Poll: Would you like to see high speed rail in the USA?

[braumeister]

Well, transporting electrons is a lot faster and takes a lot less energy than transporting people.

Makes a lot of sense for a lot of things.

-ERD50

Star Trek transporters, for example. The ultimate solution.

 

[Car-Guy]

No, I prefer to drive in the base case. Even if we had it, I'd still have to drive to the train station and then rent a car at the other end. Just as much hassle as flying.

 

[OldShooter]

It is so unlikely that the politicians will come up with an economically viable high speed transportation business that I vote no. We have a new LRT in our city and I penciled the number through, including $1M/week depreciation and financing costs. It worked out that gross fare box income is less than 7% of operating costs. Net of cost to collect and police it is probably half that. So their business proposition is so bad that it really doesn't matter whether they collect fares or not. Long distance rail will be worse due to massive capital costs.

I do like riding high speed rail in other countries where their citizens are subsidizing my rides.

 

[Jerry1]

If we’re going to copy anything from Europe, I want an autobahn. I’d love some well maintained roads where I could drive 100 mph for long stretches.

You'd need annual vehicle inspections so you wouldn't run the risk of some idiot putting your life at risk by driving an unsafe vehicle at high speed.

Totally agree. I would think these roads would be limited access open only to registered vehicles. We’re also at the point where they could all have something like an auto pilot and all be interconnected so your car could see all the cars around it. There could also be a self driving lane where you lock in and everyone in that lane locks into the same speed. Kind of like a huge train that is only virtually connected.

Given that we’re moving to electric cars it seems like a system that interconnects with them would be easier and cheaper than a train system.

 

[braumeister]

Totally agree. I would think these roads would be limited access open only to registered vehicles. We’re also at the point where they could all have something like an auto pilot and all be interconnected so your car could see all the cars around it. There could also be a self driving lane where you lock in and everyone in that lane locks into the same speed. Kind of like a huge train that is only virtually connected.

Given that we’re moving to electric cars it seems like a system that interconnects with them would be easier and cheaper than a train system.

It would have to be, as you say, almost totally automated. I don't think people in this country would put up with the cost and extensive training required to get a driver's license in Germany.

 

[OldShooter]

... I would think these roads would be limited access open only to registered vehicles. We’re also at the point where they could all have something like an auto pilot and all be interconnected so your car could see all the cars around it. There could also be a self driving lane where you lock in and everyone in that lane locks into the same speed. Kind of like a huge train that is only virtually connected. ...

IOW, only open to rich people?

 

[rodi]

Given the overwhelming negative response - the poll results don't match... At this point in time it's 41votes for YES to high speed rail, 30votes to NO to high speed rail, and 3 votes for "Other".

Pretty much a tie.

Like I said previously - I like passenger rail. But my state government has shown how easy it is to blow dough and not have a viable high speed rail.

 

[Car-Guy]

I’d love some well maintained roads where I could drive 100 mph for long stretches.

Me too! We could do that now on many stretches of road around here if it were allowed by law and if laugh slower drivers would stay to the right like that already should. Speed limits around here are 75 but you have to constantly pass on the right becasue so many cars are driving well below the speed limits in the left lane.

 

[Andre1969]

Or maybe people will just permanently work from home and no one will commute. I'd like to see how that plays out more before spending brazillions of dollars making it easier to commute by train.

I'm really curious to see how the work-from-home thing is going to play out, long term. I've been working from home since March 16, 2020. But, I've noticed that whenever I go out and run errands, the roads seem pretty much back to normal, and rush hour is as bad as it ever was.

 

[ERD50]

Totally agree. I would think these roads would be limited access open only to registered vehicles. We’re also at the point where they could all have something like an auto pilot and all be interconnected so your car could see all the cars around it. There could also be a self driving lane where you lock in and everyone in that lane locks into the same speed. Kind of like a huge train that is only virtually connected.

Given that we’re moving to electric cars it seems like a system that interconnects with them would be easier and cheaper than a train system.

I don't get the connection to EVs? "Auto-Pilot" has no connection to whether the car is propelled by ICE or Electric Motor/batteries, though Tesla gets most of the press surrounding it (for good or bad).

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

Been wanting for about 20 years, but don't expect will ever happen.

Probably more genuine interest in USA for self-driving and flying cars .

 

[Jerry1]

I don't get the connection to EVs? "Auto-Pilot" has no connection to whether the car is propelled by ICE or Electric Motor/batteries, though Tesla gets most of the press surrounding it (for good or bad).

-ERD50

Mixed a few thoughts together. Was thinking the EV connection was that these roads would be connected so that they’re charging as you go.

My main point is that the roads are already there. Seems like it would be cheaper to renovate them than to build new track.

 

[Jerry1]

IOW, only open to rich people?

It’s a dream, not a policy proposal. I’m not running for office.

 

[CaptTom]

As a long time active transportation advocate, I was struck by the same types of comments I have heard for years concerning the near impossibility of people changing their transportation habits.

There's a reason you've heard them for years. The question is, why aren't you listening? I'd be an advocate, too, if someone were to present a workable proposal, complete with financing and valid usage projections.

As a side note, someone mentioned lanes and other infrastructure for bicycles. That's great in those few cities where the weather is always pleasant. "Advocates" are trying to shove them down the throats of everyone else. They've been a miserable failure anywhere in the snow belt and any suburban or rural area where the distances make them impractical.

I am actually surprised on how many folks are happy with the status quo. IMHO keeping America from moving forward. No wonder we are potentially falling behind other developed countries.

I am not surprised. There's a reason for the status quo. It's not great. But neither is spending a fortune on some idealistic solution just to make a political point. I don't accept that moving "forward" is going back to trains.

To me, moving forward includes EVs, smarter road infrastructure, integrated smart vehicles sharing data and maybe something like a hyperloop or other new technology.

 

[38Chevy454]

Where has HSR failed?



Countries like Spain, France, Japan and China haven't shut down their HSR services. If anything they've added more lines or trains

In USA, that is what the discussion is about. High speed rail is not successful in USA.

 

[rk911]

we'd never use it. high speed rail would be fine if done by private enterprise. govt mucks up everything they touch.

 

[audreyh1]

That's the whole issue, I think. I love to travel by train in Europe. Perfectly fine to rely on trains between say, Munich and Frankfurt (around 200 miles as the crow flies). But from Chicago to Denver is closer to 1,000 miles. The whole of Germany would fit easily inside Montana, so it's hard to make realistic comparisons.

Exactly!

For some reason a lot of people seems to think taking the train in Europe is fast, it is between 2 relatively close cities. But Berlin to Paris - 10 hours train or 2 hours flying. Berlin to Amsterdam - 8 hours train or 1.5 hours flying. Paris to Madrid - 12 hours train or 2 hour flight. In most cases it is just as fast to drive than to take the train.

Yep, that too!

 

[Music Lover]

If motorists were charged the actual cost for using their vehicles, gas tax pays a small part of our roads, more motorists would be investigating other forms of transport.

What do you mean "actual cost"? Who do you think paid for and is paying for the roads currently? It's the taxpayer. If they own a vehicle then they contribute more via gas taxes and tolls. But everyone pays one way or the other.

The only people getting a free ride are those who don't pay taxes.

 

[explanade]

In USA, that is what the discussion is about. High speed rail is not successful in USA.

It failed to be built.

It hasn't failed after being built and operated.

 

[skyking1]

My thoughts line up with @CaptTom, I voted yes because I am game for moving forward, but when we discuss the nuts and bolts it is clear that the USA is too far-flung and far from homogeneous in nature. There are route segments that make sense, but large swaths of the country would not be serviceable.
I also agree wholeheartedly that we have squandered the freight rail infrastructure. The costs per ton-mile are the lowest by far. Where rail runs aground is the Just In Time (JIT) manufacturing and supply chain model. The way freight runs now, your carload of goods could sit for days while your business grinds to a halt, because "that's the way we always do it" at the railroad.
The trains themselves run fast enough, it is the last couple of miles.

 

[savory]

There's a reason you've heard them for years. The question is, why aren't you listening? I'd be an advocate, too, if someone were to present a workable proposal, complete with financing and valid usage projections.

As a side note, someone mentioned lanes and other infrastructure for bicycles. That's great in those few cities where the weather is always pleasant. "Advocates" are trying to shove them down the throats of everyone else. They've been a miserable failure anywhere in the snow belt and any suburban or rural area where the distances make them impractical.

Here is your chance to become an advocate. Minneapolis is considered one of the best bicycling cities in the USA. Sometimes, it is Madison WI. Shouldn't overlook all the rain in Portland. Even Miami is beginning to catch up.

The projections you suggest are being done all the time. Frankly all over the world. There are plenty of projections and estimates for things that are not adapted in the USA that would work here if funds were invested at the same level as motor vehicles. Take my city now. They are willing to spend $100 million dollars to speed traffic up just a bit through one intersection. I would guess CaptTom, you might be a proponent for that if you lived here to save about 100 second wait, comfortably in your car, listening to the radio. After all, it is not even gas tax that is going into that expense.

Now, if active transportation received the same support as motor vehicles, say $100 million, it would be a major success in every city. My town needs 1/2 of that for the entire city, not simply one bridge over one rail track at one intersection. Check out Amsterdam or Copenhagen. But the USA decided to focus on J Walking, wide streets so you can park your car in front of your house, parking lots never filled, health issues that result from too much driving vs biking/walking, and more.

Getting back to the trains, it could easily have a place if the investment was the same. And, to be clear again, while you might believe your gas tax is paying for the roads, police traffic enforcement and other motor vehicle things, I assure you, it does not.

An unusual angry response from me but you hit a nerve.

 

[Koolau]

No and I'll only touch on what I've seen with our "light rail" fiasco in Honolulu (yeah, I know, it's NOT high speed.)

Our light rail was supposed to cost about $3 billion for 20+ miles. So far, after over 10 years, no one has ridden the rail as it's not finished. Oh, and we've spent $13 billion IIRC. Oh, and they found out recently the wheels of the system do no fit the rails we've installed. Other than that... What could go wrong with a high speed rail system?

Just for funzies, I divided $13 billion by 1.1 million Oahu residents and came up with almost $12,000 for every man, woman and child - only about 3 or 4 % of which will ever ride it IIRC. Other than that... YMMV

 

[Andre1969]

Our light rail was supposed to cost about $3 billion for 20+ miles. So far, after over 10 years, no one has ridden the rail as it's not finished. Oh, and we've spent $13 billion IIRC. Oh, and they found out recently the wheels of the system do no fit the rails we've installed. Other than that... What could go wrong with a high speed rail system?

Just for funzies, I divided $13 billion by 1.1 million Oahu residents and came up with almost $12,000 for every man, woman and child - only about 3 or 4 % of which will ever ride it IIRC. Other than that... YMMV

That got me curious...here in the Maryland suburbs of DC, they're building this thing called the Purple line, which is basically a streetcar that connects one Metro (our subway) station to another one, with 19 stops in between, and meanders through suburbs and cities of two counties, plus cutting the University of Maryland in half. It's about 16.2 miles.

It's been on the books since the 1990's. They started construction in 2016. I just googled it though, and now the budget has blown up from $2B to $3.4B. And its expected opening has been pushed back from 2022 to 2026!

Wikipedia shows an estimate of around 65,000 people per day riding this thing, by 2030. I'll admit, I might ride it, just for kicks, when (if) it ever opens. I rode the Baltimore Light Rail with some friends, end-to-end, when it first opened, and also drove on Maryland's ICC (InterCounty Connector, Route 200) when it first opened, and was free for a bit. I don't know how useful the Baltimore Light Rail or the ICC really are, compared to their cost, but I can see the convenience of either one. And the ICC is a toll road, so while I'm sure it doesn't completely pay for itself, at least its users offset some of the cost. And I'm sure that it takes a lot of traffic off of other roads, which is a benefit to others.

Back before Baltimore became a "No Go Zone", I took the light rail in a few times to the inner harbor area. It was kind of nice, being able to park, for free, out in the suburbs, take the train in, and not have to worry about finding parking in Baltimore, dealing with the traffic, etc. And, train travel can be so exciting. One time, going in, at one of the stations I could see some police cars by the tracks. The cops held up the train, searched all the cars for a suspect, and then, eventually, let us go. Why, I felt just like I was in "North by Northwest!"

Much of the Baltimore Light Rail is built on the old right-of way of the defunct WB&A railroad, so it's out of the way for the most part. There are a few railroad crossings where you might have to wait for a train to pass, and in places where it actually cuts through Baltimore, it took up some street space. But, it doesn't seem to really snarl up traffic, at least not any worse than it already was. But this Purple Line has already taken a bunch of houses, a Shell station, a parking lot at an apartment building, a Wendy's, and throttled one already congested road from three southbound lanes down to two. And that's just within a couple-mile area that I'm personally familiar with (my paternal grandparents and my Dad used to live over there). I have a feeling this Purple Line is going to be a mess once it's complete.

And in many cases, I don't see what it really does that a bus couldn't. And in some ways, it's worse. For example, from where my Grandparents used to live, I guess if you wanted you could take it to the nearest Metro station, a few miles away. BUT, the bus does that, anyway. Plus, to catch the bus, you just walk up the street to the bus stop, maybe 1/4 mile away, at best. The nearest Purple Line stop is about a mile away, if not more. So you either walk all the way to that. Or take the bus to it. Might as well just take the bus all the way to the Metro station, anyway! Sure, it will benefit a relativel handful of people. But at what cost to the greater society, as a whole?

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Star Trek transporters, for example. The ultimate solution.

No one thought we would ever get a man on the moon.

As far as cost is concerned, it would probably be a better investment than the space station. And perhaps give less to other countries. Some things are done for prestige, Oh, brings us back to a man on the moon.

 

[anethum]

High speed rail works well in parts of western Europe, Japan, & China, because of the high population density and excellent public transport in cities in addition to the high speed rail networks. It could work well in the DC-Philly-NY-Boston corridor, as well, because of the high population density and decent public transport in all of those metropolitan areas.

Anyone who has used high speed rail knows how well it works, and how it creates possibilities. I've taken the TGV in France many times. It is remarkably efficient. Many years ago, a friend & I got absurdly cheap nonstop flights from DC to Brussels. We spent the first 2 days in Brussels, and then about 5 days in Paris. Thalys is the name of the high speed trains between Paris & Brussels. The trip takes only 1h 22m. On the day that we flew home from Brussels, we woke up in Paris, took a quick Metro ride to the Gare du Nord, arrived in Brussels, and took a quick train to the Brussels airport for our flight home which departed around 12:30pm. I met people who lived in Belgium and who commuted to Paris on a routine basis.