Is High Speed Rail a good idea?

[Faeelin]

The pricing mentioned in the article interests me. It seems like this really wouldn't be worth the money.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/beyond-the-motor-city/report-high-speed-rail-america/898/

Beyond the Motor City
High-Speed Rail America
A national high-speed rail plan was put forward by President Barack Obama in April 2009, just months after he set aside $8 billion in stimulus funds to begin such an undertaking.

Following the announcement, forty states and the District of Columbia requested over $100 billion for high-speed train projects.

At the end of January this year, however, the White House selected 13 passenger rail corridors in 31 states to receive stimulus funding. High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois were the big winners.

— California: $2.3 billion to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.

— Florida: $1.25 billion to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami.

— Illinois-Missouri: $1.1 billion to improve a rail line between Chicago and St. Louis so that trains travel up to 110 mph.

— Wisconsin: $810 million to upgrade and refurbish train stations and install safety equipment on the Madison-to-Milwaukee leg of a line that stretches from Minneapolis to Chicago.

— Washington-Oregon: $590 million to upgrade a rail line from Seattle to Portland, Ore.

— North Carolina: $520 million for projects that will increase top speeds to 90 mph on trains between Raleigh and Charlotte and double the number of round trips.

Though any state could ask for federal funding for projects, the administration identified 10 potential high-speed rail corridors: California, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, the Gulf Coast,

The Obama High-Speed Rail Plan || Image: White House

Florida, a Southeast corridor, the Northeast Corridor, the "Keystone Corridor" through Pennsylvania, the "Empire Corridor" through New York, and a Midwest hub centered in Chicago. Anyone outside these regions will be hard-pressed for high-speed rail dollars.

That $8 billion is going to have to go a long way as, for example, building a system in California — the state furthest along in high-speed rail planning with construction set to start as soon as next year — will cost $42.6 billion alone (up from $33.6 billion just a year ago).

In addition to the stimulus investment, Congress has approved $2.5 billion more in high-speed rail funding for the annual federal budget this year. Still, that is budget to budget, year to year support for projects that take 10 to 20 years to build. And, if a system is implemented nationally, it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars — not counting inflation over the decades it will take to build.

By spreading the $8 billion among so many states (31), President Obama ignored calls from transportation experts and high-speed rail advocates who maintained that the only way to build support for the program would be to concentrate funding on only two or three projects — to not only accelerate construction, but also get those high-speed lines up and running to be seen as an example of success throughout the country. In the end, only the line in Florida (Tampa to Orlando), which received $1.25 billion on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in local private and public funds already raised, is expected to be finished in the next five years.

HIGH–ER SPEED RAIL

Rep. John Mica of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, complained that the Midwest lines awarded stimulus funds will achieve top speeds of only 110 mph and were "selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service."

Still, "high-speed" has been a loosely used phrase in America.

Between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, the Acela Express — Amtrak's version of high-speed — can reach 150 mph, but only for short stretches and averages just 80 mph. The definition of "high-speed" in Europe, however, is trains that travel at least 155 mph with speeds that oftentimes exceed 200 mph.

[For more on financing a high-speed rail system, watch The Bank not Built]

Currently, applicants nationwide for the $8 billion in federal high-speed rail funding are planning medium-speeds of 90 to 110 mph and high-speeds of 130 to 150 mph. That said, as early as the 1930s in America, trains routinely reached speeds of 120 mph and higher.

California is the only state so far to propose a high-speed rail network with trains traveling up to 220 mph. A trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, for example, will take about 2.5 hours.

BY PLANE OR BY TRAIN

Still, that 2.5 hour train ride is just over an hour by air. Then again, the train will take you to San Francisco's city center from Los Angeles' city center — connecting directly with mass-transit. Also, you will not have to owe your brother-in-law any more favors for picking you up from the airport.

The most likely determinate if people will get off planes and onto trains: cost.

Already, a one-way, rush-hour train ticket (purchased a week in advance) on the Acela Express from New York-Penn Station to Washington, D.C.-Union Station costs upwards of $155 for the 2.75 hour ride. That same route by air ranges in cost from $103 to $200 — roundtrip — for the 1.5 hour flight. Although, the Acela Express line was one of only three Amtrak lines to turn a profit in 2008.

But, if California is the bellwether for the future costs of riding high-speed rail, then it will be only slightly cheaper than the Acela Express. The projected average ticket on the high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles is $105, or 83 percent of comparable airfare. Last year, the state said prices would be set at 50 percent of comparable airfare and predicted a ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55.

Still, much of America's high-speed rail plan is just lines on a map. It is 2010, and ground has yet to be broken anywhere.

[Strix]

Depending on how much it costs to maintain I think high speed railways can be a good idea. It could solve a lot of congestion issues around some of the major cities in the US. And it would also allow people to live farther away from those cities and still commute.

[Grey Fox]

Once the track systems are built maybe Obama plans on cutting subsidies to the airline industry, then raising the ticket price?

Also, on a train you can bring a bottle of water in your carry on without getting arrested.

[Faeelin]

Also, on a train you can bring a bottle of water in your carry on without getting arrested.

For now.

[Grey Fox]

Can't derail a train & crash it into the WTC.

[Berkut]

Depending on how much it costs to maintain I think high speed railways can be a good idea. It could solve a lot of congestion issues around some of the major cities in the US. And it would also allow people to live farther away from those cities and still commute.

The problem is that it doesn't seem like this high speed rail is meant to cut congestion around cities, but rather connect large metro areas to other large metro areas.

Which perhaps is fine - but why? Why does the Bay Area need high speed rail connecting it to Sacramento? What is the gain there?

Certainly there is one, but I don't really know what it is. Right now if you want to make the trip it is a pretty straighforward drive in a car on excellent roads. Not much in the way of traffic, except actually within the metro areas themselves.

Or if you want to go faster, you take a plane.

High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?

[Zanza]

I don't think cost is the only factor that matters in the decision to take a train or not. Trains are rather convenient and comfortable compared to aircraft. If the travel time is just slightly longer, I would always take the train.

High speed rail is rather expensive though. I just had a look at some German figures and even in flat terrain, you are looking at 10 million Euro per kilometer. In hilly terrain you are looking at twice that or more.
A track from SF to LA would thus probably cost at least 20 billion USD.

[Zanza]

Can't derail a train & crash it into the WTC.

There have been various (attempted and successful) terror attacks on trains. But usually it is much easier to attack the track than the train, so there is really no point in checking the passengers.

[Faeelin]

High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?

Right. I am trying to figure hout who's travelling between Orlando and Florida, say. And why they wouldn't be better served by a cheaper bus service, which is something that most states are sorely lacking.

[Agelastus]

.......

Or if you want to go faster, you take a plane.

High speed rail would obviously fall in between, but is there really that much demand? I don't really think people commute from Sacramento to San Jose, for example, so who is going to be using this rail?

If the environmentalists are raising as much flak about airplane greenhouse gas emissions in America as they are over here in Britain, then I can quite easily see the attraction of high speed rail-links to a populist government. I notice that the one true high speed rail link is being proposed in California. I seem to recall that California is a major centre of the Green movement in America, isn't it?

How highly are domestic airlines subsidised in America?

[Agelastus]

Right. I am trying to figure hout who's travelling between Orlando and Florida, say. And why they wouldn't be better served by a cheaper bus service, which is something that most states are sorely lacking.

Presumably Greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't the chain rail < car < air?

[Caliga]

High speed rail will NEVER catch on in the United States until the price of fuel (aviation/automobile/both) gets prohibitively expensive.

[Josquius]

You can't put a price on cool

[Viking]

High speed rail will NEVER catch on in the United States until the price of fuel (aviation/automobile/both) gets prohibitively expensive.

Competing with Air. A train going at 300 kph compared to a plane going at 800 kph. Basically a train will take 2.5 hours to move as far as a plane will in 1 hour. If you add in the travel time to and from airports, time for check in and security checks means that the two journeys can take approximately the same time (depending on travel times to airports/train stations). So the train will be competitive with short haul flights. While it might not make sense to compete with transcontinental flights (e.g. New York-Los Angeles), but it can compete well on short routs like Detroit-Chicago or St. Louis-Kansas City or Houston-Dallas.

Competing with Cars. So you work in a city and your commute is about 1 hour. Well in that case, assuming your workplace is in the downtown area, you might as well live in a nearby city rather than in the suburbs. Just imagine, detroit housing costs with a chicago job?

[Ed Anger]

As much as I love the car, I wouldn't mind hopping on a high speed rail to Columbus or Cleveland. Anything to avoid the orange barrels on the Interstates.

As long as I don't turn into a Eurofag while doing it.