|
|
 Posted - February 08 2011 : 1:47:13 PM
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-08/obama-seeks-53-billion-over-six-years-to-build-high-speed-rail-networks.html
I have a lot of thoughts about this but no time to post until tonight. Wondering what others think and what would you do with $53,000,000,000.00 for Rail in America?
|
Country:  USA ~
Posts: 1330 ~
Member Since: October 30 2005 ~
Last Visit: March 04 2026
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 08 2011 : 4:35:59 PM
|
First off, I'd want to know what the ridership projections are that would pay for this enormously expensive proposition. In Japan, the population is so dense, it makes sense. What commercial sense does this make in the USA, and where are the hub points and expected ridership projections and are they realistic? If the free market hasn't decided it's worth building one, why does the Gov't think it's viable? Not that I'm against any or all rail projects, but I doubt the Gov't's ability to make accurate projections reliably, by either Party in control. I'd want outside confirmation of statistical assumptions before I'd say I'd go along with it. I don't have time to visit the link now, but I definitely will later on.
Jerry
" When life throws you bananas...it's easy to slip up"
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 3974 ~
Member Since: January 04 2009 ~
Last Visit: January 11 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 08 2011 : 6:13:04 PM
|
we need a high speed rail that uses current tracks Not just a seperate rails for it 
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 15000 ~
Member Since: February 23 2009 ~
Last Visit: March 01 2026
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 09 2011 : 08:23:30 AM
|
| In my state we voted down a high speed rail. They said the speed would be 55mph. That is not high speed. They wanted a line from Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis. Originally it was to have 1.9 million riders a year projected. Then a private company stated that the numbers are skewed to be off by more than a million. Obama then stated if we don't use the money for rail he was going to give it to another state. We told him to take it if it cannot be used for roads or bridges and to put it towards our national debt. Our state does not need it being more than 85% of our population was not going to use it and our taxes would have to go up to maintain it.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 133 ~
Member Since: January 30 2010 ~
Last Visit: April 07 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 09 2011 : 1:31:00 PM
|
While I'm all for developing rail infastructure, I think they are going about the high speed rail thing all wrong and I don't see it working. Rather than focusing on a few key markets that might actually use it, they are trying to build a country wide system. The only current high speed system in place in the US (Northern Corridor) does make money because it connects several high population areas that happen to be very close to each other. The only other place I could see a system like that working would be California, maybe Texas? I'm glad certian states are rejecting the money. Most states seem to already have a rough idea if they would actually have sufficent ridership to make it worthwhile. I would rather see basic improvements to current rail systems as a whole. Amtrak could definitely use a boost in overall funding. Just some basic improvements to their fleet & infastructure would yield good improvements across the country.
Edit: I thought the article posted was similar to the one I read but it wasn't. Half the stuff I mentioned was already in there so sorry if I sound like I'm spewing off things you just read about lol.
Edited by - ChrisC on February 09 2011 1:44:30 PM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 531 ~
Member Since: January 29 2009 ~
Last Visit: July 10 2020
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 09 2011 : 2:21:05 PM
|
quote:In my state.... They said the speed would be 55mph. That is not high speed. it was to have 1.9 million riders a year projected. Then a private company stated that the numbers are skewed to be off by more than a million.
Originally posted by Jeepman - February 09 2011 : 08:23:30 AM
|
Well, if traffic is crawling at 10-15 MPH, then 55 would SEEM like high speed.   And the projection skewing makes my point, too.
Another problem with HSR is that there are too MANY grade-level crossings to encounter that would make it unsafe, and require speed restrictions. Yet another is, every time you stop for passengers, you've cut down on the efficiency of the travel time. So you have to have dense point-to-point embark/debark destinations with minimal intermediate stops to prevent it from being useless. THis just seems like a " solution" looking for a problem to solve. IE, make-work project.
Now, lets say it's decided to build an off-shore railroad, from FLorida to Maine, of 1,700 miles. There's no traffic other than boats to worry about. Weather is a problem, though. Make it a seabed railroad, all tunnel, 50-75 feet down. Only one stop per state. Also have it high enough for Autotrain cars. Now THAT would be nice, to go to some port, embark, and be able to get to Florida from Maine, at 200 mph, in 8 hours instead of 26 driving. Make it a mag-lev train of 300 MPH, cuts that to under 6 hours. Now THAT'S high speed rail! Would anyone use it? Hmm. WHo's got some projections?
Micro, only problem with using Amtrak corridors is that you'd have to upgrade the entire length, the roadbed isn't safe for HSR, although at one time it could take 120+ MPH service during GG1 era, now I think 70-80 is as high as they let them go in spots, triple-digit speeds aren't done much anymore I don't think ( I take that back, research has said that New York - Washington DC there are 135 MPH zones, with a slow zone in between, averaging 82 MPH between the two points.) So there ARE segments which exceeds triple digits, but until it's contiguous, it won't mean much. What we REALLY need are trains which are constantly moving at high speed, then have local cars decoupled and slowed down on side parallel tracks to be picked up by local engines, and then Turbo trains to boost locally loaded passenger cars up to the high-speed rail line speed,and coupled AT SPEED with the moving train, then the Turbo boost engine breaks off and returns to the local depot for a lock-and-load with another passenger car segment for the next train. How about THAT for efficiency?  We'll call it the T.Y.C.O HS Train, for Taking You Carefully Onboard High Speed Train
Jerry
" When life throws you bananas...it's easy to slip up"
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 3974 ~
Member Since: January 04 2009 ~
Last Visit: January 11 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 09 2011 : 8:45:11 PM
|
Raise gas to 10 dollars a gallon (or raise parking fees to thousands of dollars in the cities)and I think many would look at high speed rail (magnetic?) oh and scooter ridership would probably increase too (I ride one in spring summer and fall now)
guess I should read the link first before posting.. 
later
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 24 ~
Member Since: November 25 2010 ~
Last Visit: July 28 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 13 2011 : 9:55:55 PM
|
I think we're in dangerous territory bringing politics in, but here's my two cents:
The problem with this plan, and most big ideas in politics, is that our country has two distinct populations. The urban/suburban "city folk" can probably use this. I completely see this as a great idea for that group, especially given the rising gas prices. If I could "hop a train" to work, I'd certainly do it.
The other population, the rural "country folk" don't have any use for this. They need to move around and haul cargo and have more freedom. I live in a town of 700 and work in a town of 200, and travel 7 miles each morning. I highly doubt there's going to be a train stop for me.
As for myself, I love the concept of HSR and in general I support expanding all rail systems. I think it was a better system than our current method of shipping by truck and travel by cars and planes. But just because it works for me doesn't mean it works for everyone. And realistically, as much as I like the idea of HSR, I would never actually have a reason to use it in my life. So am I just dreaming? I don't know.
This idea can be applied to most issues. Take gun control, or electric cars, etc. The issues have two vastly different implications for each population. I'm a rural guy. Everybody I know owns guns. I own 10 of them, and I don't really even use them. It's just part of life. Nobody cares, they don't cause any problem. But in an urban setting it's a whole different story. Look at the cars...the efficient, electric/hybrid whatever cars are great and I wholeheartedly endorse them--for those that can use them. Those of us who need four-wheel drive can't trade our truck for a little hybrid car. How would we get out in the field or haul lumber? Of course a white collar suburban worker doesn't necessarily need that, so why not get a hybrid car or use a high-speed rail system?
All this ranting leads to one point I'm trying to make: this country is made up of many different people, and these big solutions rarely benefit all groups. High speed rail is a great idea for some, but will be useless to others. I cringe when I hear the words...and I'm paraphrasing here..."a nation divided will not stand." We are very divided, and we need to find a way to deal with it.
I keep waiting for a president, or any politician, in any political party, who acknowledges this and offers ideas that benefit everyone, not just the group putting money in his/her pocket.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1166 ~
Member Since: October 18 2009 ~
Last Visit: December 23 2018
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - February 14 2011 : 8:23:59 PM
|
a recent study by the American Society of Civil engineers graded the infra structure (roads, bridges, etc) of the U S a D grade.
THeir estimate to bring up to a passing grade is 2.2 trillion
We have a bridge in MN that collapses . How many more will happen?
And this guy wants to build a high speed rail Road to create jobs, that will cost more to ride than a discount plane ticket. How about fixing what's broke first
840 billion stimulus and he wants to spend more to create jobs and the money isn’t going to high-unemployment districts, probably because politics gets in the way.
Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica said about the HSR
"This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,"
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 424 ~
Member Since: June 25 2010 ~
Last Visit: July 30 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
Home
Forums
Events Calendar
Forum Admins & Mods
Register
