High speed rail

[poweRob]

Faulty comparison.
HSR /= Hoover damn or the TVA.

Glad you aren't understanding my argument at all.
HSR systems are not a cure all to transportation issues, the whole U.S. over.

They work in very specific circumstances, not in all circumstances.

Had you read my arguments I said that it wouldn't compete well with East to West coast travel compared to planes. I said vertical travel down the population centers would. I-5, I-95 and I-75 being the prominent routes.

 

[poweRob]

I don't have to speak for the whole country to know that, HSR is not universally cost effective.


The United States does not have a magical copy and paste option that can fit HSR in every location and it work well.

By your standards so is the interstate system. So... **** it. Let's tear it up and stop spending that money.

Bottom line is, when you make the populace more mobile, you make their wallets more mobile. That is why the interstate system was a boon to local economies and the trickle up from there has been beneficial to our whole economy.

 

[poweRob]

Again, you're missing the cost factor. No one will use it when its cheaper to fly. To pay for this, the fare would be similar to the Acela which will be several hundred dollars. And you honestly thing the airlines will just keep fares the same if there is at all a threat to their bottom line? I'd bet most would reduce fares to be even more competitive. Furthermore, it the traffic between DC and Atlanta even remotely high enough to merit such line? The only reason Atlanta has any consideration at all would be due to the fact that its hub for several major airlines. Gonna take a train from DC to Atlanta to hop on plane?

The only region it makes sense would be the NE corridor. And as I've already shown, its both signficantly cheaper and faster to fly. Unless you're advocating a bottomless pit of government subsidation just so we can have cool fast trains zipping around.

You will have to prove that ticket costs would be what you state when fuel costs will be practically negligible and I doubt maintaining a fleet of trains would be as costly as maintaining a fleet of airliners.

 

[Samhain]

By your standards so is the interstate system. So... **** it. Let's tear it up and stop spending that money.

Bottom line is, when you make the populace more mobile, you make their wallets more mobile. That is why the interstate system was a boon to local economies and the trickle up from there has been beneficial to our whole economy.

The Interstate has three functions. You can drive on it for your use, we can drive tanks on it to defend the borders, and we can land planes on it. HSR has one.

You will have to prove that ticket costs would be what you state when fuel costs will be practically negligible and I doubt maintaining a fleet of trains would be as costly as maintaining a fleet of airliners.

Our electric grid can't support plug-in cars, and it certainly isn't going to support HSR. Unless you want to switch to nuclear.

 

[Ikari]

Again, you're missing the cost factor. No one will use it when its cheaper to fly. To pay for this, the fare would be similar to the Acela which will be several hundred dollars. And you honestly thing the airlines will just keep fares the same if there is at all a threat to their bottom line?

They can keep quiet. We already subsidize the **** out of airtravel. It would be TONS more expensive if the government weren't partly funding the whole thing.

 

[poweRob]

The Interstate has three functions. You can drive on it for your use, we can drive tanks on it to defend the borders, and we can land planes on it. HSR has one.

Don't know what that has to do with anything being that we don't have tanks driving on our highways, or planes landing on it with any kind of regularity. I see a plane landing on the highway reach the news maybe once every five, ten years or so. Even so, don't know what this has to do with anything. Interstate is still fed funded and by his logic, it is costing us therefore not beneficial.

Our electric grid can't support plug-in cars, and it certainly isn't going to support HSR. Unless you want to switch to nuclear.

lol... maglev isn't electric intensive. The track is the motor and it is only on where the train itself resides. Not the whole thing lit up at all times. Our grid can handle it.

On the plug in cars... our grid can handle that too. Cars are plugged in primarily during off-peak hours at night. The grid can handle that too.

 

[jambalaya]

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

I second that too. Damn the cost. The more you delay the more it will cost. I know the U.S. has spent more money on roads than any other country and has invested much in the auto industry, but damn if I don't think high speed rail is still a good idea. Build it before the land gets use up and the population gets too large. I am convinced it is a good investment in the long run.

 

[UtahBill]

Don't know what that has to do with anything being that we don't have tanks driving on our highways, or planes landing on it with any kind of regularity. I see a plane landing on the highway reach the news maybe once every five, ten years or so. Even so, don't know what this has to do with anything. Interstate is still fed funded and by his logic, it is costing us therefore not beneficial.



lol... maglev isn't electric intensive. The track is the motor and it is only on where the train itself resides. Not the whole thing lit up at all times. Our grid can handle it.

On the plug in cars... our grid can handle that too. Cars are plugged in primarily off-peak hours at night. The grid can handle that too.

the grid can, but we don't have enough supply feeding that grid....
how many miles of "track" and how many trains are you thinking about? what locations and destinations?

 

[Dittohead not!]

When we built the interstate highway system, did the money all have to be borrowed? How much did it add to the national debt?

When the interstate highway system was built, did the federal government mandate that it be built in unpopulated areas as a way of developing those areas?

To me, those are two big questions about high speed rail. Do we have the money to build it, or is it simply adding to the mountainous debt we already have? We all know the answer to that one. Why must the federal government insist on building starting from Fresno to Bakersfield instead of from San Francisco to Los Angeles? Which route is likely to have the most ridership?

I'd like to see a HSR system. I'd love to be able to get on a train and ride in comfort, instead of being crammed into a sardine can known as an aircraft fuselage. I'd love to be able to get on and off in a city center, instead of twenty miles outside of town. It would be great to be able to sit back and watch the scenery pass, and get up and walk around. How convenient it would be to be able to get from point A to point B at 200 mph, instead of 70.

But, the train has to be going somewhere that I want to go, and it has to be affordable.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

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...

A govt that is already knocking on 15 trillion in debt?

I don't think so. It would take too long, if it would ever, pay for itself. It would also be a golden opportunity for a terrorist. Cut a little notch in the track and the next time a 350mph train hits that spot they will derail and they'll be picking up the bodies for miles. No, airplanes are for fast transportation. Cars are economical. High speed rail will not work in this country. We do not have the proper geographical layout. Cities are too far apart and we don't have enough people to justify it.

It won't happen in any of our lifetimes. I can just about assure you of that.

 

[justabubba]

japan has a wonderful rail system, and weak highways. it also has a population density of 836 persons per square mile
germany has both a good rail and highway system
its population density is 609
we notice that china is building a high speed rail system
its population density is 365
and the USA. its population density is 84

high speed rail only makes sense - at least initially - in high population density corridors
we should begin building such mass transit systems, but only where they make economic sense

we should not lose sight of what is on the horizon. computer driven autos. once a widespread reality, our existing interstate highway system will be able to accommodate many more vehicles than it can presently handle. such a system may well render the need for high speed rail obsolete in all but the most densely populated locales (or those, like seattle, whose geography will not allow for expansion/widening of its existing interstate roadways)

 

[poweRob]

the grid can, but we don't have enough supply feeding that grid....
how many miles of "track" and how many trains are you thinking about? what locations and destinations?

I'd start at the higher population centers. I-95 corridor. Then I-75 corridor. Then I-5 corridor. Tying those cities together would get the ridership needed to raise the funds for sustainability more quickly. To make it most economically efficient, I'd just grab up the most traveled flight paths as the initial tracks. I like the interstate paths though due to the right of way being already established and federally owned so land purchase would be minimalized compared to just buying up private property to convert.

As far as energy needed to push it, it's the track that just turns on under/behind the train. It's not humming along with a constant output current coming off of it. Due to there not being any friction or contact between train and track, it doesn't take much energy to push as you might think.

 

[Samhain]

Don't know what that has to do with anything being that we don't have tanks driving on our highways, or planes landing on it with any kind of regularity. I see a plane landing on the highway reach the news maybe once every five, ten years or so. Even so, don't know what this has to do with anything. Interstate is still fed funded and by his logic, it is costing us therefore not beneficial.

The interstate was to ensure a mobile army.

lol... maglev isn't electric intensive. The track is the motor and it is only on where the train itself resides. Not the whole thing lit up at all times. Our grid can handle it.

On the plug in cars... our grid can handle that too. Cars are plugged in primarily during off-peak hours at night. The grid can handle that too.

Its not that its intesive, its that it would be additional demand. Our grid can only handle plug-ins in addition to the current demand by shifting it to overnight. Our grid cannot supply the additional required energy because we don't have enough generated supply at any given time.

We need to turn Wyoming into a battery.

 

[poweRob]

japan has a wonderful rail system, and weak highways. it also has a population density of 836 persons per square mile
germany has both a good rail and highway system
its population density is 609
we notice that china is building a high speed rail system
its population density is 365
and the USA. its population density is 84

high speed rail only makes sense - at least initially - in high population density corridors
we should begin building such mass transit systems, but only where they make economic sense

we should not lose sight of what is on the horizon. computer driven autos. once a widespread reality, our existing interstate highway system will be able to accommodate many more vehicles than it can presently handle. such a system may well render the need for high speed rail obsolete in all but the most densely populated locales (or those, like seattle, whose geography will not allow for expansion/widening of its existing interstate roadways)

I agree about the placement. Start in the densely populated sections and expand from there. Like I said in the post above, pick off the most used flight paths that are under 1000 miles between major cities and start there.

Check this out that I just found:

====================
China developing 600 mph airless maglev high-speed train

High-speed rail just got a whole lot faster.

China is reportedly developing a high-speed train that will travel at up to 1,000 kilometers per hour, or approx. 621 miles per hour, through Maglev lines in airless tubes underground.
====================

Now THIS would be crazy expensive. Underground vacuum tubes.

 

[poweRob]

The interstate was to ensure a mobile army.

meh... I had heard that was just the excuse to sell the idea so that they could get such a massive infrastructure project funded.

Its not that its intesive, its that it would be additional demand. Our grid can only handle plug-ins in addition to the current demand by shifting it to overnight. Our grid cannot supply the additional required energy because we don't have enough generated supply at any given time.

We need to turn Wyoming into a battery.

I'd have to see the numbers about the supply of energy we make and demand if we were a PHEV economy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unless you're advocating a bottomless pit of government subsidation just so we can have cool fast trains zipping around.

I think it is well worth noting that it is almost universally those on the left that are in favor of boondoggles such as this. In their mind, you can always “raise taxes on the rich” to pay for it, no matter how outrageously expensive it becomes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

maglev isn't electric intensive. The track is the motor and it is only on where the train itself resides.

How much does it cost to build a mile of maglev track, compared to a mile of Interstate-highway?

 

[Samhain]

How much does it cost to build a mile of maglev track, compared to a mile of Interstate-highway?

The only US example I'm aware of is the OP Cali example, which is one billion per mile.

Slightly different locale, but Michigan DOT prices urban highway miles at 39 million per mile and rural at 8 million per mile.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

And you are assuming people won't and then trying to back that up with a false comparison to Amtrak. There is no comparison. A rather slow train on a track =/= 310 mph monorail nonstop to your destination. Apples and oranges.

And what if people don't use it?
Are you willing to put all that money into something that won't be used?

Amtrak has all the benefits that HSR does, sans the higher speed.
People don't use it because they don't want to, they like their cars, planes, etc.

Had you read my arguments I said that it wouldn't compete well with East to West coast travel compared to planes. I said vertical travel down the population centers would. I-5, I-95 and I-75 being the prominent routes.

HSR could work in select places of the northeast corridor, not the entirety of the eastern seaboard.

By your standards so is the interstate system. So... **** it. Let's tear it up and stop spending that money.


Bottom line is, when you make the populace more mobile, you make their wallets more mobile. That is why the interstate system was a boon to local economies and the trickle up from there has been beneficial to our whole economy.

The interstates transports far more people, goods with OTR trucks and has other highlighted benefits that HSR could never do.

As you said, apples and oranges.

 

[KevinKohler]

I think we would be better served to devise an autobahn style highway, from east to west, with maybe a few branches in the middle going north to south.


With all due honesty, for a trip that is over 300 miles, I'm gonna fly, high speed rail or no. I have to imagine the price will be the same, or even in an airline's favor. For less than 300, I'm going to drive, simply for the freedom of having a car at my destination that I didn't have to rent.

In that respect, make it easier, faster, safer, and more economical for me to simply drive. Many new cars (especialy european made models) are over geared, for just this sort of thing. Even the newer corvettes get around 28mpg, if driven for that purpose. And that's a 505hp quasi supercar. But they are not normally gonna see those kinda numbers, because we don't have the roads to support it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The only US example I'm aware of is the OP Cali example, which is one billion per mile.

Slightly different locale, but Michigan DOT prices urban highway miles at 39 million per mile and rural at 8 million per mile.

HSR in California is estimated at 98 B for just over 100 miles of track, so that billion per mile must be pretty accurate.

 

[poweRob]

The only US example I'm aware of is the OP Cali example, which is one billion per mile.

Slightly different locale, but Michigan DOT prices urban highway miles at 39 million per mile and rural at 8 million per mile.

The Anaheim to Las Vegas corridor maglev train proposal.

The corridor, at a cost of $45 million per mile, can be constructed within the Federal Railroad Administration’s published range for “European style high-speed rail” cost per mile parameters. The preliminary cost estimate for the project is $12-$15 billion dollars which includes technology components, guideway infrastructure, stations, operation and maintenance facilities, right of way, and engineering construction management and training.
link...

Canine isn't shy in stating that Maglev technology is expensive. Actual construction costs are unknown, he says, "because no Maglevs have been built in the U.S. -- yet." In his interview with CGE below, Canine says he believes per-mile costs could be in the $13-14 million range
link...

I believe the Shanghai maglev train worked out to be around $70 million per mile and that was the first one ever built commercially meaning the price was at it's highest. As it gets more prominent the construction costs should go down significantly as does all new technology that gets more prominent use. Don't know where this billion per mile numbers are coming from.

 

[poweRob]

And what if people don't use it?
Are you willing to put all that money into something that won't be used?

People aren't dumb...
Madrid air traffic to Barcelona (down 40%), Malaga (down 50%) impacted by expanding AVE high-speed rail network

... and that's just a hard rail 150mph train.

Amtrak has all the benefits that HSR does, sans the higher speed.
People don't use it because they don't want to, they like their cars, planes, etc.

No Amtrak doesn't. It's nowhere near as safe and no where near as fast. Nowhere near as quiet and nowhere near as efficient. Making any such comparison a false one. Other than being long and carrying people in it... there is no comparison.

The interstates transports far more people, goods with OTR trucks and has other highlighted benefits that HSR could never do.

As you said, apples and oranges.

interstate can't move people 310 mph to their destination. Apples and oranges indeed.

 

[poweRob]

Riding a maglev Point of View video up to 271 mph.



Sure hope our country can shirk this whole "can't do" attitude and step back into actually making progress again.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

People aren't dumb...
Madrid air traffic to Barcelona (down 40%), Malaga (down 50%) impacted by expanding AVE high-speed rail network

... and that's just a hard rail 150mph train.

Spain /= a country the size of a continent like the U.S.

No Amtrak doesn't. It's nowhere near as safe and no where near as fast. Nowhere near as quiet and nowhere near as efficient. Making any such comparison a false one. Other than being long and carrying people in it... there is no comparison.

It's just as safe and fast enough.
People don't use it because they don't want to, they rather hop into their car and travel how they want to.

interstate can't move people 310 mph to their destination. Apples and oranges indeed.

You just won't admit that a national HSR system would cost more, than it's total economic benefit.