Gas Costs Spark High-Speed Rail Interest

[jpak]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/10/3744/

Seven hours after boarding a train in Kansas City, Douglas Lewandowski finally arrived at Chicago’s Union Station - rested after the 500-mile trip but anxious to get home to Elkhart, Ind.

“How long it takes on these trains is so frustrating,” said Lewandowski, 55. “I’d be more likely to take more trains if they were faster, but I’m afraid I’ll be six feet under before that ever happens.”

While sleek new passenger trains streak through Europe, Japan and other corners of the world at speeds nearing 200 mph, most U.S. passenger trains chug along at little more than highway speeds - slowed by a half-century of federal preference for spending on roads and airports.

But advocates say millions of Americans may be ready to embrace high-speed rail for everything from business travel to vacations because of soaring gas prices, airport delays and congested freeways that slow travel and contribute to air pollution.

<more>

[madrchsod]

1. to late for high speed rail

the cost involved in constructing rail lines in the usa is in the 10`s if not 100`s of billions of dollars. any high speed long distance rail would take ,depending on the route, anywhere from 10-20 years to complete...

he`s right, he won`t see it in his life time

[Kolesar]

5. Buying the right of way in our overdeveloped exurbia would be expensive and litigious

If I am using the word litigious correctly. This is not like vacating agricultural land in the 1950s and 1960s.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Latest, more or less , on Eurostar.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/09/05/winstanley_eurostar_feature.shtml

That's from was last week I think. Prior to that the drivers were under instruction not to exceed 180mph whilst in the UK - 200mp was ok in France.

2 hours 15 minutes London to Paris pretty cool.

No I don't think it will happen in the USA - too busy spending money on wars I afraid to say.

[Javaman]

3. I'm always so amused by the populations fascination with rail when gas gets high...

Like a junkies that lose their supplier, they need something else quick! Right now!

Sigh. I remember, living in Austin as I do, when light rail was just up for exploration, several years back and all the South Austin residents were up in arms over it. Too noisy, would cause a host of problems, etc. I lived in south austin at the time and though each and every excuse they gave was very very lame.

Austin at that time was growing in leaps and bounds due to the dot com boom. They way things were going, we were in desperate need of light rail, then the bust happened, all the south austin nuts felt nice and smug over their "victory". Fast forward to today, gas is on the rise and get who is screaming for light rail now?

Having grown up on Long Island with the LIRR, I am always in wonderment as to why people still get crazy over having light rail?

People still have this insane belief that they are independent when driving their cars, yet are so interdependent on gasoline. go figure?

we are 30 years to late all over the nation. The cost due to the materials needed to build any light rail is enormous due to china's glutton like ways with raw materials.

We finally have a "light" rail like system going into effect later this year, but it's a far far cry from what is needed.

Just like everything else in this knee jerk mentality nation, we always wait till the last possible minute to do anything, you know, just in case. Just in case, what? that some magic gas spewing well of life will be discovered?

It makes my head hurt.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Carter would have given us the rail system, but Reagan scrapped it

[Javaman]

6. Ray-gun also took the solar panels off the white house.

that mentality just pales to me.

I will never get it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yep. Sticks in my craw too

[suziedemocrat]

8. I just took Amtrak and talked to the conductor...

The rail lines between Indianapolis and Chicago are owned by another company, who hasn't been keeping them up. (I think he said CMS?) He said they used to be able to go 80 mph on that line, but just got word to slow down to 60 because of the condition of the tracks. In some places we could only go 35 or 40 mph. The trains of the company that owns the tracks get priority, and we waited for one at a crossing for 40 minutes. The conductor said the company was set to abandon the rail line between Indy and Chicago, but then two ethanol plants opened up which are going to use the line, so they will be fixing them up this spring.

I asked if we will get high-speed rail and he said no. Too many "at level" road crossings between Indy and Chicago. (The next day a woman tried to beat a train at one of those crossings and lost two of her children.) He said the problem is not the high-speed tracks, but to have high speed rail, you'd need to fix all of those crossings and that takes a lot of money.

He said the places with the best lines were where the state (I think he mentioned Michigan and parts of Illinois) maintain the tracks. He said when the state maintains the tracks, they are usually in very good shape and Amtrak can go fast. (So much for free enterprise being the answer to everything, eh?)

He also said he worked for a private RR company for decades before he came to Amtrak, and Amtrak treats employees much better, with more continuous time off, etc.