General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsseveneyes
(4,631 posts)We are almost halfway there.
Vox Moi
(546 posts)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Vox Moi
(546 posts)Let's start by redirecting the subsidies we give to Big Oil to mass transit.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)TBF
(31,919 posts)it comes down to priorities.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)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.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Laxman
(2,419 posts)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)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."
Initech
(99,909 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)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)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)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)... so the rest of us can get on with doing it?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)For the future we can't afford not to build it.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Kennedy era levels (adjusted for inflation, of course) would do the trick.
Warpy
(110,900 posts)and if we do, we'll be able to afford everything from high speed rail to single payer health insurance.