Where is the actual demand for "high speed rail"

[KissMy]

The NE works because of the high population density. But that's not the only formula for success - the TGV in france runs to a lot of smaller locales. I would think we could support one from San Diego-LA-San Francisco and perhaps NYC - Buffalo - Cleveland - Chicago.

Houston - San Antonio - Austin - Dallas, perhaps.

In the end, it will require some level of government subsidy - but any other transportation model will require those subsidies as well. Maintaining and adding highways costs a lot of federal dollars.

The texas one I could seem but the Buffalo Cleveland Chicago area is losing population as we speak.

This is something that has to be done first as an experiment, in an optimum location to see if it works. The other key is that right of ways MUST be seperate from frieght lines to make the links independent of slowdowns related to frieght traffic.

That will probably require all sorts of eminent domain, and be very costly.

You know, why not use the median or sides of the interstate system? High speed rail is usually built on pillars above ground so you don't have to slow for road crossings or worry about people and animals getting to the track. The right of way already exists for interstates, double task it. As you get closer to the city, you would need to determine right of way issues for access to the terminal.

Yeah! We can put a solar panel roof over the train tracks & highway to power the trains & the cities they connect to.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wonder if any of those who oppose high speed rail have ever traveled. Getting to and from most major airports is a hassle, a five hour flight in most aircraft is uncomfortable and one is stuck when a crying child or ill passenger spreads germs in a closed system.

Train travel is fun, and isn't getting to and from a major part of the process for both business and vacation travelers? On a train you can chose your seat neighbors, play cards, stand and stretch, use facilities not desgined for midgets only, use a cell phone anytime, and see the countryside.

High speed rail will create towns and villages along it's lines, allowing commuters to live several hundred miles from large urban centers and enjoy and easy commute, sometime shorter than those who live 20 to 30 miles experience everyday on our gridlocked highways.

Why have nations in Europe and Asia created extensive high speed rail systems? Why are those in our country who oppose high speed rail also opposed to green and renewable energy? Why do they oppose efforts to control pollution? Why do they oppose universal preventative healthcare?

Train travel is fun.....but car travel is even more fun and way more convenient....

Japanese and European rail is effective because destinations are much closer together....altho even they are having financial problems except on the high usage lines...

 

[martybegan]

The NE works because of the high population density. But that's not the only formula for success - the TGV in france runs to a lot of smaller locales. I would think we could support one from San Diego-LA-San Francisco and perhaps NYC - Buffalo - Cleveland - Chicago.

Houston - San Antonio - Austin - Dallas, perhaps.

In the end, it will require some level of government subsidy - but any other transportation model will require those subsidies as well. Maintaining and adding highways costs a lot of federal dollars.

The texas one I could seem but the Buffalo Cleveland Chicago area is losing population as we speak.

This is something that has to be done first as an experiment, in an optimum location to see if it works. The other key is that right of ways MUST be seperate from frieght lines to make the links independent of slowdowns related to frieght traffic.

That will probably require all sorts of eminent domain, and be very costly.

You know, why not use the median or sides of the interstate system? High speed rail is usually built on pillars above ground so you don't have to slow for road crossings or worry about people and animals getting to the track. The right of way already exists for interstates, double task it. As you get closer to the city, you would need to determine right of way issues for access to the terminal.

Thats actually not a bad idea. They did the same thing with the AirTrain at JFK to connect it to a LIRR and subway hub.

 

[martybegan]

I wonder if any of those who oppose high speed rail have ever traveled. Getting to and from most major airports is a hassle, a five hour flight in most aircraft is uncomfortable and one is stuck when a crying child or ill passenger spreads germs in a closed system.

Train travel is fun, and isn't getting to and from a major part of the process for both business and vacation travelers? On a train you can chose your seat neighbors, play cards, stand and stretch, use facilities not desgined for midgets only, use a cell phone anytime, and see the countryside.

High speed rail will create towns and villages along it's lines, allowing commuters to live several hundred miles from large urban centers and enjoy and easy commute, sometime shorter than those who live 20 to 30 miles experience everyday on our gridlocked highways.

Why have nations in Europe and Asia created extensive high speed rail systems? Why are those in our country who oppose high speed rail also opposed to green and renewable energy? Why do they oppose efforts to control pollution? Why do they oppose universal preventative healthcare?

The key is to have a demand for that type of travel, that at least approaches viability before building it. High speed rail is less about daily commuting and more about intercity travel, as it is really to expensive to be a daily cost, unless heavily subsidized, or heavily used.

Also remember the high speed part only works if there is not alot of stops. High speed is more point to point, similar to air travel then true local commuting services.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

I guess the dupes think highways run a profit LOL! They're saving the rich so much money soon we'll be Guatemala...Insanity.

 

[KissMy]

I guess the dupes think highways run a profit LOL! They're saving the rich so much money soon we'll be Guatemala...Insanity.

In my state the highway system generated so much money it was being siphoned off to fund many other government agencies.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Where's that? Pub dupe fantasyland? Ridiculous.

 

[Wiseacre]

It makes no sense at all to build high speed rail at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and then have to pour more money into it to maintain it and keep it running. Especially at a time when we're in hock to our jock as it is. Geez, where's the fiscal sanity?

 

[auditor0007]

For proponents of federal funding of high speed rail, my question is where is the demand?

With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, what cities would benefit from having a bullet train running between them?

If the purpose of the rail line is to replace road and shuttle flights, what cities have the demand required to justify the expense of one of these systems?

The only place I see would be the Washington-New York- Boston Route, currently served by acela (not exactly high speed, but faster than normal trains). With the exception of upgrading this route to seperate track bullet trains where else would this work?

I would think that high speed rail could be effective in California also. But your point is a good one. Presently, I do not see where high speed rail would be very effective or able to pay for itself. That could change down the road if oil prices continue to increase dramatically. But until then, people will continue to fly or drive.

 

[initforme]

I dont know about high speed rail but light rail in cities makes total sense. For those who work in cities rather than fight the traffic and waste all your gas sitting there the light rail would work great. Unless of course one likes to sit in traffic jams in smog filled cesspool cities....all of them.

 

[kwc57]

I wonder if any of those who oppose high speed rail have ever traveled. Getting to and from most major airports is a hassle, a five hour flight in most aircraft is uncomfortable and one is stuck when a crying child or ill passenger spreads germs in a closed system.

Train travel is fun, and isn't getting to and from a major part of the process for both business and vacation travelers? On a train you can chose your seat neighbors, play cards, stand and stretch, use facilities not desgined for midgets only, use a cell phone anytime, and see the countryside.

High speed rail will create towns and villages along it's lines, allowing commuters to live several hundred miles from large urban centers and enjoy and easy commute, sometime shorter than those who live 20 to 30 miles experience everyday on our gridlocked highways.

Why have nations in Europe and Asia created extensive high speed rail systems? Why are those in our country who oppose high speed rail also opposed to green and renewable energy? Why do they oppose efforts to control pollution? Why do they oppose universal preventative healthcare?

The key is to have a demand for that type of travel, that at least approaches viability before building it. High speed rail is less about daily commuting and more about intercity travel, as it is really to expensive to be a daily cost, unless heavily subsidized, or heavily used.

Also remember the high speed part only works if there is not alot of stops. High speed is more point to point, similar to air travel then true local commuting services.

I'd take a high speed rail everytime if I knew I could show up 30 minutes before the train leaves, buy a ticket and not get ass groped by a TSA agent like I do at the airport. That was the way I used to fly. I always called bullshit on getting to the airport an hour in advance to sit in seats designed to make you uncomfortable so you wouldn't linger. Had a gal I used to travel with on business that was a rules follower and a worrier. She'd show up early and waste an hour sitting there. I'd get to the gate 10 minutes before the plane pulled away from the terminal and she'd be freaked that I wasn't going to make it. Those days are long gone. I have a feeling though that the the same rules used for air travel would apply to high speed rail. Make it hard for me to travel and I'll avoid it every time I can.

 

[auditor0007]

Lets see what tha liberal rag the New York Times has to say about High-speed rail.

“High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.

Gee wizz Wally, lets put High Speed Rail everywhere.

High speed rail will become profitable once oil prices begin to increase dramatically as we use up what is left of our reserves. But this isn't happening in the next twenty years.

 

[martybegan]

For proponents of federal funding of high speed rail, my question is where is the demand?

With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, what cities would benefit from having a bullet train running between them?

If the purpose of the rail line is to replace road and shuttle flights, what cities have the demand required to justify the expense of one of these systems?

The only place I see would be the Washington-New York- Boston Route, currently served by acela (not exactly high speed, but faster than normal trains). With the exception of upgrading this route to seperate track bullet trains where else would this work?

I would think that high speed rail could be effective in California also. But your point is a good one. Presently, I do not see where high speed rail would be very effective or able to pay for itself. That could change down the road if oil prices continue to increase dramatically. But until then, people will continue to fly or drive.

Would a San Diego - LA link be profitable? LA first needs a real mass transit system. Besides the metro do they have any commuter rail lines at all?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The NE works because of the high population density. But that's not the only formula for success - the TGV in france runs to a lot of smaller locales. I would think we could support one from San Diego-LA-San Francisco and perhaps NYC - Buffalo - Cleveland - Chicago.

Houston - San Antonio - Austin - Dallas, perhaps.

In the end, it will require some level of government subsidy - but any other transportation model will require those subsidies as well. Maintaining and adding highways costs a lot of federal dollars.

I agree with you here, 85. I hate it whenever I have to drive from San Antonio to Austin or Waco. I think that an I35 corridor high speed rail is a good idea. I use 281 to 290 when I go to Austin anymore.

 

[KissMy]

China has had the fastest high speed rail... but China is slowing them down.

China Puts Brakes on High-Speed Trains - WSJ.com

"BEIJING—China will begin forcing its growing fleet of high-speed trains to operate at slower speeds, the country's railways chief said in an interview with state-run media, in the latest sign of trouble for the country's most vaunted transportation project.

Sheng Guangzu, head of China's Ministry of Railways, said in an interview with the Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper published Wednesday that the decision will make tickets more affordable and improve energy efficiency on the country's high-speed railways."...

It seems China knows something liberals don't know.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

For proponents of federal funding of high speed rail, my question is where is the demand?

With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, what cities would benefit from having a bullet train running between them?

If the purpose of the rail line is to replace road and shuttle flights, what cities have the demand required to justify the expense of one of these systems?

The only place I see would be the Washington-New York- Boston Route, currently served by acela (not exactly high speed, but faster than normal trains). With the exception of upgrading this route to seperate track bullet trains where else would this work?

Toooooooooooooooooooooo easy.......

TRANSCONTINENTAL!!!

(....Providing jobs, COAST-TO-COAST!!!)

. . . . ​

If we can turn the space program over to the private sector then high speed rail sounds like it belongs in the private sector also..

Yeah.....they're always lookin' for somewhere to invest their buck$.

 

[Patrick2]

For proponents of federal funding of high speed rail, my question is where is the demand?

With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, what cities would benefit from having a bullet train running between them?

If the purpose of the rail line is to replace road and shuttle flights, what cities have the demand required to justify the expense of one of these systems?

The only place I see would be the Washington-New York- Boston Route, currently served by acela (not exactly high speed, but faster than normal trains). With the exception of upgrading this route to seperate track bullet trains where else would this work?

Leftwingers love trains for a number of reasons. They are work for their union supporters. They offer huge patronage possibilities. They see them as replacing the cars that they hate. Leftwingers hate cars, because they are a great symbol of individual freedom. With trains, the government can control where you go, when you go, and how you go. Trains, even high speed trains, are an anachronistic, inflexible, nineteenth century transportation mode, useful only in a very few places.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think that the demand can be indentified by the current pattern of domestic flights.

Certainly the NE between Boston and Washington is one market.

But one thing that we might consider is that good transportation actually creates its own market, too.

We've seen that happen when we build roads, plenty.

A backwater area suddenly becomes vibrant when we make it easier to get there.

If we had a pair (running parallel) of high-speed tracks, running from the East Coast...to the West Coast....with North/South spurs, along the way....the businesses, such a configuration would generate/encourage, would have people wondering why we hadn't done so, much earlier!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTn7d4KJqx8]‪High Speed Trains Around the World‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Buid it and they will come.

Bingo!!!
With a Transcontinental-infrastructure, think of the people (from both Coasts) who'd want to ski the Rockies....the East Coasters who'd like a Winter-break, in California....the West Coasters who like to experience the Autumn, in the Northeast. The attraction (and, accessibility) of U.S. tourism, for Europeans/Asians, would generate cash this Country has never seen; to-date!!! And, when considering the Teabagger/"conservative"/White Wing sensibilities....the speeds (at which all this could happen) would have "those people" here....and, out....in record-time; leaving (only) their money, behind.​

 

[Patrick2]

If we had a pair (running parallel) of high-speed tracks, running from the East Coast...to the West Coast....with North/South spurs, along the way....the businesses, such a configuration would generate/encourage, would have people wondering why we hadn't done so, much earlier!!!

No, in 1850 people would wonder that. But this is 2011. There're are jets and stuff?