:32 AM
Nov 2013

and if we do, we'll be able to afford everything from high speed rail to single payer health insurance.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The US can't afford high-...