Where is the actual demand for "high speed rail"

[Mr. Shaman]

There is no demand. It's another of Barry's crazy ideas.

Yeah!!! Jes' like them, there horseless-carriages!!!!

Hell.....what would ReRon Reagan say about such foolishness??!!!​

 

[Immanuel]

Buid it and they will come.

Isn't that the same slogan the Light Rail promoters in San Jose, Ca used?

Last I heard, they were still waiting for riders to come. Hell, I wonder if in the 25 year history of the damned thing they have even served the 5 millionth rider yet. Hell, have they had 500,000 riders?

San Jose Case Study: Light Rail

"If we build it they will come." Bullshit!

Immie

PS Okay, that last question was a little... er a lot... facetious.

 

[Immanuel]

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.​

For once, I actually agree with you. The only way that HSR could serve this country is if it were transcontinental and it could compete with air traffic both in time of travel and cost.

Unfortunately, the cost of creating such service at times like these is prohibitive. This country cannot afford to buy tissue to wipe its nose let alone the capital outlay this project would require.

Immie

 

[rdean]

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?

When communities are connected, it increases job opportunity. Try to figure out why.

High speed rail can replace some functions currently carried out solely by aircraft. Which ones do you think that might be?

High speed rails currenly use more than 30% less energy. Try to figure out why.

Finally, what would be the immediate impact of building high speed rails?

Answer these questions and you may answer your own question.

 

[rdean]

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.​

For once, I actually agree with you. The only way that HSR could serve this country is if it were transcontinental and it could compete with air traffic both in time of travel and cost.

Unfortunately, the cost of creating such service at times like these is prohibitive. This country cannot afford to buy tissue to wipe its nose let alone the capital outlay this project would require.

Immie

Hilarious. Competing with transcontinental air traffic is the last thing on the list. It's not even being considered as far as I know.

 

[Patrick2]

Buid it and they will come.

Isn't that the same slogan the Light Rail promoters in San Jose, Ca used?

Last I heard, they were still waiting for riders to come. Hell, I wonder if in the 25 year history of the damned thing they have even served the 5 millionth rider yet. Hell, have they had 500,000 riders?

In LA, they have a light rail route called the Green Line. It starts where nobody wants to get on, and ends where nobody wants to get off. It cost a billion dollars, much of it paid for by the taxes of workers in other parts of the country. It unbelievably stops a mile short of the LA airport, where it might have done some good. Few people ride on it. Someone calculated that given the subsidies and low ridership, it would have been cheaper to give every rider $50 for a cab ride. Almost every rail project in the US is a boondoggle, nothing else.

 

[Patrick2]

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.

No it won't - by then people will have feasible electric cars.

 

[Immanuel]

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.​

For once, I actually agree with you. The only way that HSR could serve this country is if it were transcontinental and it could compete with air traffic both in time of travel and cost.

Unfortunately, the cost of creating such service at times like these is prohibitive. This country cannot afford to buy tissue to wipe its nose let alone the capital outlay this project would require.

Immie

Hilarious. Competing with transcontinental air traffic is the last thing on the list. It's not even being considered as far as I know.

Which is one of the big reasons it is not worth even five minutes of floor time.

If it is not going to compete with transcontinental air transportation, then it is not even worth considering. That doesn't mean that the idiots in Washington won't try to force it down our throats.

Immie

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whats the benefit of a rail system in the U.S over air travel?

Hmmmmmmmm.....packed....shoulder-to-shoulder....in a long aluminum-tube....breathing the same (possibly diseased) air....over-and-over-and-over....being told to sit-down & stay buckled-up.....

vs.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfhETPbza0&feature=related]‪E5[/ame]​

 

[Spoonman]

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 believe we need to enhance our rail system in general in the USA. I'm not saying highspeed is the answer everywhere, though i believe it does have it's place.

Rail is the most economical mode of transportation for one. Rail used ot be our primary mode of transportation and freight. But when trucks became popular rail began to die off. as rail lines went under right of ways were sold off and developed, which was a big mistake to let happen. As fuel has become increasingly expensive, rail again becomes the more attractive method. Most goods coming into ports are shipped via intermodal. Even more would be if the rail lines weren't at capacity and we still had rail lines into more regions.

streets and highways are over crowded, commuting is a mess. rail is a great option and any city that has it as an option, it is heavily used. in europe, rail is the way to go.

Another thing to consider is limitations that are occuring with air travel. Over all time. with added security and the need to arrive early. less direct flights and transfers required at hub airports, you can often drive or take a train and get there quicker.

We do need to improve our rail system here though. It's not going away and it is a viable option

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whats the benefit of a rail system in the U.S over air travel?

More stops, more amenities and much easier access are the first things that come to mind - though airlines seem to be catching up in the amenities area. One reason people love the Acela is that they can be productive on the train, responding to emails, using the phone etc...while traveling.

.....And, if there's a thick cloud-covering, outside, there's STILL a view.....unlike on a jet.
​

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If they were going to do this,they would have had to do it a long time ago. The Money's gone. It just can't be done now. That Ship really has sailed. There really isn't any reason to keep debating this issue.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

When you say needs subsidy... it means it is not sustainable.. hence not necessary.. hence not cost effective...

It is another government money pit, and nothing more... and the government should have no hand in it

 

[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?

There is no demand....except perhaps for some limited high population areas...

A better question might be....WHY is Obama demanding high speed rail...???

I think it's part of his plan to destroy our excellent, low cost freight rail system....high speed passenger trains could ruin our freight system...

Get a grip, Goober.

High-speed would have it's own rail-bed.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

We Dems were asking that, for eight years.

 

[boedicca]

There is No Demand. It's a mirage.

 

[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?

When communities are connected, it increases job opportunity. Try to figure out why.

High speed rail can replace some functions currently carried out solely by aircraft. Which ones do you think that might be?

High speed rails currenly use more than 30% less energy. Try to figure out why.

Finally, what would be the immediate impact of building high speed rails?

Answer these questions and you may answer your own question.

the question remains what happens if you build a rail connection, run the trains, and the trains at peak only run at 50% capacity? Planes on short hops fill up at around 100 people. A train can be 5-10 times that.

If you dont have the required passenger demand you lose your fuel savings per passenger, as the major cost of fuel is to move the train itself, people are an insignificant load, you lose the efficency of numbers for personnel costs.

While the immidiate impact would be construction and engineering jobs, if the system was not fully utilized it would result in excessive operating costs, and unless this is a private enterprise, it would end up being subsidised by the taxpayer.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

"....jets and stuff....", huh?

Yeah.....you sound like a frequent-flier.

 

[KissMy]

Chinese Outrage Grows Over Train Crash

Anger and skepticism that emerged quickly after Saturday's collision of two bullet trains in eastern China—which killed at least 39 people and injured more than 192—has intensified as the government has drawn fire for not being forthcoming enough with information on the disaster.

Saturday's crash was the latest in a series of embarrassing setbacks to China's high-speed rail system, the world's largest with plans for 16,000 kilometers, or 10,000 miles, of track and an estimated total cost of nearly $300 billion. The Railways Ministry has had several senior officials, including its former minister, ousted amid a corruption probe, and several recent technical glitches have taken some of the shine off the project.

A power failure on the network's flagship Beijing-Shanghai line left more than 20 trains stranded for roughly three hours on Monday, state media reported Tuesday, noting that news of the delay was first reported online by stranded passengers, including on Weibo.

Online critics have scornfully contrasted the difference between government rhetoric about the promise of high-speed rail and the reality of the troubled network.

"When a country is corrupt to the point that a single lightning strike can cause a train crash, the passing of a truck can collapse a bridge, and drinking a few bags of milk powder can cause kidney stones, none of us are exempted,"

 

[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.​

For once, I actually agree with you. The only way that HSR could serve this country is if it were transcontinental and it could compete with air traffic both in time of travel and cost.

Unfortunately, the cost of creating such service at times like these is prohibitive.

....At least, that's what the airline-industry's lobbyists say.