Obama Calling For $53B For High Speed Rail

Antisyzygy writes "President Obama is calling for $53B to be appropriated for the construction of high-speed rail in the United States over the next 6 years. Assuming Congress approves this plan, the funding would be spent on developing and/or improving trains that travel at approximately 250 miles/hour, as well as spent on connecting existing rail lines to new developed high speed lines."

Comments

Its not the speed that is the problem.

[suso]

It doesn't matter if it goes 250mph if it sits on the track for an hour waiting for right of way. Granted, this is just one experience, but from reading up after it happened, it seems to be the norm. Back in 1999 I decided to take a leisure trip out to Arizona from Indianapolis and I decided to take a train for fun. Instead of a speedy ride up to Chicago, we ended up waiting for an hour on a side track to get right of way. On the way from Chicago to Flagstaff, AZ, at one point we sat on the tracks during the day for 3 or 4 hours waiting again for right of way. On the return trip the train was 5 hours late getting back to Chicago and I missed my connection train back to Indianapolis.

Sure, you can build a high speed train, but if its run by Amtrak and exists in this countries rail system mentality, it will quickly become worthless. Fix the real issues.

Re:Its not the speed that is the problem.

[fiannaFailMan]

I almost never advocate privatization, I consider myself to a socialist on many issues. But I would totally support dismantling Amtrak and turning the rails over to private companies. Amtrak and its staggeringly poor managment is the reason interstate rail is so terrible in the US. 3rd world countries have better long distance rail systems than the US.

I'm with you but kinda in the opposite way. The rails should be run by a non-profit which is accountable to government and subsidised by it, rolling stock can be privatised. Stations can be maintained by local authorities. Kinda like the system they have in the UK. British railways are not perfect, but that's got more to do with the legacy of the war (not enough destruction to be able to rebuild the system from scratch like they could in Germany, hence stuck with all the bottlenecks and medieval landmarks in the way) than it has to do with the ownership model. The 100% state-owned thing was tried and didn't work very well, nostalgia notwithstanding. The people who say "bring back British Rail" must have short memories, the system was a freaking disaster.

Back to the point, railways should be treated more like roads. In the US we have state agencies that are responsible for roads, and private companies like taxi firms and Greyhound bus get to make a profit by using that infrastructure. Why treat rails any different?

Re:Its not the speed that is the problem.

[Tetsujin]

>>>like they do in France or Japan

Why would we want to imitate two countries that have spent the last 15+ years in economic decline (called "the lost decade" in Japan)? That would be akin to saying, "Let's model our system on the fallen empire of Rome." Um. No thanks.

Cars offer more flexibility than trains do (you can hop in your car in the middle of the night - can't do that with a train). Cars also offer more options (can drive to the beach tomorrow - can't do that with a train).

Yeah, but trains offer you the ability to spend your travel time doing something other than driving. You can sleep, watch movies, play video games, whatever.

Compare the experience of a delay or layover on a train to the experience of being stuck in traffic - in either case you may stress out about whether you'll reach your destination on time, but in the case of train travel you can relax and count on the train crew to work it out. You aren't operating a vehicle as it creeps forward in a hundred miles of stop-and-go traffic, you are in a comfortable seat with easy access to your luggage, there is a toilet available and probably a snack car.

Train travel is relatively expensive and I'm not fond of that aspect of it, obviously - but what I love about it is that it's so relaxed compared to flying or driving. I don't have to deal with the elaborate security that airports have, and I don't have to be driving for ten hours straight. I do have to be sitting in a train for a long period of time (hours, overnight, whatever) to get to my destination - but most of the time I have access to a power outlet and the freedom to use my computer. It's an enjoyable way to travel.

It's true that with trains, as with flying, you wind up at the destination station with no means of travel to your real destination. One could rent a car or get a cab or whatever - I agree it's a problem, a fundamental limitation of traveling that way. Still, in some cases this limitation is perfectly OK - I can travel to DC and have my in-laws pick me up at the station, or travel to Baltimore or Pittsburgh and walk to the con center, things like that.

None of the trains I've ever been on have run (close to) empty. They're usually (in my experience) filled to capacity for most of the trip.

Re:Its not the speed that is the problem.

[garyebickford]

When I was living in Orange County back in the early 1980s, Amtrak paid a lot of money (I'm remembering $5 million) for a feasibility study for a high speed rail from LA to San Diego. The study included various possible routes. They got sued by every podunk town in between to prevent it from going through THEIR town - the ultimate in NIMBY silliness. After trying to work through this for a couple of years, they finally gave up and sold the plans to a consulting company for something like $100,000.

If the Feds were to do it, they could use their eminent domain power and the interstate commerce clause to override the objections of the cities if necessary. Also I think the times have changed somewhat since then. It's been almost 30 years, so I hope so!

Re:Its not the speed that is the problem.

[Leebert]

Amtrak runs on commercial rails. They've always been a second class citizen.

Not on the Northeast Corridor. It's almost entirely Amtrak owned. I've been into riding Acela from Boston to DC for the heck of it. I've gone from DC to NYC on the Northeast Regional. It's a pleasant experience, much better than flying, and I've not been significantly late.

I've also Amtraked down to Orlando from DC, and, while I enjoyed it somewhat, after 17 hours on the train, I was ready to be done. If we could get that down to 8 or so with Amtrak-managed high speed rail, it'd be golden.

Hey Obama

[mewsenews]

I have an idea! Maybe if the TSA stopped molesting people, air travel would be more pleasant, and you wouldn't have to spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on passenger trains. Just an idea, I don't live in the States so I'm not sure how much you like being groped by goons with a badge just so that you can visit your parents.

The secret to creating jobs...

[Maltheus]

...is a stable regulatory environment. It's the constant changing of the rules that keeps employers from hiring, not a lack of green technology. I'm sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans using the Treasury as a credit card for their buddies.

Re:Stupid Idea

[moonbender]

High Speed Rail would have the EXACT same security measures as airplanes, except they would be even less safe as blowing up track is easy, especially when you have hundreds of miles to choose from.

Airport security in Europe is similar to (if not as invasive as) airport security to the US, yet we don't have any serious security (theatre) in our high speed rail network. AFAIK getting on a (low-speed) train in the US isn't quite as involved as getting on a plane, either; and I don't really think that'd change if the maximum train speed is a bit higher.

In fact, attacking a train would probably result in fewer casualties as attacking a train station (or an airport). If you detonate a bomb on a plane, chances are everyone on the plane will die. The same cannot be said for a regular train, not even a high speed one. And of course, crashing a train really isn't much of an option, since high value targets are typically not on your track, and it's trivially easy to cut the power to a train (in fact, it will happen automatically if you unexpectedly drive to fast).

High speed rail is useful in china because they don't have the built up infrastructure the US does for airplanes (or trains for that matter). If you were just starting a rail system in the US, of course you would build high speed rail. But we already have a rail system, and it works just fine.

AFAIK China had a built-up rail network before they started their high-speed effort, which is far from finished. And compared to laying those tracks, building more airports was easy (so they did that, too). But railway infrastructure scales much better than airports do. Building tracks is costly, but sending more, longer trains down them is comparatively cheap.

An additional question: Where would it be efficient? Very few cities have the public transportation infrastructure to support such a train station. Remember, you're competing with driving and airplanes. To replace driving you need a public transporation system.

Yeah, you should build that, too. There are probably a few connections in the US where starting a high speed network would make sense. Clearly, making coast-to-coast isn't really among those. Connecting the big cities along the coasts seems an obvious first start.