Is High Speed Rail a good idea?

[stjaba]

There's a few good arguments both pro and con for the Tampa-Orlando high speed rail project, which will be the 1st true high speed rail in the US. The planned stops are downtown Tampa, Lakeland, Disney World, Orlando International Airport, and the Orlando Convention Center.

Pros-
Shovel ready. All the major right of ways have been acquired, the environmental impact studies have been done, Florida has been planning this for years.
Relatively quick to construct. Since the line will only be 87 miles, and much of the planning is already complete, the line could be constructed by sometime in 2014, assuming no delays.
Interstate 4, which the HSR would more or less follow exactly, is very congested. Expanding the highway could be just as costly as building this rail line.
Tons of tourists come to FL and would use the rail.

Negatives-
Line is only 87 miles- distance is way too short to be more convenient than driving. The rail will supposedly cut a 90 minute journey by car into a 60 minute journey by rail. That really isn't very significant. Rail works best with medium length distances where it is cheaper and faster than driving and flying.
Both the Orlando and the Tampa  areas are highly decentralized with very poor mass transit. It is unlikely most commuters will be able to use this at all, unless they live and work near one of the stations. Downtown Tampa is a fairly big job hub, as is Disney, but most commuters come in from outlying suburbs. For most people, it will probably be cheaper and faster and more convienent to drive.
The tourist argument isn't even as strong as it initially appears. Disney already has buses that go from OIA to Disney- why build a multi billion dollar rail system when you have something that is almost as good? Also, if tourists want to visit Tampa(to go to the beach) from Orlando, they will need to get cars once they get here. The line ends near downtown Tampa, which is a 45 minute drive away from the beach, and no public transit to get there. Might as well rent a car in Orlando.

Now, while I think the project is foolish in the short term, in the long term, it could turn out well. The next leg that is going to be built is from Orlando to Miami. Orlando to Miami is a way better fit for rail than Tampa-Orlando. Also, both the Tampa and Orlando areas are planning on building mass transit light rail systems, which would make the HSR line more useful.

[DisturbedPervert]

They're supposed to begin work on the high speed line from LA to Las Vegas in a few months.  Unfortunately it was too expense to have the train actually go through the mountains in to LA, so you have to drive out in the middle of the desert first to get on the train to Vegas.  Supposedly will also be buses to take people to the station.  Will later build expansions to link up with the San Diego-LA-SF-Sacramento line but it currently doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Ed Anger]

I've always wanted to visit Bakersfield.

[dps]

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.

Bingo.  There's already plenty of good ways to get from one major city to another, and if you choose to drive in a car, congestion on the highways between metropolitan areas is not a problem.  The problems are lack of good public transportation within many major cities, and badly congested urban roadways.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful.  No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out.  The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling.  I always take it.

[The Brain]

There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful.  No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out.  The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling.  I always take it.

But you're a Communist. Americans in general are not.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I agree with TMM that trains can be particularly attractive to business people. They deliver travellers from the centre of one town to the destination's centre. Also, trains can provide a good working environment; the trains to London from Preston, for example, have wi-fi broadband and tables on them; so the travelling time can be spent working.

[The Brain]

It's "wanking".

[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!

[Berkut]

There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful.  No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out.  The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling.  I always take it.

...which is why there is such a train already. Lots of people traveling from NY to DC - is that the case for SF to SAC? Or LA to SF?

Perhaps it would be if such a thing existed?

I dunno. Certainly I can see how the NE corridor could (and does to some extent already) benefit from this, but that is pretty much the exception that proves the rule, as there really isn't anything else in the US like that.

[Savonarola]

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!

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.)   

[Tonitrus]

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

Or needs to be nearly as fast/convenient.

Maglev or nothing.

[DGuller]

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.

[DGuller]

There is a (moderately) high speed train already on the NE corridor and it is very useful.  No one in their right mind would drive from NY to DC if they could avoid it; and while the shuttle is an option, it involves going through Laguardia which I enjoy about as much as having my fingernails pulled out.  The train is very roomy, has outlets, is very easy to get work done while travelling.  I always take it.

I think the NE Corridor works because it connects cities that are highly developed metro areas.  That is, they're not like suburbs, only sprawled wider, they're cities designed to be navigated without cars.  I'm not sure I see the point of connecting by rail the cities where being carless handicaps your mobility tremendously.

[Berkut]

Why should the rail pay for itself?  Do interstates pay for themselves? 

Do people argue that they do not? I think most people think the interstate system has been a very effective investment.

Building rail is improving the infrastructure, and improving the infrastructure raises the tax base.

Well, it might is what you mean. Whether or not it is a good way to raise the tax base is the question. Whether it will in fact pay for itself (even indirectly, like the interstate system), or whether some other use of that money (or even leaving it unspent/borrowed) would do better. Or even whether some specific portion of the rail system will do these things. I imagine there are parts of the interstate system, for example, where building the road was a mistake and wasteful.

But even at that, we still have to figure out how to actually pay for it, and decide what things we will NOT do instead.

  It's not illogical or economically inefficient to subsidize such projects forever to some extent.

It may or may not be - kind of depends on the project.