What is it about high-speed rail that terrifies Americans so much?

[Brigid]

Theyb just talked about high-speed rail briefly on Fareed Zakarias' show. I never have understood the resistance to it. Would people really rather be groped at airports or drive long hours on interstates?

[dionysus]

1. for me, it depends on if i'm bringing a lot of crap back or forth.. if so i'll drive. i'd have no

problem taking a train if i didnt have tons of luggage

[dkf]

2. Cost to build it?

[DrunkenBoat]

77. If my calculations are right, we could get 3000 miles for less than this project:

So far, the Air Force has 62 Raptors. Current plans call for a total of 183. Cost: about $63.2 billion, counting research and development, aircraft and construction of new facilities.


http://originmedia.mgnetwork.com/breaking/f22raptor/

[ixion]

3. "Americans like their cars"

From the movie, "Singles"

It's true, in my opinion. Our cultural norm is to go where you want, when you want, and to be in your own space while you're going there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. 50 years of propaganda

I would not mind.

Who framed Roger Rabbit, as funny as it is... has more than just a kernel of truth. (That case light rail)

[FarCenter]

5. High-speed rail requires building new routes and tracks dedicated to passenger service

It is hugely expensive, and try getting a new route built, what with the environmental impacts and NIMBY protestors.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. No more expensive than a highway

:-)

[Claudia Jones]

20. that argument

That argument has been relentlessly used over the last 40 years, while at the same time the existing infrastructure has been dismantled.

It is moist certainly not "hugely expensive" when considered against the expense of subsidizing truck and air freight.

Rail performs best for safety, energy efficiency and environmental impact needs (other than barge, of course.)

[dkf]

42. It's a whole new set of infrastructure.

Nothing around now can be used.

[Claudia Jones]

52. not true

The biggest expense is right of way - cuts and fills, grading and easements. Much of that still exists. Rails have been pulled up, but that is far less expensive than highway repair and much more cost effective.

[dkf]

58. My point is it won't work on the current track.

It's a different technology.

[Claudia Jones]

63. LOL

No it isn't.

Some upgrading of existing rights-of-way would be needed, but that is vastly more cost effective than highway maintenance, let alone new highway construction and expansion.

Are government highway projects OK with you? Canal, harbor and river maintenance?

[A HERETIC I AM]

71. Do you REALLY understand what is involved in laying and maintaining such a rail system?

"LOL...No it isn't"

Actually, YES IT IS.

You CAN NOT RUN a high speed train on existing rail. It is the difference between your local dirt surfaced race track and a high banked, super speedway. They are two different animals.

The current network of freight railroad in this country, including the higher speed rated sections are designed to carry weight NOT speed. Outside of the segments the Acela run on in the NE Corridor, most track in this country is not rated for much more than about 80 MPH.

The days of the 20th Century Limited are long gone. We used to have well maintained, long stretches of higher speed rail line, but no more.

[DrunkenBoat]

72. Japan & Europe can do it, China can do it, but the US is too poor & stupid, not enough space.

I see.


High speed trains currently function under two discrete technologies:

•Improvement of conventional rail. The first type uses existing conventional rail systems and its great velocity is primarily the fact of considerable improvements in locomotive performance and train design. They may not be considered as a pure high speed trains per se. England (London - Edinburgh), Sweden (Stockholm - Gothenburg), Italy (Rome - Florence and Rome - Milan), and the United-States (Boston - Washington) are examples of this type of technology. Trains can reach peak speeds of approximately 200 km/h in most cases and up to 250 km/h in Italy. The principal drawback from using this system, however, is that it must share existing lines with regular freight services.

•Exclusive high speed networks. In contrast, the second category of high speed trains runs on its own exclusive and independent tracks. In Japan, trains can attain speeds of 240 km/h, but ongoing projects to raise peak speeds at 300 km/h aim at maintaining competitiveness of rail passenger transport versus air. In France, the TGV Sud-Est (Trains a Grande Vitesse) reach speeds of 270 km/h while the TGV Atlantique can cruise at speeds of 300 km/h. One of the key advantages of such a system is since passengers trains have their exclusive tracks, the efficiency of rail freight transport increases as it inherit the almost exclusive use of the conventional rail system.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/appl3en/ch3a1en.html.


We're dumb, we're dumb, we can't do anything! Not as smart as smart fellows like yourself!

[A HERETIC I AM]

89. Oh for fucking crying out loud! (editing) and now edited/corrected

Du'er "Claudia Jones" initial response on this subthread was to DU'er "FarCenter" who said;

"High-speed rail requires building new routes and tracks dedicated to passenger service

It is hugely expensive, and try getting a new route built, what with the environmental impacts and NIMBY protestors."

To which Ms. Jones responded with;
"That argument has been relentlessly used over the last 40 years, while at the same time the existing infrastructure has been dismantled.

It is moist certainly not "hugely expensive" when considered against the expense of subsidizing truck and air freight. (WHICH truck freight, BTW?)
Rail performs best for safety, energy efficiency and environmental impact needs (other than barge, of course.) (depends on the application)

dkf then said this;

"It's a whole new set of infrastructure. Nothing around now can be used."

To which Ms Jones said;


"not true. The biggest expense is right of way - cuts and fills, grading and easements. Much of that still exists. Rails have been pulled up, but that is far less expensive than highway repair and much more cost effective."

dkf responded with;

"My point is it won't work on the current track. It's a different technology." (Which is EXACTLY CORRECT)

Then Claudia said;


"LOL No it isn't. Some upgrading of existing rights-of-way would be needed, but that is vastly more cost effective than highway maintenance, let alone new highway construction and expansion.

Are government highway projects OK with you? Canal, harbor and river maintenance?"

(Some?!??!? Only "some"? How about "major"?)

Then I chimed in and you, "Drunken Boat" responded. (My apologies for the previous error. I thought I was responding to another member. The rest of this still stands, however)

It is clear to me that you are the type of person who has either NEVER traveled extensively in this country or, if you have, has NOT paid any attention at all as to how basic infrastructure is laid out.

And your condescending bullshit at the end of the above post is the clincher.

Yeah. I think we are dumb.

Bollocks.

I KNOW the issues involved in installing a nationwide, effective high speed rail system in a country as large and geographically diverse as ours WILL NOT BE AS SIMPLE AS YOU WANT TO THINK.

People like you seem to think a train that will run 300 MPH can run on existing railroad and/or right-of-way with very little to no modification.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

The European system, the Japanese system and all others of similar design were built from scratch. They didn't use existing railroad right-of-ways and they, for the most part CAN NOT share those right of ways with freight traffic.

As dkf said above, it's different technology.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You clearly don't know anything about railroads, how they are laid out, their history, what is involved in installing one and what it takes to run one.

[DrunkenBoat]

90. I said nothing like that. The poster called "Claudia Jones" did, not me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1962807&mesg_id=1963109

[A HERETIC I AM]

93. Yup. You interrupted my interruption.

Re-read my post above.

I stand by what I said, and after reading your subthread with Walter below, I still think you don't know what YOU are talking about.

The problem lies not with trying to install a system like the Japanese have or the Europeans have, but rather installing one two or three technological steps ahead of those. One that will serve the needs of the long distance traveler in an efficient way.

Why install a system based on essentially 40 year old technology in a country as large as this?

We need to do a vacuum tube, mag-lev system that can do in excess of 2000 MPH. Fuck that piddly 300 klick crap.

[DrunkenBoat]

97. Funny, I didn't notice either of you talking about mag-lev. I saw you both

talking about other stuff. Which turned out to be wrong.


High-speed rail in China

China has the world's longest high-speed rail (HSR) network with about 9,676 km (6,012 mi)<1> of routes in service as of June 2011 including 3,515 km (2,184 mi) of rail lines with top speeds of 300 km/h (186 mph).

According to the BBC, China will by 2012 have more high-speed railway tracks than the rest of the world put together.

China's high speed rail network consists of upgraded conventional rail lines, newly-built high-speed passenger designated lines (PDLs), and the world’s first high-speed commercial magnetic levitation (maglev) line.

With generous funding from the Chinese government's economic stimulus program, 17,000 km (11,000 mi) of high-speed lines are now under construction. The entire HSR network will reach 13,073 km (8,123 mi) by the end of 2011<4> and 25,000 km (16,000 mi) by the end of 2015.

In 1993, commercial train service in China averaged only 48 km/h (30 mph) and was steadily losing market share to airline and highway travel on the country's expanding network of expressways. The MOR focused modernization efforts on increasing the service speed and capacity on existing lines through double-tracking, electrification, improvements in grade (through tunnels and bridges), reductions in turn curvature, and installation of continuous welded rail. Through five rounds of "speed-up" campaigns in April 1997, October 1998, October 2000, November 2001, and April 2004, passenger service on 7,700 km (4,800 mi) of existing tracks was upgraded to reach sub-high speeds of 160 km/h (100 mph).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China


The chinese managed that in *four* years. Just that modest level of improvement/investment on main corridors & cross-country lines would make rail travel a *much* more attractive proposition in the US.

But *we're* too fucking poor & stupid. So poor that we can't even provide medical care for the aged or maintain a social security system, according to our leaders.

That people believe this crap tells you how *stupid* we are.

[DrunkenBoat]

94. I know enough to know that all high-speed systems weren't built "from scratch,"

and that some high-speed systems indeed *do* use raillines not designed specially for high-speed rail.

[AngryAmish]

103. Japan could only build it because we burned their cities to the ground

No recent firestorms in the US. Except Detroit. And nobody wants to go there.

[DrunkenBoat]

113. Funny because the first line was begun in 1959 & they've been adding on ever since.

A new line finished every ten years or so.

Despite the fact that Japan was largely rebuilt by the 60s -- Tokyo hosted the Olympics in 1964.

Following the end of World War II, high-speed rail was forgotten for several years while traffic of passengers and freight steadily increased on the conventional Tōkaidō Main Line along with the reconstruction of Japanese industry and economy. By the mid-1950s the Tōkaidō Line was operating at full capacity, and the Ministry of Railways decided to revisit the Shinkansen project....The first Shinkansen trains, the 0 series, ran at speeds of up to 210 km/h (130 mph), later increased to 220 km...

The Tōkaidō Line's rapid success prompted an extension westward to Hiroshima and Fukuoka (the Sanyō Shinkansen), which was completed in 1975...

Two extensions are currently under construction: Nagano to Kanazawa will open by 2014, and Shin-Aomori to Hakodate (through the Seikan Tunnel) by 2015. There are also long-term plans to extend the network, including a new Hokkaido Shinkansen from Hakodate to Sapporo, a branch of the Kyushu Shinkansen to Nagasaki, and a link from Kanazawa back to Osaka, although none of these are likely to be completed by 2020.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

[CTyankee]

115. Funny how it ain't "long gone" in Europe!

As usual, we're dopes. They have it all figured out...

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Not to mention that unless they build rail within existing right of ways, there's the Eminent Domain

issue to deal with.

[FarCenter]

49. The radius of curves is to small in many places -- this requires new land

It is particularly a problem going into city centers. It's roughly like building a new freeway into the city center.

High-speed service requires less curvature, but passenger trains can navigate steeper inclines. The other cost is complete grade separation with roads, highways and crossing freight tracks.

[DrunkenBoat]

74. Most trains curve when going into city centers? news to me.

High speed trains currently function under two discrete technologies:

•Improvement of conventional rail. The first type uses existing conventional rail systems and its great velocity is primarily the fact of considerable improvements in locomotive performance and train design. They may not be considered as a pure high speed trains per se. England (London - Edinburgh), Sweden (Stockholm - Gothenburg), Italy (Rome - Florence and Rome - Milan), and the United-States (Boston - Washington) are examples of this type of technology. Trains can reach peak speeds of approximately 200 km/h in most cases and up to 250 km/h in Italy. The principal drawback from using this system, however, is that it must share existing lines with regular freight services.

•Exclusive high speed networks. In contrast, the second category of high speed trains runs on its own exclusive and independent tracks. In Japan, trains can attain speeds of 240 km/h, but ongoing projects to raise peak speeds at 300 km/h aim at maintaining competitiveness of rail passenger transport versus air. In France, the TGV Sud-Est (Trains a Grande Vitesse) reach speeds of 270 km/h while the TGV Atlantique can cruise at speeds of 300 km/h. One of the key advantages of such a system is since passengers trains have their exclusive tracks, the efficiency of rail freight transport increases as it inherit the almost exclusive use of the conventional rail system.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/appl3en/ch3a1en.html



Eleven existing railway corridors in the U.S. are undergoing improvements for an upgrade to high-speed steel-wheel rail. Some of the most advanced, such as those in California, may be running trains as fast as 170 mph within 11 years....

Although high-speed rail trains can travel on standard tracks, the Federal Railroad Administration has ruled that trains traveling faster than 125 mph must operate on tracks with no grade crossings—meaning no intersections with public roadways.

Read more: Super Trains: Plans to Fix U.S. Rail Could End Road & Sky Gridlock - Popular Mechanics

[FarCenter]

101. Tracks certainly do curve going into city centers

The Northeast Corridor curves north of the Portal Bridge going into the North River (Hudson) tunnels to NYC Penn Station. From Penn Station it crosses Manhattan, goes through the East River Tunnel into Queens and then makes a couple of curves going to the Hells Gate Bridge and on to the New Haven Line tracks. You can't do anything like TGV or Shinkansen speeds on that section of the Northeast Corridor.

"High speed" has become a diluted term in recent US debates. The high-speed rail funding bill included projects like the Milwaukee to Madison project, which IIRC was one of the 90 mph upgrade projects. In fact, quite a lot of the funding was for projects to upgrade existing Amtrak segments for 90 mph operation.

90 mph is about half of what should be actually considered high-speed rail. "High speed" should be 180 mph and above systems.

The California project is for true high-speed rail. However, it is only in the planning stage and then only for the segment in the Central Valley, which connects nowhere to nowhere. The segments that connect into the Bay Area and into Los Angeles are barely started and are unlikely to ever be built due to environmental impacts, difficult terrain and routing, and NIMBY issues.

So the biggest project, in California, will turn out to be a complete waste of money.

[FBaggins]

6. What makes you think they're afraid of it?

There couldn't be some other reason for opposition?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Government money will be used to help less-affluent people travel.

This is socialism and it's evil. :sarcasm:

Saw the same phenomenon in miniature in my city a few years ago when they started building a light rail line. You should have heard the hollering from the wingers - government money for something we don't need, oh noes! What's wrong with cars?

The real "problem" was that it provided inexpensive transportation from the 'hood to the Mall of America, which, of course, would soon be overrun with gangs and hookers and drug dealers, and the nice people from the suburbs wouldn't be safe there any more.

That didn't happen, of course. The train has been a big success and another line is being built. The wingers are still bitching, though.

[WCGreen]

8. I looked into taking a train out west....

it was far more expensive that flying, driving, or packing mules...

[DrunkenBoat]

86. Cleveland to Seattle = $255. That's without various discounts.

The real problem is it takes 57 hours, & even that's not guaranteed.

Infants ride free, Kids = 1/2 price.

Triple A members, military, narp, = 10% discount.

students & vets = 15%.

plus specials on tickets depending on route, season & time/day of week.

[WCGreen]

96. This was quite a while ago...

Since I took ill about ten years back, my dreams of travel have diminished as my condition worsens....

[DrunkenBoat]

99. Sorry to hear that. Here's hoping things stabilize for you.

[JVS]

29. Poor people take the bus.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. My BUT to the local light rail behind where I live

is not that... when I raised it, well it was more the building this on ground that will liquify in a quake... or good for 100 year flood might not be the brightest.

Suffice it to say the last major flood it did run some quid to repair it... it was just a 50 year flood. They finally admit that line will have issues.

But what could I know 25 years ago.

Oh and for the record we use it, regularly

[bluestateguy]

9. It won't work in every community

It's not for everyone, and I don't think Washington should try to force it upon any area that does not want it.

[Claudia Jones]

23. it did at one time

What has changed? Rail once moved passengers, freight and mail everywhere, with greater energy efficiency, more safety, and a lower environmental impact.

The "force it on us" theme is a right wing talking point. Rail would be no more "forced" on us than the Interstate system or air travel were.

[demosincebirth]

10. First, the prize tag is way too much and by the time someone starts

to build it -- it will triple in cost. And not enough people will use it because we are too used to our cars...it'll probably be cheaper to drive

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Once people try it, they realize the convenience, especially in preference to flying

For distances less than 600 miles, it's faster and more convenient, because you go downtown to downtown, no having your plane wait in line for take off.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

30. What makes going downtown to downtown convenient?

In a lot of places the average person can go months or even years without stepping foot "downtown".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. And that's part of the problem with this society

Suburban sprawl, which is environmentally and socially destructive.

But business travelers and tourists typically go to downtowns.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. I travel for business almost weekly,

But there are only two cities on the entire planet where I spend much time "downtown". One is New York, the other is Calgary Canada.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Then it would seem you might know that one advantage of

rail is multiple stops are easy to do, so if you are not going downtown, you get off in the 'burbs or the barrio or whatnot. Planes land in one place, which are never in the place where you spend much time either. Does anyone who flies into LAX spend much time anywhere near it? Not so much.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

53. What do you mean planes only land one place?

Metro Los Angeles has six commercial airports (LAX, BUR, ONT, SNA, SBA and LGB), London has five (LHR, LGW, STN, LCY and LUT), New York has Four (JFK, LGA, EWR and ISP) Toronto has three (YYZ, YTZ, YHM)

High Speed trains I have traveled on didn't stop at every one horse town and far flung suburb.

[DrunkenBoat]

61. And neither do commercial planes stop at every airport in town. Let alone

every "one-horse town & far-flung suburb".

Trains stop more places than commercial flights do, that's a fact.

Running at speeds of up to 300 km/h, the shinkansen is known for punctuality (most trains depart on time to the second), comfort (relatively silent cars with spacious, always forward facing seats), safety (no fatal accidents in its history) and efficiency. Thanks to the Japan Rail Pass, the shinkansen can also be a very cost effective means of travel.

Shinkansen Network

The shinkansen network consists of multiple lines, among which the Tokaido Shinkansen (Tokyo - Nagoya - Kyoto - Osaka) is the oldest and most popular. All shinkansen lines (except the Akita and Yamagata Shinkansen) run on tracks that are exclusively built for and used by shinkansen trains. Most lines are served by multiple train categories, ranging from the fastest category that stops only at major stations to the slowest category that stops at every station along the way.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

66. The Shinkansen doesn't service every town along the route

That has been a political bone of contention since it was established.

Far more cities in America have commercial airline service than amtrak service.

In any event the argument made by the HSR fetishists isn't that the train will stop everywhere, it is that once we get to the central train station we are going to drag our baggage on to public transit for the rest of our journey.

[DrunkenBoat]

70. Let's see: Here's a map of just one line, the Tokyo-Aomori line.

Distance from Aomori to Tokyo = about 675 km or 420 miles

Number of stops on the line = 23 -- a stop every 18 miles, on average.


There are currently four services in operation:

Hayabusa: Tokyo - Shin-Aomori limited-stop, starting 5 March 2011
Hayate: Tokyo - Shin-Aomori limited-stop, starting December 2002
Yamabiko: Tokyo - Sendai limited-stop, and all-stations to Morioka, starting June 1982
Nasuno: Tokyo-Kōriyama all-stations, starting 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dhoku_Shinkansen


In one form or another, the shinkansen stops at every one of those stops. If you don't live near the stop, there are connector busses & trains that operate out of the same station or one within walking distance.

But if you don't feel like "dragging your baggage on public transportation" i'm sure you can find someone to pick you up.

People in other countries seem to travel a lot lighter than americans, in my experience. I usually travel with just a backpack & a purse-like carry-on, myself. thus i can drag my effects on public transportation, hitchhiking, walking, or anywhere i chose.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

76. I can cherry pick too

Average distance between stations 30km, longest distance between stations almost 60km. Locally controversial because it is accused of contributing to the further isolation of rural Japan.

And from my experience Americans DO travel pretty light, spend some time around Nigerians, Russians or Indonesians if you want to see what excessive baggage looks like.

[DrunkenBoat]

78. 30 to 60 km = 18.7 to 37 miles. Yeah, that's some cherry-picking I did there.

The *longest* distance between stations is 37 miles, the *average* distance between stations is .7 of a mile longer than the line I posted.

Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

84. My statement is not every community is served, i'm pretty comfortable with that.

[DrunkenBoat]

88. Every community on the line is served, whether you're comfortable with it or not.

And a hell of a lot better than most communities in the US are.

The world exists elsewhere than in your head.

Morioka, a city in the middle of the Tokyo line, is smaller than Seatle but has, in addition to roadways for cars:

Rail services (high-speed & regular rail):

Tōhoku Shinkansen
Akita Shinkansen
Tōhoku Main Line
Yamada Line
Tazawako Line
Iwate Ginga Railway
Iwate Ginga Railway Line

An airport.

Plus two local bus services & a long-distance bus service.

What does seattle have?

Amtrak, a line south & a line east only, & takes 40 million years, because the 30-year-old trains run about 30 miles an hour & have to share the line with the broken-down million-car-long freight trains.

Greyhound, where you sit in someone's lap & smell the piss from the uncleaned potty.

Metro -- which also takes 40 million years & multiple transfers to get anywhere outside the city core.

An airport, which you fight traffic to get to, and fight the "screeners" to get on the plane. You can add an hour or so to your transit time on a good day.

And a patchwork of small underfunded local systems working down through the state that mostly don't connect with each other. If you worked *really* hard you might be able to get from Seattle to Portland in about 40 million years, but why would you even try? You might as well walk.


I'd be very pleased to have a high-speed rail station within 18 miles of my house *or* my town. I think most people would. It would save people a lot of driving & a lot of hassle.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

92. What the hell are you talking about? Morioka has a population of 300,000+ people!

The issue in Japan has been rural isolation, not bypassing midsized cities.

[DrunkenBoat]

95. 300.7K. Which is just a bit more than half the size of seattle (pop 563.3K). as i said.

Japan is smaller than california but has more than 3 times the people.

If you think the Japanese countryside is "isolated" you haven't been there.

There's public transportation in every nook & cranny of the country. Including rail transport.

[Beartracks]

56. NYC is *all* downtown. lol

:hi:

=================

[Cid_B]

11. Cost, effectiveness and the history of Amtrak?

Just sayin...

[sudopod]

37. Please, elaborate.

I'm all ears.

[DrunkenBoat]

62. I knew it....see

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I'd love high speed rail

[Texasgal]

13. COST.

That's my major factor.

Austin built a rail and the cost was outrageous, nobody took it. It cost us millions.

Cost. That's the issue.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Light rail and high-speed rail are two different things

and cost seems to be no object when military hardware is involved.

Portland built a light rail line in 1997 for $475 million. At that time, ONE Stealth bomber cost $1 billion. In other words, for the cost of ONE Stealth bomber, Portland could have built two light rail lines.

[Arctic Dave]

28. When I was in Seattle we used the lightrail, it was awesome.

I haven't been on one since I went to visit my brother in Denver six years ago. When I was in the navy in San Diego I took it everywhere. I can't believe every city in this nation doesn't have one, they are remarkable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. I think a lot of the pressure against them comes from the oil and car companies

There are actually traveling shills who pop up whenever any community proposes a light rail line.

[Arctic Dave]

33. I live in Alaska, we have an indigineous population of oil shills.

;)

[a la izquierda]

14. I love the train.

I wish I could take it everywhere.

[pinto]

73. Me, too.

:thumbsup:

[JI7]

15. those of us who support it probably should do some big campaign in getting support for it

right now most who support it support it but it's not an issue where you will see much activism .

but we can tell people the benefits of it. right now a lot of people probably just believe the stuff about how it's expensive. and some other crap.

but the benefits are really big. it would help some of the less known places get some tourism dollars. foreigners who fly into new york, chicago, los angeles would be more likely to visit other places if they could go on high speed rail. and many of them would be used to travel in that way.

[Rincewind]

17. High speed derailment.

Actually, I think it has a lot to do with rail travel having a bad reputation. Over the years, the anti-public transportation crowd has cut Amtrak's budget, and then complained loudly that the service was inadequate. There is so little rail passenger service in most of the country that most people don't travel by rail, and probably never have. This makes it easy for the antis to portray high speed rail as a massive taxpayers expense for something few people will use.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Yup.

The right-wingers moan about Amtrak's $1 billion annual subsidy, but after 9/11, the airlines received $35 billion all at once, which was more than Amtrak's entire subsidy to date ($31 billion).

[DrunkenBoat]

80. Yep. Cut the budget so they could just barely maintain service, tracks are in poor shape,

cars aren't maintained well & look about 30 years old.


Everyone I've ever known who actually *travelled* by up-to-date rail said, "Wow, I didn't realize!"

People can't imagine what they've never experienced, & that's a fact.

I had that experience myself, thinking the great public transport in Seattle Washington was the last word. What a dope I was!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. The TSA is already selectively finger banging Amtrak passengers, so that can't be it

How about for the preposterous cost there are about 10,000 other things, including several national monuments to Herbert Hoover on which the money might better be spent.

I have used it in Europe and Asia and never figured out what is supposed to be so great about it, It costs just as much as flying and usually deposits you a $100 taxi fare from wherever you are actually going, just like flying.

[TK421]

102. ...

finger banging :spray: you owe me a new keyboard!

[Ikonoklast]

21. I think outside of heavily-traveled corridors, it's a waste of resources.

It would take an enormous, and by that I mean many hundreds of billions of dollars just to purchase the right-of-ways for a dedicated high-speed nation-wide rail network, let alone the rail infrastructure itself.

If I needed to be on the West Coast, I am going to fly, I just don't have the luxury of taking two days to do what I could get done in a four hour flight.

Now, if there was a high-speed rail alternative that could get me most places in this nation in under a day, I might reconsider, but that is never going to be the reality, at least in the foreseeable future.

[DrunkenBoat]

65. 300 miles an hour will get you most places fairly fast.

[Raine]

24. My concern is the environmental impact

the rail we already have needs to be improved on first.

[JVS]

26. Why do you conflate disinclination with terror?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. ALL the arguments people have given above were given against

Japan's Shinkansen, that it was too expensive, that no one would ride it, that trains were old-fashioned, that people preferred cars, yadda-yadda-yadda. The World Bank turned them down for financing, saying that they should build freeways instead.

Now the United States is one of the few countries that neither has high-speed rail nor is planning it.

[FarCenter]

40. I thought that some $billions were being spent on planning in the US?

There just isn't anything actually being built. CA was spending billions on planning a new track from nowhere to nowhere.

Although there may be some money available to straighten out sections of the Northeast Corridor in CT and RI so that the Acela can actually run at speed. And there was some project on extending from DC to Richmond.

[A HERETIC I AM]

68. The California High Speed project HARDLY runs "from nowhere to nowhere"

Unless you consider linking two of the largest metroplexes in the lower 48 as "nowhere".

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/project_vision.aspx

The biggest problem with high speed rail in this country is the distance. This is a big ass continent. In areas where it works well, like the Northeast, it makes sense because of the population density, but running a high speed line across Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. would be ENORMOUSLY expensive. After all, we have a military budget to think of. (is a sarcasm smiley REALLY needed here?)

It is a huge undertaking, no doubt. This isn't Europe or Japan, and we Americans just seem to like to pull right up to where we are going in our cars. Make it simple and quick to load a personal transportation device on to a high speed train, and then you'll have something.

What we REALLY need to do is not just join the Japanese or the Europeans or the Chinese with the current technology, but take TWO GIANT LEAPS FORWARD and build this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

Imagine New York to LA in 90 minutes or less.

[DrunkenBoat]

98. China is bigger than the US. They don't seem to have a problem.

And they've done it all since the 1990s.

China has the world's longest high-speed rail (HSR) network with about 9,676 km (6,012 mi) of routes in service as of June 2011 including 3,515 km (2,184 mi) of rail lines with top speeds of 300 km/h (186 mph). According to the BBC, China will by 2012 have more high-speed railway tracks than the rest of the world put together. Since the introduction of high-speed rail on April 18, 2007, daily ridership has grown from 237,000 in 2007 and 349,000 in 2008 to 492,000 in 2009 and 796,000 in 2010.

China's high speed rail network consists of upgraded conventional rail lines, newly-built high-speed passenger designated lines (PDLs), and the world’s first high-speed commercial magnetic levitation (maglev) line....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China


Not to mention that "Europe" is as big as the US too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. But doncha know?

We're diff'runt from all them furrin' countries whose asses we saved/whupped in World War II. We're America! We're better! Nothing about Europe or Asia applies to us! Cuz we're Americans! :sarcasm:

(BTW, China was the most advanced country in the world by far about a thousand years ago, and then they decided that they were so advanced that they didn't need to learn anything from other countries. That was the beginning of their decline.)

[Codeine]

35. Not terrified at all.

I just don't see the attraction; we had passenger rail travel and supplanted it with new technology. Plane trips are preferable to train trips in almost every instance.

[Nye Bevan]

36. I would love a high speed train from New York to Chicago.

But the proposed (subsequently cancelled) Tampa to Orlando line was one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

[A HERETIC I AM]

69. You've never driven I-4 in the afternoon, have you? n/t

[Nye Bevan]

100. So add a couple of extra lanes to the highway.

That would be enormously cheaper than spending untold billions on a high-speed rail link.

[izquierdista]

38. Socialism

To make it work, like it does very well in Europe, the track is publicly owned, and is NOT the private property of BN, CSX, etc. Oh sure, there are flirtations with privatization in Europe, but for the most part, the national government built the railways and continues to operate them. If any European railway started having poor service because of capitalist money games, they would find themselves nationalized and back under the close eye of the government.

America is different -- the roadways are publicly owned, but the railways, being private, are subject to the classical M.O. of capitalism: cut expenses and maintenance to squeeze out more profit. Americans also have been conditioned to think of automobiles as more than just a way to get from one place to another. Cars are status symbol and a driver's license is a rite of passage for teenagers. America's love affair with the car has been carefully nurtured by the car makers ever since WWII.

[FarCenter]

45. Outside of some parts of the Northeast Corridor, the track that we have is desiged for freight

The existing roadbeds and tracks are designed for heavy freight cars running at about 45 miles per hour.

The high speed trains of other countries run on tracks dedicated to high speed passenger service, not freight.

[izquierdista]

59. A Soviet system

What you describe is exactly my experience with the train system in the Ukraine. There are no high speed trains there, and overnight trains are common and popular for traveling long distances. The trains plod along at about 45 miles per hour, stop every half hour to an hour, but they stay on time for the most part. They also have the Soviet regard for the consuming public -- one train a day.

American railroads long ago decided that hauling passengers was less lucrative than freight. Passengers who are late complain and make a fuss. SNCF (France) makes it a policy to give out coupons if any of their trains are more than 2 hours late -- just think of how that would cut into profits!

[pinto]

75. Yeah, the primary national rails were built for freight.

Remains their primary purpose.

I ride trains a lot, love them. I'm fortunate in that I don't have the time constrictions many people have. Would love to see high speed rail projects underway on the West Coast, Mid West, South West, South East and the North East were feasible.

:hi:

[DrunkenBoat]

91. No, not all of them do.

High speed trains currently function under two discrete technologies:

•Improvement of conventional rail. The first type uses existing conventional rail systems and its great velocity is primarily the fact of considerable improvements in locomotive performance and train design. They may not be considered as a pure high speed trains per se. England (London - Edinburgh), Sweden (Stockholm - Gothenburg), Italy (Rome - Florence and Rome - Milan), and the United-States (Boston - Washington) are examples of this type of technology.

Trains can reach peak speeds of approximately 200 km/h in most cases and up to 250 km/h in Italy. The principal drawback from using this system, however, is that it must share existing lines with regular freight services.

•Exclusive high speed networks. In contrast, the second category of high speed trains runs on its own exclusive and independent tracks. In Japan, trains can attain speeds of 240 km/h, but ongoing projects to raise peak speeds at 300 km/h aim at maintaining competitiveness of rail passenger transport versus air. In France, the TGV Sud-Est (Trains a Grande Vitesse) reach speeds of 270 km/h while the TGV Atlantique can cruise at speeds of 300 km/h. One of the key advantages of such a system is since passengers trains have their exclusive tracks, the efficiency of rail freight transport increases as it inherit the almost exclusive use of the conventional rail system.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/appl3en/ch... .

[The Straight Story]

43. Here in Ohio I don't see the need for it personally

Not enough people travel the 3C to worry about it.

I can't think of anyone I know or have known than needs to get on a train in this day and age and rush to Cleveland from Columbus/etc.

No idea why it would be useful here.

[m1049]

44. Pretty simple

Because right-wingers are against everything good, that's why.

[Solly Mack]

47. I love high speed train travel!

Germans love their cars, too. (A LOT!)

But they also love their mass transit! (A LOT!)

[DrunkenBoat]

48. It goes too fast.

But actually, I find that once people have actually experienced it, they like it.

A lot of americans have never experienced anything but amtrak, and that's what they think "high speed rail" is like. amtrak that goes a little faster.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Procrastination and fear are not the same thing

It will start getting done, first on the West Coast and after that, I don't care what the rest of the country does, really.

[Odin2005]

51. "Evil big gummit is raising my taxes!!!"

[madrchsod]

54. to expensive to build in the usa.

[Xithras]

55. Because Americans do it wrong.

Americans oppose them because they're useless for the average American. Why? Because 95% of travel is local. Long distance trips are an infrequent experience for most people. According to the FAA, less than 30% of Americans fly each year. Among those who do, 81% take two or fewer round trip flights annually. Taken together, only about 5% of Americans travel long distance by air on a regular basis.

For most Americans, HSR is a novelty that they won't use often. It's a toy for vacationers and business executives. It's something that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which will show then zero benefit. They'll still be stuck in the same traffic jams, have the same smog in the air, and have to deal with the same goosestepping TSA agents.

FWIW, this is true GLOBALLY. This is why every major high speed rail system on the planet (Germany, France, Britain, Japan, China, etc.) has started with REGIONAL rail solutions to deal with LOCAL traffic problems FIRST. The high speed thru-rails were added later as a way to connect the regional system.

As a simple example, more than one analysis of the proposed HSR system here in California has come to the same conclusion...the rail system will not end a single traffic jam, speed a single commute, or have any appreciable impact on our air pollution levels. Why? Because it's primarily designed to connect SF and LA, and drivers commuting between those two cities make up less than one thousandth of one percent of the car traffic on California roadways. Many Californians are simply questioning the intelligence of burdening the state with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt for a project that will have no appreciable impact on California traffic problems...ESPECIALLY when that SAME MONEY could spur a massive reduction in traffic if it were instead dumped into comprehensive LOCAL rail and mass transportation projects.

[tinymontgomery]

57. The rail between NJ and Phil

The rail between NJ and Phil has been running for over 30 years. Great service and not out of touch on cost.

[Shagbark Hickory]

60. I don't think it does terrify Americans. Who said that it does? Better ask them.

The only Americans it terrifies are the airline executives. But even they aren't worried too much. They'll still pay themselves tens of millions of dollars each year regardless of whether their company is making a profit.

[midnight armadillo]

64. Flying is for the rich, trains are for poor assholes

So if you're flying, you must be rich enough to avoid being a poor asshole on the train.

[DrunkenBoat]

82. Don't you mean flying by private jet? Cause ordinary flying is beginning to feel more & more

like a cattle car experience.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Unless you can get into first class, flying today is the Greyhound bus of the air

(Only Greyhound has more leg room.)

[scentopine]

67. War & Wall Street entitlements taking all the tax cash, the rich will give us donkey carts -n

[NYC_SKP]

79. Can't Hang Truck-Nutz on them, is, I think, a big part of the problem.

And they seem very foreign, like something the French would do, so that's just out of the question.

[pinto]

83. ...

There's that too, I guess. :hi:

[pinto]

85. Or there's this -

[Brigid]

118. Truck-Nutz?

So that's what they call those stupid things. x(

[pinto]

81. I think convenience and established norms are big factor. As is the size of the country, physically.

The national auto interstate system is the imprint for most long distance travel, as is the air transport system.

Rail remains for the most part a function of commercial freight transport, which it does very well.

Expanding the emphasis of passenger rail service beyond short local, commuter runs and long haul runs will take a shift in emphasis from all the players, imo. Federal, state, local and private.

:hi:

[On the Road]

87. I Think It's Because So Few People Take Trains

and the infrastructure is so expensive.

Personally, I love trains. But outside of the NE corridor and a few other areas, it may not be economically viable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. Running two wars in Central Asia isn't economically viable either,

and yet, we're doing it.

Once their basic needs are met, people "afford" what they want to afford.

[On the Road]

114. That is True,

but they are not being asked about support for the wars. They are being asked about something that they in most areas of the country they may not use, and which they may feel with some justification has too high an investment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. You'll find that most people who have experienced Japanese or European trains

have no trouble imagining them.

The problem is America's "it can't work here" and "I don't know anything about it, so I'm not interested" attitude.

[HappyMe]

104. I don't know what the problem is.

Building it, maintaining it, running the trains, stations/stops = jobs!


I would rather take a train than fly any day.

[Blue_Tires]

105. Let me give you the general teabagger's perspective

Since I hear all their talking points locally:

1. "Undesirables" and the dark faces will be able to get to pure, unspoilt places they are not supposed to go

2. Of course, public money will be used for it which they will never support

3. It's a 'green' initiative, so by supporting it, you're giving those democratic hippie tree-huggers a victory

4. As with all green projects, if it works it becomes a slippery slope and it's only a matter of time before Al Gore is at your doorstep to confiscate your SUV and Dodge Viper

[mainer]

106. Eminent domain issues. Property will be confiscated

That's what I've heard one expert say. In China, high-speed rail was possible because the government just relocated people by force. Here in the US, it would mean evictions, civil suits, and years of wrangling in the courts to make way for the routes needed to make this country ready for a great rail system.

[DrunkenBoat]

112. Gee, they don't seem to have so much problem tearing up old tracks & converting them to trails for

yuppies.

Nor in building new freeways.

[dembotoz]

110. it is a government program--repubs say it is and endless money pit--wisconsin

we lost plans for high speed rail from milwaukee to madison, we lost the factory that was going to build it. We lost big improvements for the milwaukee to chicago service, we lost metra from chicago to milwaukee. List goes on and on
rail is mass transit
republicans hate mass transit.

[truth2power]

111. Follow the money. Somebody's interests are being served by preventing

investment in high-speed rail. Not sure whom.

The people are being propagandized.

[Yavin4]

116. Some White People Don't Want To Sit Next To Black and Brown People When They Travel

That's the real reason why ALL public transportation gets the short shrift in this country.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

119. It isn't Americans.

It's oil tycoons. It is the same reason that they bought up the public transit systems all over country back in the day, shut them down and BURNED them.
Public transit eats into their profits. PERIOD.
Duckie.