Isn't it time for high speed rail

[malaise]

Isn't it time for big oil to lose its power re energy policy.

[Dappleganger]

1. Damn straight it is!

[scarletwoman]

2. Sorry, we can't afford to build the necessary infrastructure. We have wars to fund.

[malaise]

3. True

Even South Africa now has high speed rail but then they're stopped their wars.

[tularetom]

4. Actually it's way past time

Even China has made a commitment to the program. We can expect to fall even further behind the rest of the world if we don't get busy now.

[arcane1]

5. No...

It's long past time! This is something that should have been started around the time the interstate highway system began.

But, better late than never! :)

[Lorien]

6. Well past time.. Hell, SOUTH AFRICA now has high speed rail! nt

[Jakes Progress]

7. Hell, I'd settle for just rail.

If you don't live in the North East, you can't get anywhere by rail without going a thousand miles out of your way for the one train that goes anywhere near where you want to go. Try getting from Dallas to Denver. Or Oklahoma City to Los Angeles. Forget Santa Fe.

Passenger rail is kept in check by the freight lines that don't want their tracks taken up with people.

A better use for any of the war money and the stimulus money would be National Passenger Rail Service.

[damntexdem]

21. Hear, hear!

Well, Denton is on schedule to have rail service to Dallas this year. Well, actually, rail service to a more-inner suburb, where one can switch to other rail service to Dallas -- but still, rail service.

But to get to Denver? Well, next November, I'll drive, just like I did last month.

[awoke_in_2003]

45. passenger rail is also kept in check

with their exorbidant pricing. Have you ever checked out prices- it is cheaper to fly.

[Jakes Progress]

48. I'd have to look it up

but I think I remember reading that AMTRAC's board is made up of executives from the freight railroad industry. They do not want passenger rail to work.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. Oh, no doubt about that...

sharing the rail beds is absurb, and freight takes priority over passenger. In order to do it right, we would have to have dedicated rail lines. Of course, that would mean a lot of emminent domain power being used to secure right of ways, and I don't think the american public could stomach that.

[jdlh8894]

8. From where to where? n/t

[nichomachus]

9. The problem with high-sped rail in the US

and I am a huge fan of high-speed rail -- is WTF you do when you get where you're going.

There are only about five cities in the US that have good public transportation. So, you take the high-speed rail to get from San Francisco to LA. Then what? In LA you need a car to go across the street.

So, you take the high speed rail from Chicago to St. Louis. Then what? You can wander around the train station for a couple of hours, but then you need a car.

I recently took the high speed train from Barcelona (where I didn't need a car) to Madrid (where I didn't need a car). It was perfect. Both cities are walkable, have clean, fast and convenient public transportation. I was in Barcelona for three weeks and, in fact, only took the subway twice, because it was raining. The rest of the time, I walked.

You can't do that in the US. We have pushed all of our lives out into the suburbs. Even in Chicago. There is a semblance of public transit downtown, but so much of life takes place in the suburbs -- office parks etc -- that you can't survive without a car once you get there.

In Europe, most of life takes place in the cities. So, high speed rail between the cities works perfectly for them. I have never felt the need of a car in any major city in Europe. In the US, once you get out of Boston, New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, DC -- and parts of Chicago, you need a car.

[XemaSab]

12. Word

n/t

[malaise]

14. Public transportation in general needs a massive

upgrade.
We're planning an August trip to Europe and damn they are light years ahead in terms of transportation.

[zipplewrath]

20. Sorta

Don't kid yourself, there's alot of cars in Rome.

In the major urban centers, publicly available transportation is much better. And from point to point there is usually bus and train service between cities. But if you get to the smaller communities, these buses and trains only come a couple of times a day. I spent 2 weeks in Tuscany, and you needed a car. I was in Ireland and away from Dublin, it was much faster and easier just to have the car. But I do wish that we had a bus system more like most localities in Europe.

[malaise]

31. Valid points

re Rome and smaller communities in rural Europe.

[gratuitous]

15. Portland and Seattle are pretty good

City buses and light rail can transport folks pretty much anywhere. There are also fleets of taxis that can go anywhere else, for considerably less than the cost of an airplane ticket. By the way, what do you do when you arrive at an airport? Not many of them are located in the heart of the downtown district.

And when you take into the account the externalities of air travel, it might make a great deal more sense to take a train that can travel at speeds of 200 mph rather than a plane going three times that speed. LA to New York will always be a better bet by plane, but LA to Phoenix? Or San Francisco to Portland? Save the two hours prior to the flight (for "security"), and the one hour after the flight (to claim your luggage, which might or might not have made the trip with you), and a high-speed train looks like a pretty good option. And since trains don't need to go through hubs like Denver or Phoenix or Minneapolis, you can make the trip directly.

Upgrade the train stations (Union Station in Portland is still pretty nicely appointed and located downtown), and with lots of people coming and going, some entrepreneur somewhere will likely take advantage of the nearby space, and the train stations will accrue amenities rather quickly. That is, if we as a nation decide to start having a slightly more rational travel policy.

[nichomachus]

23. You're preaching to the choir.

I agree with everything you say about train travel between cities. I used to live on the east coast and would always take the train from Boston to NYC, Philly, and often DC (although for a one-day trip, the plane was better).

In fact, when I had business contacts coming from NYC to Boston, I would always advise them to take the train -- for all the reasons you mentioned.

However, I recently took the so-called Starlight Express up the West Coast. OMG!!! It was like being on a train in the Soviet Union in 1948. I could not wait to get off of that piece of shit train. It was horrible. The equipment was old, dirty, falling apart and smelly. It rattled and rocked so much you could barely walk up the aisle. The crew was nasty. The food sucked. And the train was so slow, we could have driven in half the time. If they had spent as much on the train as they did on the misleading brochures, it would have been slightly better.

It probably didn't help that I had just previously been on the AVE train from Barcelona to Madrid and back, traveling quietly and smoothly at 160 mph or so. With a fantastic cafe car, seats more comfortable than first-class airline seats, free movies. 2.5 hours non-stop. Beautiful and efficient train stations on both ends.

[XemaSab]

28. I like the idea of Amtrak

but the execution leaves something to be desired.

How many hours late were you?

[nichomachus]

34. I didn't even keep track

I was just so glad to be off of that train -- we had a bus waiting for us, so I just ran out and got onto the bus. BUt, I would recommend anyone to avoid the Starlight Express like the plague. In fact, if it's a choice between the Starlight Express and the plague -- take the plague.

[zipplewrath]

19. City Car

Oh, you can do just fine in Chicago without a car. My sister does it all the time. But I guess what I really mean is without OWNING a car. Some co-op or another, City Car? that has them stationed around town. You basically rent "by the trip". Which gets to the larger subject. Cars will always be with us. At least in the sense of individual transportation. There has always been individual transportation. Bikes, horses, chariots, taxis, limos, we always find a need for transportation that takes us and only us, from point A to B. But as you suggest, you can develop cities so that they aren't needed as often.

[NoNothing]

22. Most places call them "taxis"

The problem specifically in the U.S. is that, having an abundance of land, cities are just generally more sprawled out because sprawling out is cheaper than building up. As a result taxi rides can quickly become expensive.

Ultimately, I think the best solution would be to somehow streamline auto rentals. Ideally you should be able to arrive at a train station or airport and within 5 minutes be in a small cheap municipal rental car that you can rent hourly, or daily. Like, $5/hour, or $25/day plus a small mileage charge to pay for fuel. Use GPS to make sure they stay in the service area, and limit rental periods to 3 days.

[XemaSab]

27. I haven't had a problem with existing auto rentals

If you reserve the car ahead of time it's a big, exciting 10-15 minutes out of your day before you are speeding down the pike.

[zipplewrath]

37. Nah, slightly different animal

You drive these cars yourself. You have to belong to the co-op and there are usage fees and monthly fees. But you are basically renting a car that you pick up at a parking garage or similar place, and return it there when you're done.

[PufPuf23]

32. Light rail that feeds into high speed rail nt

[AdHocSolver]

44. You do the same thing that you do when you fly between cities -- you rent a car.

Traveling by train saves a lot of oil compared with flying and driving, and the overall cost of traveling by train is less expensive as well.

Shipping freight by train would save a lot of oil compared to long haul shipping of goods by trucks.

That is why most countries have well developed railroad systems. The U.S. is organized solely to make huge profits for oil companies, auto companies, road construction companies, trucking companies, and airlines. Moreover, the U.S. auto companies and airlines, even with government connivance and subsidies, are so badly managed, that they can't make a significant profit without even more taxpayer handouts.

If we had a rational transportation system, most intercity travel would be by high speed rail, and travelers could rent gas sipping compact cars or electric commuter cars at their destination.

I recently returned from a trip of about 400 miles. We shared the interstate with hundreds of cars, most of which consisted of SUV's, trucks, vans, and large sedans. A majority of these gas guzzlers contained only one or two people.

Assuming that most people on the interstate were making a trip of a comparable or longer distance, if a majority of these people had been able to make their trip on high speed rail, hundreds of barrels of oil could have been saved.

[Hannah Bell]

65. if you take a plane you have the same problem. not surprisingly, rental car corps set up near the

airport.

there are also taxis.

[marions ghost]

10. It's past time

But this is Murka.

[NoNothing]

11. Why not just focus on bio-jet A?

DOD has already successfully tested bio-jet fuel. Not only is it a feasible technology, it is faster AND cheaper than high speed rail, AND is carbon neutral in addition to being non-imported-petroleum. High speed rail, even if electrified, would still be powered largely by coal.

[YOY]

13. Since we're getting all the rejects from the Airlines in the passenger rail industry, why not.

Might as well make something worthwhile.

[Blue Owl]

16. Big Oil has had the chokehold on us long enough

And we have now seen the true cost of Big Oil's chokehold -- led by a bunch of greedy, profit-driven assholes who keep other forms of energy shielded from the public.

[geardaddy]

17. Yes, way PAST time for high-speed rail, IMO

[jdlh8894]

24. As I said upthread

From WHERE to WHERE? NY to LA? Seattle to Miami? Detroit to Houston? Damn!

[geardaddy]

29. Yes, but in shorter stints.

NY to Cleveland, Cleveland to Chicago, etc.

[AngryAmish]

18. no

[ProSense]

25. Already in the works.

Kerry: High-Speed Rail is Full-Speed Ahead

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), lead author of the High-Speed Rail for America Act, released the following statement today applauding reports that President Barack Obama will award $8 billion in stimulus funding to high-speed rail projects on Thursday.

"High speed rail is jobs and the future," said Sen. Kerry. "This investment will create immediate jobs, help fix our crumbling infrastructure system, and put our rail systems on par with the high-tech systems across the globe. By investing in essential high speed rail projects like those in the Northeast Corridor, President Obama will set us on a course to transform America's outdated and underfunded passenger rail into a world-class system."

As a member of the Finance Committee, Senator Kerry worked diligently to include significant investments in high-speed rail corridors as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Kerry provision allows transit projects to receive tax-exempt financing and requires that high-speed trains must be reasonably expected to reach 150 miles per hour.

The bill also includes a provision modeled after Kerry's rail legislation that would exempt interest from private activity bonds from the Alternative Minimum Tax, including interest from high-speed rail bonds. This change would make bonds more attractive to investors.

[Mojeoux]

42. GOOD, all artists conceptions of the future have awesome high spped rails.

I think is about future-o'clock now.

[malaise]

56. So when will we see the first one? n/t

[Posteritatis]

59. Probably about five years after instant site-to-site transportation is developed. (nt)

[Jester Messiah]

26. Past time. [nt]

[PufPuf23]

30. The sooner the better for both high speed and light rail systems

Jobs now and less reliance on fossil fuels esp oil in the future.

Also safer traveling and better sight seeing and less air quality impact.

[jp11]

33. Sorry no, high speed rail doesn't use enough oil, or sustain enough losses as military vehicles and

equipment, need the maintenance or ammunition of said vehicles and equipment, or allow for the extravagant spending on future weapons and technology to sustain the military industrial complex's needs. If it did there would be all sorts of investigations and outcries for safer trains and more regulations, bad press, etc who needs that, plus you can't sell all those expenses as being for the good of the troops.
:sarcasm:

[avaistheone1]

35. High speed rail? Most people commute just 1 to 20 miles to work.

So what would be the purpose?

[Posteritatis]

60. By that logic there's no purpose to domestic flights. (nt)

[crazyjoe]

64. there are literaly thousands of flights every day, you think

a high speed rail is going to replace them? Hahahahahah

[slutticus]

36. Not until they fix our shitty regional transit sytem first.

How sad would it be if I could get to LA faster than getting across town?

[KonaKane]

38. AMEN.

Just about every other country I visited when traveling around the globe had some form of high speed rail. It was fast, comfortable and great way to get around without climbing onto a plane. Japan has one that runs on magents somehow (the bullet train between Tokyo and Haneda) and it was incredible. I dont know why the USA drags its feet so badly in regards to up to date rail travel...maybe the airline industry has too many lobbyists for all those subsidies.

But on the plus side, Obama has pushed hard for a high speed rail system here and it was a great move.

[NoNothing]

41. The U.S. drags its feet on rail

Because we have a world-class air travel system. A few corridors would benefit from a high-speed rail link, but nationally our priority should be improving air travel.

[laughingliberal]

39. Yes. nt

[FBI_Un_Sub]

40. If Meg gets in

It's dead in CA.

[Joe the Liberal]

43. It's time for a lot of things here in the US......

but unfortunately we live in plutocratic, oligarchical, kleptocracy mix of a country where even the slightest attempt at progress is next to impossible. To further hinder our progress we have a massive criminal, terrorist organization known as the republikkkan party whom seek to enrich themselves and their buddies at the expense of us all.

[me b zola]

46. If it is publicly owned---YES!

Lets put people to work as we rebuild the US.

[suffragette]

47. + 1,000

That would be a great twofer.

[me b zola]

50. The privatization of our infrastructure is killing us

I hope we wake up before its too late. I fear, though, that we have already reached our tipping point.

[suffragette]

51. Absolutely agree with you

Perfectly stated.

[hayu_lol]

52. A comment or two on the west coast's Starlight Express...

Amtrak runs on freight rails. They are neither designed nor maintained for high speed rail travel. In California, the law says that freight trains have the right of way. Amtrak must wait on sidings for the high-priority freights to go by. Oregon and Washington reversed that law: In both states, passenger traffic has the right of way and freights hit the sidings. Delays in California are quite common and affect the entire schedule both up and down the coasts. The rough ride mentioned earlier is due to the tracks being freight tracks.

What would be a nominal number of stops from San Diego to Seattle for high speed rail?

LA had a wonderful Pacific Electric system in place when I was a kid. You could go anywhere in southern CA on those Red Cars. All junked in the mid-50s so that GM could sell more buses. There is the metroliner today and the underground to various points...not as good as the Red Cars...but an alternative to driving.

Son, after college, lived in Chicago for a few years. He loved the public transportation within the city. His car was a liability since it was next to impossible to find a parking place. Big hobby in Chicago is collecting parking tickets.

Another problem in CA is that the rails need to parallel I-5 to serve all the communities along that route...at least for passenger traffic. Calls for some backing and filling when getting to San Francisco and then to Sacramento. Present rails here in Oregon come up through Klamath Falls and then head for Eugene...missing Ashland, Medford, Roseburg entirely...those cities got I-5.

Whatever the routing, new roadbed costs for high-speed trains are astronomical. Hard to tell if hi speed is worth the expense here on the coast. Back east in the urban corridors, hi-speed is essential.

Maybe we should quit traveling?

[suffragette]

54. I don't think it will be easy, but I think we should do it

And maybe we will need to create it in stages.

Oregon to Vancouver BC 1st, then add California is one approach to that.
Of course, I'm biased since those are trips I've taken on Amtrak and would love to take on high speed rail.
Though maybe higher speed rail is more accurate, since that's what I've read is the plan.

I don't think high speed rail should stop at all communities. The ones I've taken in Europe didn't. To go to smaller cities, you take the local trains.


I agree the initial cost will be high, but I think the long term price in dependence on oil and a car culture is much, much higher.

[Hannah Bell]

66. if costs are so astronomical, why can south africa afford them?

and china, for that matter - still a poorer country than the us.

[Gaedel]

55. AMTRAK is publicly owned

Been on an AMTRAK train lately. For what it is worth, I am a railroad enthusiast. I love trains, but our "national railroad" sux as do most of its employees.


A little bit of history here. During WWII, with gas rationing, the railroad were packed with passengers. After the war, the railroads looked forward to peacetime and a continued passenger boom. The railroads invested massive amounts of their WWII profits in brand new, streamlined, light weight, shot welded passenger equipment between 1946 and 1950. All of that investment was wasted. Passenger totals dropped off alarmingly.

The railroads invested in a large number of 10-6 sleeping cars (ten roomettes for one person and six double bedrooms for two) expecting massive business travel. Businessmen abandoned the rails for airplanes and the families traveling wanted double or quad bedrooms. In reaction to the lessened traffic, railroads reduced the number of trains, traffic fell further.

The Santa Fe ran a high class service right up until AMTRAK. The VP for passengers said that if we just gave everyone ion Chicago that showed up to ride our train a plane ticket to LA, we would lose less money than by selling them a ticket and letting them ride our train to LA.

The fabulous European trains operate only with massive govt subsidies. Only in the third world can a train pay for itself from passenger fares.

If we want to be green and we want to be green right away and at low cost, just get the goddamn 18-wheelers off of the highways and on to flat cars. That will do more for carbon emmissions than will a high speed rail to compete with passenger cars.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. No. It is *long past time* for high speed rail.

K&R

I'll wait for the pooh pooh crowd to weigh in, now.

[lib2DaBone]

57. Yes it is over due. Mag-Lev 300-MPH .. Clean..quiet....

Just think...overnight and next day package delivery controlled by computers... to rival Fed-Ex... supply millions of jobs... save fuel...

Oh never mind..BP will never allow it. I forget.. we don't need any jobs... everything is fine...

[NuttyFluffers]

58. bur of course. but just like health care USA will be the last to figure it out.

everyone who says otherwise has never truly experienced rail outside the USA. if it can be done everywhere else, why can it not be done here? oh that's right, because we say so and have ZERO imagination. America, the land of the CAN'T do...

hey, we've made our bed with the nay sayers, sour pusses, better the lesser evil, just sit down be quiet or it'll get worse crowd -- and this is where it has got us. obviously they must've been right all these years, might as well listen to them some more!
:crazy:

[donheld]

61. About 40 years late

[unc70]

62. In NC, new intercity trains, light rail, buses,... now, high-speed rail on the way

NC once had an extensive passenger rail system within the state, connecting to the major NY-Florida and NY-New Orleans rail lines. Intercity buses competed with the trains, while also serving towns not along the rail corridors. Many of the towns and small cities in NC had electric bus or trolley systems. By 1970, little remained of those systems. Now, decades later, we are slowly rebuilding key parts of these systems. Hard to believe, a long way to go, but major progress in the past decade.

NC owns and runs three trains a day in each direction from Charlotte to Raleigh and connecting to NY and DC. Travel times by train from Raleigh or Durham to Charlotte are approximately the same as driving; upgrades to tracks, crossings, etc. will make the trains considerably faster. Round trip fares are less than $50, some less than $30 RT, Raleigh-Charlotte.

This upgraded corridor plus a new high-speed line connecting Raleigh to DC, will permit HS trains from Boston south to Charlotte, with planning for extending it on to Atlanta. Until the new corridor is completed, incremental improvements will bring immediate improvements to the system.

Current work will extend service west to Asheville and are evaluating options and routes for service east to Wilmington, trains once again linking the mountains with the coast.

Charlotte is building a new light-rail system, initially facing strong opposition by Repubs using bogus studies funded by the John Locke Foundation and other RW groups. When the first line was finally put in service, ridership was immediately greater than that projected for years later, and the biggest complaints now are how long it is taking to complete lines serving other areas.

Local bus systems are being restarted and upgraded in towns throughout NC. The one here in Chapel Hill really helped get things going, with the many students and visitors who have used it later becoming advocates for public transit in other communities. Chapel Hill Transit provides an amazing level of service at an even-more-amazing price; the buses are free for everyone -- no fares, no passes, no excuses not to ride. True for all routes within Chapel Hill and Carrboro. (Fares charged on routes to Pittsboro, to Hillsborough, and for those to concerts and sporting events.) To get an idea of just how good CHT is, you can check their website or go to nextbus.com and watch the bus locations in realtime on all the routes.

Other towns are experimenting with free buses on a few of their routes, usually serving their downtown, college campuses, and similar places. Durham is considering converting its bus system to fare free. If it does, its ridership should double or triple immediately and continue growing as additional service is added.

The revenue from fares that are lost are partially offset by elimination of the cost of collecting and enforcing fares, passes, etc. In addition, routes take less time without the delays while passengers pay fares or display passes to the drivers.

[Withywindle]

63. Hell yes.

We should have done it 50 years ago, but I'll take it better late than never.

Funny, isn't it? 120 years ago, the US rail system was the envy of the world.

Europe and Asia built rail systems in imitation of us.

50 years ago, the US (dictated by oil companies) decided, "Oh, rail is passe, it's all about highways in the future."

Now Europe and Asia have advanced high speed rail systems, and shake their heads at how far behind we are. And they're right. We are. We threw away half a century in the advancement game because of oil companies lying to enhance their profits.

[Kablooie]

67. The only high speed rail America needs is from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

Once that's finished we can all relax.