High speed rail proposal, would it work?

[my2¢]

I believe maintain a high-speed rail system couldn't be more expensive than maintaining ever increasing miles of interstate highways. The never-ending widening of highways here is maddening when considering the initial and maintenance cost.

Is putting some of that dough towards high-speed rail worth the risk? The system I'm thinking of would have the government owning the tracks and a few control centers needed. The trains themselves would be corporate owned system(s) paying for access. Sort of like our government owned airports and FAA control centers operating in conjunction with the corporate airline industry.

I think a portion of I-10 and I-80 right-of-way would be enough to accommodate east-west traffic. Four north-south routes should suffice.

My idea for a local public transportation system for a long while has consisted of a model based upon amusement park bumper cars.

 

[1srelluc]

So a faster Amtrak SNAFU?

 

[Oddball]

no

 

[my2¢]

So a faster Amtrak SNAFU?

Not at all, Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation, with the federal government as majority stockholder. The Amtrak Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The proposed had nothing at all to do with any government owned railroad company. Only the infrastructure that a corporate entity would access for a fee.

 

[1srelluc]

Not at all, Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation, with the federal government as majority stockholder. The Amtrak Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The proposed had nothing at all to do with any government owned railroad company. Only the infrastructure that a corporate entity would access for a fee.

They can have at it as long as my tax money is not involved.....Pretty shitty investment for no more passengers that would travel it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I believe maintain a high-speed rail system couldn't be more expensive than maintaining ever increasing miles of interstate highways. The never-ending widening of highways here is maddening when considering the initial and maintenance cost.

Is putting some of that dough towards high-speed rail worth the risk? The system I'm thinking of would have the government owning the tracks and a few control centers needed. The trains themselves would be corporate owned system(s) paying for access. Sort of like our government owned airports and FAA control centers operating in conjunction with the corporate airline industry.

I think a portion of I-10 and I-80 right-of-way would be enough to accommodate east-west traffic. Four north-south routes should suffice.

My idea for a local public transportation system for a long while has consisted of a model based upon amusement park bumper cars.

Where are you going to get the power for that system. It would need terawats of electricity. How are you going to keep animals from straying onto the tracks and derailing the trains? How are the trains going to cross the mountain ranges?

 

[Polishprince]

A high speed rail system wouldn't be nearly as useful as the interstate highway system, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The high speed rail systems I've seen proposed don't have stops in every town on the map. Folks who live in those towns or seek to go to those towns would still have to drive (using interstates) to get to and from the stations at the specific time.

And of course, trains run on train schedules, interstates are open 24/7, and are just a lot more flexible.

 

[odanny]

They can have at it as long as my tax money is not involved.....Pretty shitty investment for no more passengers that would travel it.

It would be full every day. Amtrak is full everytime I ride it. High speed rail should be elevated and not have disruptions of other trains crossing the tracks or vehicle crossings.

 

[DGS49]

The closest we have to a "good" passenger rail system in the U.S. is the so-called "Northeast Corridor" which links Washington, D.C., to Boston and everything between. The Acela goes fast and costs more - not sure if it is still cheaper than flying from DC to NY or Boston, but passenger rail is a different experience, and many people just find it more satisfactory than the current cattle-call air travel.

It is difficult to see how any such service could be economically viable, but there is an argument that taxpayer support is entirely appropriate, just as it is with local mass transit. It could only work between cities that get a lot of traffic between them, which was why California is wasting uncountable money on the boondoggle between San Francisco and L.A. The fact is, however, it's just not viable. Projected fares are higher than airfares, and multiples of the cost to drive it. You would have to limit service to Democrats in order to have enough stupid people to fill the railcars.

Florida has initiated high speed service between Orlando and Miami (High-Speed Passenger Train: Buy Tickets Today | Brightline) but I'm not sure how that is working out.

In Europe, airfares are so cheap that trains are no longer the preferred choice between major cities.

 

[1srelluc]

It would be full every day. Amtrak is full everytime I ride it. High speed rail should be elevated and not have disruptions of other trains crossing the tracks or vehicle crossings.

Just don't get Boeing to build it.

 

[odanny]

A high speed rail system wouldn't be nearly as useful as the interstate highway system, you are comparing apples to oranges.

That is exactly what you just did. It would be more useful for commuters, prople don't like to drive back and forth to work if they can use rail. I experienced that on the East Coast when I ride out there. In fact, I'm sittiing in Union Station in Chicago right now. Train was full on the way here, about every seat taken.

 

[Resnic]

I would, but not with the current state of America.

It would cost 5x as much as it would really cost. Racism and diversity would be present to make the project is a clusterfuck. Any federal funding would have extra shit tacked on like 2 million for fags and 75 million for Ukraine. And it will take twice as long to do it than it should

 

[Polishprince]

That is exactly what you just did. It would be more useful for commuters, prople don't like to drive back and forth to work if they can use rail. I experienced that on the East Coast when I ride out there. In fact, I'm sittiing in Union Station in Chicago right now. Train was full on the way here, about every seat taken.

Taking a train to work is only useful to a minority of people. In order to do it, you have to live close to a train station and work close to another train station. And your work hours have to correspond to the train schedule.

I suppose that its great if it does, but that is not very many people.

 

[odanny]

Taking a train to work is only useful to a minority of people. In order to do it, you have to live close to a train station and work close to another train station. And your work hours have to correspond to the train schedule.

I suppose that its great if it does, but that is not very many people.

I have to drive 35 minutes to the closest train station to me, I do it all the time. My sister always took it into D.C. when she worked there and had to drive 20 minutes. She would have had a 2-3 hour commute each day instead of 40 minutes drive time. It was not a hard decision on which one to take.

 

[Redheaded Stranger]

1924 called and .....

 

[marvin martian]

It would be full every day. Amtrak is full everytime I ride it. High speed rail should be elevated and not have disruptions of other trains crossing the tracks or vehicle crossings.

How's it going with California's high speed rail?

 

[Dekster]

I believe maintain a high-speed rail system couldn't be more expensive than maintaining ever increasing miles of interstate highways. The never-ending widening of highways here is maddening when considering the initial and maintenance cost.

Is putting some of that dough towards high-speed rail worth the risk? The system I'm thinking of would have the government owning the tracks and a few control centers needed. The trains themselves would be corporate owned system(s) paying for access. Sort of like our government owned airports and FAA control centers operating in conjunction with the corporate airline industry.

I think a portion of I-10 and I-80 right-of-way would be enough to accommodate east-west traffic. Four north-south routes should suffice.

My idea for a local public transportation system for a long while has consisted of a model based upon amusement park bumper cars.

Not opposed to it necessarily but I would want to see states build an efficient statewide rail system first that the eventual high speed trains could feed into. In virginia the passenger trains are largely north-south. Not a lot of east-west action going on.

 

[braalian]

It’d be interesting to see that here in the USA, but it seems like high speed rails are
More suited for smaller, more densely populated countries like Japan or Europe

 

[my2¢]

They can have at it as long as my tax money is not involved.....Pretty shitty investment for no more passengers that would travel it.

When it comes to taxes, I see it as far more cost efficient to maintain a track and accommodate growth through greater utilization than the alternative of ever widening and maintaining a comparable roadway for interstate travel.

Where are you going to get the power for that system. It would need terawats of electricity. How are you going to keep animals from straying onto the tracks and derailing the trains? How are the trains going to cross the mountain ranges?

All good questions that I'll need to look into. My idea would be to use a portion of the right-of-way presently dedicated to interstates. I read where the grade of these is presently limited to 6%. I've experienced that often when traveling I-17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff, plenty steep for a car. A reasonable maximum for a high-speed train would be half of that at 3%.

 

[Polishprince]

I have to drive 35 minutes to the closest train station to me, I do it all the time. My sister always took it into D.C. when she worked there and had to drive 20 minutes. She would have had a 2-3 hour commute each day instead of 40 minutes drive time. It was not a hard decision on which one to take.

I'm glad it works out well for you. But even in your case, you still need the highway system to drive 35 minutes back and forth to the train station. I think the vast majority of people- regardless of how they commute- have a far shorter commute than you do.