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

[ShokWaveRider]

China, Europe and some other developed countries are the way ahead of the USA here. If one took the money from the Space Telescopes and Frivolous space jaunts, we could have it.

If there was a choice, would you want it in the USA? There is a Poll attached to this post.

We would. I think it would be great to get cross country without getting on a plane.

 

[erkevin]

In theory, I would be for it. In practice, the debacle that has gone on in California (both Vegas and San Fran proposals) leads me to deep skepticism that it could be done efficiently, within budget, and as proposed. My cynicism stems from a lifetime of: Big Dig in Boston, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Silver Springs, MD transit center, Veteran Affairs Electronic Health System, the Auburn Dam, the Super Collider, the list goes on and on.............

 

[aja8888]

I voted no. There are better things to spend taxpayer money on these days.

 

[Ronstar]

I'd like to see real high speed rail. But only if it makes financial sense.

We have high speed rail (supposedly) in Illinois. Chicago to St. Louis. Just increased max speed to 90 mph. Still takes 5.5 hrs Chicago to St. Louis. I can drive there in less time. A lot of $ went into this without much benefit so far.

 

[Another Reader]

Good idea in theory, but not in practice. The California project is the best example...

When air travel is no longer feasible for economic or environmental reasons, it will be time to revisit this.

 

[CaptTom]

First, I reject the proposition that space exploration and scientific research are "frivolous." I'll also point out that human progress is not a zero-sum game. We can and must do more than one worthwhile thing at a time.

So let's get back to the titular question specifically about high-speed rail.

I agree that we as a society should invest in transportation infrastructure. It's what makes modern life, and all it's benefits, possible.

How much of that investment should go toward rail, and specifically high-speed rail, compared to, say, roads and airports?

We're not a European country, or China. We have greater distances to cover than any European country, and a different economic and societal structure than China. We need to do what's best for us, not them.

Politically, rail has very little support in the US. I wish it had more, but it's the way things are. Passenger rail here is never going to gain the acceptance it has in Europe. There's just no way the average American family is going to load up their 2.3 kids and dog into a train for a 2-week vacation in Yellowstone. Driving is our thing. Electric vehicles are here now, so the carbon footprint argument is already weakening.

Rail is a great value for freight, and it's already used widely by industries which can benefit. But with one-day shipping and just-in-time delivery being demanded by consumers and manufacturers these days, I don't see any room for growth. I don't think shippers are willing to pay a premium to shave off a few hours on the delivery of the kind of bulk materials currently being shipped by rail.

I love trains, and I wish we weren't so dependent on personal automobiles. It's especially tough for suburban and rural retirees who are one health problem away from losing their license, and with it, their independence.

But should we spend money on high-speed rail just because it feels good? No.

 

[MichaelB]

“Frivolous space jaunts” is not taxpayer funded. The entire cost of the Webb space telescope might be enough to fund a couple of miles of high speed rail.

A more relevant and neutral framing would be as a use of infrastructure investment compared with other options, such as upgrades to highway, roads, airports.

 

[Aerides]

I voted no. There are better things to spend taxpayer money on these days.

Well, leaving out the "who pays for it" and focusing on the functionality and infrastructure... Yes, I'd like it. But...

A) it won't come to pass, significantly, in my lifetime
B) what little does happen will start in states and likely not connect to be intra-multi-state, cross country stuff
C) if it does go intra-state, it will be big routes like Los Ang.>Chicago>NY

The pipe dream version looks something like this, and it would still take over 12 hours to go crosss-country (but yeah I'd sign up for that!)

 

[Aerides]

I'd like to see real high speed rail. But only if it makes financial sense.

We have high speed rail (supposedly) in Illinois. Chicago to St. Louis. Just increased max speed to 90 mph. Still takes 5.5 hrs Chicago to St. Louis. I can drive there in less time. A lot of $ went into this without much benefit so far.

Most advocates of HS rail start with a minimum of 160mph proposal, and higher.

 

[Exchme]

It's ridiculously expensive to build, you don't have a car at the destination, you have the security, waiting, parking and breathing on each other issues like air travel without the speed in between.

If it made any economic sense, why aren't there private companies champing at the bit to build them?

 

[Fermion]

You probably wouldn't even have the technology to build the high speed rail without some of the side effect tech developed on "frivolous" space projects of the past.

 

[Midpack]

I voted no. There are better things to spend taxpayer money on these days.

+1. We’re already running huge deficits. If private enterprise wants to to, by all means.

However it is “unfortunate” how much worse emissions are with air travel as compared to other means. That might become an issue one day?

 

[Andre1969]

It sounds great in theory, and there are places in the US where it might work, but as a whole, I'd have to say no. This country is just too spread out, and too car-dependent to make it work, in my opinion. Passenger rail in this country proved it was not all that viable in the 70's hence the arrival of Amtrak. And from what I've heard, the only portion of Amtrak that turns a profit is the Northeast Corridor (DC to Boston). The rest of it operates at a loss.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it work. But I'm sure the fantasy vision I have of it in my head is a far cry from how it would actually play out, if built. Heck, we can't even maintain the current infrastructure very we currently have, so I'd hate to see how we'd take care of something high-tech like high-speed rail.

Plus, from what I've heard, China is building highways at a much higher rate than high speed rail. As the country becomes more prosperous, it's becoming more car-dependent.

There's been talk of a high-speed Maglev train between DC and Baltimore. From what I've read, it would be able to make the trip in about 15 minutes (Union Station in DC to Penn Station in Baltimore, I'm guessing). Sounds nice. BUT, the Amtrak Acela already does that in about 32 minutes. There's also something called the Northeast Regional that does it in about 45 minutes. And even the MARC, a commuter train with a number of stops in between, does it in about 64 minutes. Which, incidentally, is about the same amount of time Google maps estimates would take to drive it.

I remember a few years back, flying to Aruba from BWI, and there was a transfer in Fort Lauderdale. For some reason I'm thinking it only took about 90 minutes to fly there, but I just checked times, and they say it's actually around 2 hours and 40. Although, I might have just been thinking of from the moment the plane takes off, to when it touches the ground...you spend a lot of time taxiing around, getting ready for takeoff, etc that's going to add time.

Anyway, for comparison, I just checked Amtrak. They have two trains per day going to Fort Lauderdale, and the quickest is about 28 hours. Googlemaps estimates 15 hours and 39 minutes to drive it. But that's probably not realistic, since you'd have to refuel, stop to eat, rest, etc, and you know full well there are going to be accidents, construction, heavy traffic, and other delays on the road.

I wouldn't want to drive it, unless I had plenty of time, and was going to plan a few stops along the way. But I dunno if I'd want to be stuck on a train for 28 hours, either! Now if a high-speed train could get me there in, say, 5 hours, and the procedures for boarding de-boarding are less aggravating than an airport, AND the price is comparable, I might be tempted. But, I just don't think it's going to be feasible.

I could see some stretches, such as between LA and San Francisco perhaps, being feasible. Or, the Amtrak Northeast corridor? But nationwide, I don't think it will ever be practical. And even in those short stretches I mentioned, the more stops it has to make, the less effective it is, overall.

 

[aja8888]

We already have many airports and they, along with the airlines, provide a relatively cost effective means of "high speed" transportation.

 

[Ronstar]

Most advocates of HS rail start with a minimum of 160mph proposal, and higher.

I know, but I'm not sure that the geometry of the existing high speed rails and myriad of roadway crossings between Chicago and St. Louis support 160 mph train speeds.

The Chicago - St. Louis project used existing rails, put in new concrete ties, some new signalization, and did minor improvements to roadway crossings. There are too many safety factors involved in this corridor as it exists today that prevent 160 mph train speeds IMO. Many roadway crossings would have to be eliminated in order to be safe, and that is not going to happen.

 

[38Chevy454]

With very few exceptions, high speed rail are more appropriately high speed FAIL. They rarely deliver the promised results, cost multiples of original estimates, take far longer to actually be built, and are a continuous money drain that require taxpayer funded supplements every year. In addition the rail has limited locations to get on or off. As pointed out the US is a much larger geographic challenge than Europe where whole countries are more like states in the US.

What the US should do is invest more into the interstate highway stem which is in disrepair. Make improvements to handle current and future traffic loads. This can include upgrades for express lanes. IMHO this would be a far better use of the money vs high speed rail.

 

[Bamaman]

The U.S. is just so spread out in population centers--other than in the northeast.

What passenger railroads that have been made have just filled the pockets of contractors and maybe indirectly politicians. High Speed rail will never be profitable when it costs so much to build them.

 

[ERD50]

I'd agree with the many here - sounds nice in theory, probably not practical for the US at this stage, and the reality is it just isn't going to happen.

But talking about theory - I've sometimes wondered if we couldn't have a couple lanes of major highways with rail tracks built right in (level with the road surface so as to not interfere with regular cars/trucks). You could run a 'train' of semi trailers, maybe built like those repair trucks that have drop down metal wheels for the tracks, and regular tires for the road. Passenger trains would just need the steel wheels and some off ramps and switching back to the opposite lane at a few points.

Yes, you'd need to keep debris out of the wheel track, but probably not insurmountable. And most debris would probably just get crushed/defelected by the wheels anyhow.

-ERD50

 

[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.

 

[arbeadub]

I voted no, my reason is there is almost no free market competition for any one route in most of America for rail. At least with air and other ground transport many different companies compete for our $$.

 

[aja8888]

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.

We have almost those in West Texas where you can zip along, legally, at 85 MPH.

 

[CaptTom]

I've never seen so many good, thoughtful posts in one thread before. Thanks all!!!

And I've never seen a thread with such unanimous agreement on anything. For a whole lot of different (and very good) reasons, we all seem to have reached the same conclusion.

I think we all agree much more than we disagree, once we stop parroting political talking points and get into the nuance of the issues.

 

[Gumby]

This country is so much larger than Europe that I'm not sure high speed rail would be cost effective in most parts of it. Even if you could sustain 200 mph, it would still take over 4 hours to go from NYC to Chicago and nearly 15 hours to go from NYC to LA. People will almost always prefer to fly instead.

However, it would be great if the Northeast Corridor were truly high speed, and that's where I think you could see the biggest payoff on the investment. While we can produce train equipment capable of very fast speeds, the tracks won't currently support that equipment. Right now, it takes nearly 7 hours to go from Boston to DC on the Acela, so people in business generally fly. If you could just cut that in half, they would probably take the train instead. And, as far as regular commuting goes, the very quickest Metro-North express train takes almost exactly 2 hours to cover the 67 miles between New Haven, Connecticut, and Grand Central Station in NYC. We have embarrassingly deficient infrastructure in this country.

 

[tulak]

The east coast could benefit from high speed rail. Further west, not so much.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

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.