Is High Speed Rail a good idea?

[Josquius]

The current Detroit to Chicago line runs at over 100 MPH at points; but the trip still takes over 6 hours (it takes roughly five hours to drive and under an hour to fly.)  Amtrak trains run slow through cities, freight trains always take priority (so the train is usually delayed) and union rules are stringent (so they usually start late.)   

Under an hour to fly?
I'm somehow doubting that. Even with domestic flights check in and waiting normally takes quite a bit.

[alfred russel]

Aren't federal highway dollars generated through the gasoline tax? I'm not sure the percent, but to at least an extent highways do pay for themselves.

[alfred russel]

Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?

[Savonarola]

The current Detroit to Chicago line runs at over 100 MPH at points; but the trip still takes over 6 hours (it takes roughly five hours to drive and under an hour to fly.)  Amtrak trains run slow through cities, freight trains always take priority (so the train is usually delayed) and union rules are stringent (so they usually start late.)   

Under an hour to fly?
I'm somehow doubting that. Even with domestic flights check in and waiting normally takes quite a bit.

I meant flight time specifically; not time spent in the airport or on the tarmack.  In the United States the airports recommend that one arrives two hours early.

[DGuller]

Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?

I think it's a very good investment if it's practical.  However, I wonder if it's too late for most cities.  If the city never had effective mass transit, then it probably sprawled when developing.  If the city is sprawling, then can you still have an effective mass transit system?  Don't they generally require a certain population density before being useful?

[Savonarola]

Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?

A problem with this approach is that cities that currently have poor public transportation may not have means of maintaining the new public transportation once it has been built for them.  In Detroit we just built a 22.5 million dollar bus shelter with Federal and State Grants.  So far it's given muggers a warmer working environment.

[DisturbedPervert]

Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?

The suburban sprawl needs to be razed to the ground first

[DGuller]

I wonder if the way to un-sprawl the cities is to develop a very effective mass transit system in the downtown as a loss-leader, and hoping that it would serve as a catalyst for urbanization due to increasing land values.  Here in Jersey City, we had a light rail line built, and new developments are springing up along the light rail stops where previously there was nothing much.

[KRonn]

Doesn't Amtrak already provide some similar, though slower, service? They do have some high speed trains, though I don't know if similar to these being proposed. And it isn't making money. Govt subsidized and there have been some calls to end Amtrak, right? Which I don't agree with ending it. As much as I like the idea of rail travel, is this going to be a money maker, or forever subsidized by govt, our taxes, or even be a boondoggle? I'd like to think it'll work well as an alternative to air travel between cities, but if existing Amtrak doesn't do the job, how will this much more expensive service get the job done?

I also can't put too much faith in the proposed ticket prices, costs of running the system, and certainly not the cost of building any of these. Such estimates are always low and/or just plain wrong, or low ball priced to get initial support. And technically, I'm in favor of rail travel!

Why should the rail pay for itself?  Do interstates pay for themselves?  Building rail is improving the infrastructure, and improving the infrastructure raises the tax base.  It's not illogical or economically inefficient to subsidize such projects forever to some extent.

If it can be shown to be a benefit besides faster travel, to maybe improve the tax base, bring business in, then it's good or even better. Highways definitely improve commerce hugely, allow people to travel for jobs, industry expansion, as do  freight rails also for that matter. Just to build high speed rail without getting a good payoff on it in some way is the question. I don't know if we get one, or if we should want to get some strong financial benefits.

[garbon]

I'm not sure I see the point of connecting by rail the cities where being carless handicaps your mobility tremendously.

And this will certainly be an issue in California.

[Maximus]

Yes I agree that metro-area transportation systems need to be improved before high-volume inter-city rail becomes feasible. However getting the infrastructure in place will take years and billions of dollars. It makes a certain amount of sense to get it in motion before it is actually needed provided that you can be reasonably certain that: a) it will become essential at some point and b) it won't be obsolete before then.

In other words, while I am in favour of shifting more of our transportation to rail. I think the money would be better spent in the immediate future on metro rail as well as R&D so that when we're ready for high speed inter-city rail we can go all the way to maglev(or even magtube) lines.

[alfred russel]

Rather than spend the money on trains of dubious value, why not spend the money developing public transportation in cities that have terrible systems?

I think it's a very good investment if it's practical.  However, I wonder if it's too late for most cities.  If the city never had effective mass transit, then it probably sprawled when developing.  If the city is sprawling, then can you still have an effective mass transit system?  Don't they generally require a certain population density before being useful?

It depends what your goal is. If your goal is to have well off people go without a car, like in Manhattan, that is probably not feasible. If the goal is to have a substantial number commute to work and enter the city through mass transit, it is very feasible. Cities like Atlanta, Houston, and the Miami metro area really could use a significant upgrade in public transport. But that might mean focusing the spending in a few cities, versus spreading it out over a wide region the way intercity rail does.

[DGuller]

It depends what your goal is. If your goal is to have well off people go without a car, like in Manhattan, that is probably not feasible. If the goal is to have a substantial number commute to work and enter the city through mass transit, it is very feasible. Cities like Atlanta, Houston, and the Miami metro area really could use a significant upgrade in public transport. But that might mean focusing the spending in a few cities, versus spreading it out over a wide region the way intercity rail does.

The point is, how do you commute to work when just getting to and from bus/train stations is already a long walk through streets designed for cars?  Transit stops need to be densely spaced for them to be effective, and those densely-spaced stops should be in densely populated areas to be cost-effective.

[The Brain]

We don't have high speed rail in Sweden and we manage.

[Barrister]

We don't have any rail in Whitehorse, and we manage.