High speed rail

[Dittohead not!]

Should it be built? Is it a boon, or a boondoggle?

Here's an article about the subject in California:

[h=1]California high-speed rail cost estimate soars[/h]

Which leads one to say, "boondoggle."

but, one argument for "boon"

To offset that sense of shock, the rail system's backers are stressing it would serve over the near-term as a jobs program. California has a double-digit unemployment rate and forecasters expect it will ease only gradually.

The Authority said on Tuesday that a bullet-train network across California would create 100,000 jobs over the next few years and "another 1 million jobs moving forward."

On the other hand:

"For too long, High-Speed Rail Authority officials trumpeted the dream, but showed little taste for confronting economic and political realities," State Treasurer Bill Lockyer said in a statement.

and further:

The Authority is also trying to capitalize on other concerns for Californians, notably fiscal and environmental ones. It said high-speed rail would be a bargain compared with $170 billion over the next 20 years to expand highways, airport gates and runways -- each contrary to California's efforts to combat global warming.

better to spend 98 billion than 170, but how realistic is that?

and this article claims:

But the plan also says the system would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and wouldn’t require public operating subsidies.

However, it also says:

It also calls for retaining the most controversial aspect of the proposed rail line — starting construction in the Central Valley. Critics want to start in more populated areas of southern or northern California in case money runs out before the full system is finished, which they worry would create a “train to nowhere.”

The first stage calls for a train from Fresno to Corcoran. Now, I live just south of Fresno, in fact between Fresno and Corcoran, and have since 1974. In that time, I've never yet had occasion to go to Corcoran.

The plan is to continue the rail to Bakersfield. At least, more people have heard of that one. I've been through Bakersfield on the way to Los Angeles, but have never been there except maybe to stop for a burger or something.

But, the feds are adamant that the line go through the valley instead of connecting places most of the country has heard of, like, say for example, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I have my doubts, frankly.

and $98B? Could it be better spent, or perhaps not spent at all since both the federal and state government is broke?

What do you say?

 

[Ikari]

I would fund the **** out of a true, national high speed rail system.

 

[StillBallin75]

I would fund the **** out of a true, national high speed rail system.

What's the difference between that and a false, national HSR system?

 

[poweRob]

BUild the damn thing. Run it down the Interstate highway's so as to not have to push people off their land. Just ****ing build it. I'm so sick of people telling us that the US can't build anything or do anything big anymore. Only China can build big. Not us. We are not allowed to.

 

[digsbe]

I wish they should build a high speed rail system that interconnect the major cities. The government should contract a company to build them cheaply and efficiently. If China, Japan, and many other nations around the world can do this I don't see why America cannot. I think we would benefit from a high speed rail system as a nation.

 

[Ikari]

What's the difference between that and a false, national HSR system?

One works, the other one is like the monorail from the Simpsons.

 

[digsbe]

Another thing they really need to do though is ensure that the system is affordable. The Northeast Corridor (Washington D.C. to Boston) is serviced by Amtrak which has a pseudo high speed rail line. Tickets on that train cost almost as much as a flight between the cities. If they build this it needs to be cost effective and allow Americans to travel cheaper then what they would pay in airline tickets.

 

[StillBallin75]

Another thing they really need to do though is ensure that the system is affordable. The Northeast Corridor (Washington D.C. to Boston) is serviced by Amtrak which has a pseudo high speed rail line. Tickets on that train cost almost as much as a flight between the cities. If they build this it needs to be cost effective and allow Americans to travel cheaper then what they would pay in airline tickets.

Interesting tidbit - the acela express is actually one of the few Amtrak routes to operate at a profit.

 

[digsbe]

Interesting tidbit - the acela express is actually the only Amtrak route to operate at a profit.

Maybe so, but it's no cheaper then airline tickets and really isn't feasible for Americans at large who want a cheaper travel alternative to airlines. From what I understand most of the Acela ridership is done by businessmen who hate flying. When I took a train from Trenton to New York Penn Station it was much much cheaper to purchase NJT tickets ($20) versus Amtrak Acela tickets (near $80 each way).

 

[poweRob]

I wish they should build a high speed rail system that interconnect the major cities. The government should contract a company to build them cheaply and efficiently. If China, Japan, and many other nations around the world can do this I don't see why America cannot. I think we would benefit from a high speed rail system as a nation.

Well, if I'm not mistaken there are only two working magnetic levitation trains out there to be viable. One is from Germany and the other is built by Japan. I think it is Siemens that is the company that builds the German one. Don't know who builds the Japanese version. The German one is the one being used in China in Shanghai. From what I understand China is coming out with one of their own but it is being rumored to be nothing more than a reversed engineered German HSR that they have.

From what I've read a while back the fastest of the two is the Japanese one which on it's test track has reached 361 mph and the German one was around 350 mph. They also figured out that it would get you to your destination faster than planes that fly faster up to somewhere around 800 or 1000 miles due to the ease and speed of loading, unloading and not having to sit on a tarmac awaiting flight clearance and landing.

We need to build this thing. I say we do it with a government owned track and privately owned trains. Like the highway is for cars. Then the trains running on it have a per ticket fee like, $5 per ticket sold or something to go towards track maintenance and expansion. (the number is arbitrary but using that model for maintenance and growth).

 

[poweRob]

Maybe so, but it's no cheaper then airline tickets and really isn't feasible for Americans at large who want a cheaper travel alternative to airlines. From what I understand most of the Acela ridership is done by businessmen who hate flying. When I took a train from Trenton to New York Penn Station it was much much cheaper to purchase NJT tickets ($20) versus Amtrak Acela tickets (near $80 each way).

That's why I think a government owned track with private trains would be the thing. Because the government could help work through right-of-way issues that city, county and state governments often throw up and massive obstacles to private companies who want to pursue such ventures (or companies suing the crap out of local or state governments to block competition from achieving something new that threatens their business See Google in Kansas City and their getting blocked for Telephone pole right-of-ways to establish a super super super fast internet service for the city).

then throw the private trains as the competition needed to push the prices down.

 

[digsbe]

I agree with you. I also think another benefit to the government owning and building the tracks is that more cities would be given access. As a federal project I think the majority of the nation should have access to this and not a select few highly populated cities. The infrastructure in our nation is nearing 60 years old and we really need to step it up and join the rest of the world.

 

[poweRob]

I agree with you. I also think another benefit to the government owning and building the tracks is that more cities would be given access. As a federal project I think the majority of the nation should have access to this and not a select few highly populated cities. The infrastructure in our nation is nearing 60 years old and we really need to step it up and join the rest of the world.

I say build an I-5, I-75, I-95 corridor HSR initially. That connects Florida to the Northeast and Florida to the Midwest and the entire west coast of the us is connected together which means that the ridership would initially be really really high due to the population centers that are connected. This means the the ticket sales would be very high allowing for a speeded up funding for growth without deficit spending and then do an I-20 and I-40 connection to connect East to West. Expand from there but I think that is how to get started.

Then imagine the ridership increase when the news covers the next airliner crash.

 

[Ikari]

I agree with you. I also think another benefit to the government owning and building the tracks is that more cities would be given access. As a federal project I think the majority of the nation should have access to this and not a select few highly populated cities. The infrastructure in our nation is nearing 60 years old and we really need to step it up and join the rest of the world.

I think that a nationalized high speed rail system can only be done by the government. It's far too expensive and far to expansive to be accomplished by the free market. The problem is the airline industries won't like it too much. If you can go New York to Chicago in a few hours...

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Well, if I'm not mistaken there are only two working magnetic levitation trains out there to be viable. One is from Germany and the other is built by Japan. I think it is Siemens that is the company that builds the German one. Don't know who builds the Japanese version. The German one is the one being used in China in Shanghai. From what I understand China is coming out with one of their own but it is being rumored to be nothing more than a reversed engineered German HSR that they have.

From what I've read a while back the fastest of the two is the Japanese one which on it's test track has reached 361 mph and the German one was around 350 mph. They also figured out that it would get you to your destination faster than planes that fly faster up to somewhere around 800 or 1000 miles due to the ease and speed of loading, unloading and not having to sit on a tarmac awaiting flight clearance and landing.

We need to build this thing. I say we do it with a government owned track and privately owned trains. Like the highway is for cars. Then the trains running on it have a per ticket fee like, $5 per ticket sold or something to go towards track maintenance and expansion. (the number is arbitrary but using that model for maintenance and growth).

China actually has the only commercially operating Maglev train. It operates between Pudong International Airport and the the center of the Pudong district in Shanghai. It was built by Siemens

 

[poweRob]

China actually has the only commercially operating Maglev train. It operates between Pudong International Airport and the the center of the Pudong district in Shanghai. It was built by Siemens

Yep. That's what I was saying. The German model built by Siemens. China keeps threatening to expand that track, which is only like... 18 miles, up to around 500 or 800 miles or so with their own technology... that they stole from Germany and Siemens actually. lol

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's why I think a government owned track with private trains would be the thing. Because the government could help work through right-of-way issues that city, county and state governments often throw up and massive obstacles to private companies who want to pursue such ventures (or companies suing the crap out of local or state governments to block competition from achieving something new that threatens their business See Google in Kansas City and their getting blocked for Telephone pole right-of-ways to establish a super super super fast internet service for the city).

then throw the private trains as the competition needed to push the prices down.

That makes a lot of sense.

Don't airports generally work the same way? The airport is owned by the city, but the planes are private.

 

[Higgins86]

god I wish they would, biggets thing I miss from Europe are the trains. In the time it takes me to get from Newburyport to Boston I could leave London and be in France!

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

In short, it's pie in the sky stupidity to build these moronic things, except in a few select areas.
It may feel good to clamor for HSR, but in reality, most people enjoy driving themselves more than riding on a train.

 

[Disputatious71]

I would fund the **** out of a true, national high speed rail system.

Because a slow speed rail system has worked out so well that we need to speed things up?

 

[conservativeguy]

I think that a nationalized high speed rail system can only be done by the government. It's far too expensive and far to expansive to be accomplished by the free market. .

Translation: if the federal government spends the hundreds of billions nobody will care if the overall economics suck. Moreover, only 70m people will have to pay for the system while another 260m people get to live large on the backs of the working stiffs that actually pay income taxes.

 

[Samhain]

It think it goes without saying, but you can transport more people for cheaper and quicker via planes than you can with trains, and its simple logistics.

You can only have one train on the track in any given area at any given time. Planes have vertical avenues that linear vehicles like cars and trains don't.

Plus I think you are underestimating the size of the states. The current example is 100 billion for 110 miles of track, that stays away from major metropolitan areas.

At that cost, Boston to Washington DC would be north of 1 trillion(480miles of track) since you have to figure out how to go out of boston, in/out of NYC, and in washington.

It doesn't even pass the smell test.

 

[Helix]

if successful, it would take a lot of volume off the roads, and would be a much more efficient use of energy.

the problem is priority and startup costs. there are so many infrastructure issues that we need to address and so little money to do it with that it's going to be a tough sell.

 

[Ikari]

Translation: if the federal government spends the hundreds of billions nobody will care if the overall economics suck. Moreover, only 70m people will have to pay for the system while another 260m people get to live large on the backs of the working stiffs that actually pay income taxes.

It's not really a feasible project for the private sector, the costs are too high.

Actually, high speed rail was one of my solutions for the unemployment rate. You'll create temporary jobs to build it so that people can keep working and the economy can recover. A true high speed rail system which links our major cities and can then later be expanded to cover even more...that would be exceedingly useful to us.

Also I don't buy your numbers. You're essentially saying that over 82% of Americans do not pay any federal tax.

 

[Samhain]

It's not really a feasible project for the private sector, the costs are too high.

Actually, high speed rail was one of my solutions for the unemployment rate. You'll create temporary jobs to build it so that people can keep working and the economy can recover. A true high speed rail system which links our major cities and can then later be expanded to cover even more...that would be exceedingly useful to us.

Also I don't buy your numbers. You're essentially saying that over 82% of Americans do not pay any federal tax.

You are basising your 82% off of total population, not total taxpayers.

There are only about 172 million taxpayers in the country. Of that 172 million, 53% net no federal income taxes paid at the end of the year.