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

[wildsun]

"I did some research a while back on the NY City subway system. Even with its very heavy ridership, the system still required taxpayer subsidies of at least 50% of its total budget"


If we only look at the costs, we aren't doing the "benefit" portion of the cost/benefit analysis. If the had evaluated the value of the interstate highway system that way we'd be a lot poorer country - culturally, and in terms of trillions of dollars.

I think high speed transit is essential for the economic future of this country.

But yes - its true - the initiative needs a serious dose of cost control, so that its not just a way to make the rich richer.

 

[tenant13]

Well, I’ve lived in NY for the last 35 years and haven’t owned a car all this time so high speed rail (even if just to take me from the city center to the airport )would have been a great way of spending my tax money - just as building bicycle paths all over the city was. And any investment in the subway system.

I’d rather finance/subsidize highways by taxing vehicle owners and gas and public transport from the federal budget.

 

[Pellice]

,Living on the East Coast Corridor, high speed, or relatively high speed rail is a wonderful fact of life between major cities. From NJ, I was able to take a weekly class in Washington DC relatively cheaply and without much stress. I can't imagine driving there, what a nightmare. I visited friends in Richmond, VA, with a very cheap Amtrak ticket - and faster than a car, even though in this case I was on the regular NE Corridor rather than Acela.

I don't know what the back and forth between cities is like elsewhere. I can imagine high speed rail's working between the major cities in TX and FL - but that's my imagination, I have no real idea as to how often people go back and forth there, or how badly they need their cars after arrival.

 

[Pellice]

Another consideration is that we here are mostly older. I am astonished as to how far "the car" has sunk in importance for younger people. "It's not just a car, it's your freedom," was actually the only car slogan that ever carried any weight with me, but young people, even those with cars, don't seem to see a vehicle as necessary for freedom. I have a great-niece who has so far decided not to learn to drive. I would have bet against her making that work, but so far I'm losing that bet.

And, it IS rather amusing to watch car manufacturers hurl themselves against this wall of indifference with the Same Old Come-ons - busty women in scanty clothing screaming "Value Days," lone vehicles tracking down deserted highways, heavy trucks smashing turtle eggs and destroying stream vegetation as they muddy their way up a mountain stream.

To see the car dethroned from its position of importance - never guessed I'd see that in my lifetime.

 

[misanman]

Another consideration is that we here are mostly older. I am astonished as to how far "the car" has sunk in importance for younger people. "It's not just a car, it's your freedom," was actually the only car slogan that ever carried any weight with me, but young people, even those with cars, don't seem to see a vehicle as necessary for freedom. I have a great-niece who has so far decided not to learn to drive. I would have bet against her making that work, but so far I'm losing that bet.

And, it IS rather amusing to watch car manufacturers hurl themselves against this wall of indifference with the Same Old Come-ons - busty women in scanty clothing screaming "Value Days," lone vehicles tracking down deserted highways, heavy trucks smashing turtle eggs and destroying stream vegetation as they muddy their way up a mountain stream.

To see the car dethroned from its position of importance - never guessed I'd see that in my lifetime.

Well, the six grandkids we have that are old enough to drive (three are 17) all have their own cars and when they come over they most often don't ride together, so our driveway looks like a car lot.

 

[Andre1969]

Another consideration is that we here are mostly older. I am astonished as to how far "the car" has sunk in importance for younger people. "It's not just a car, it's your freedom," was actually the only car slogan that ever carried any weight with me, but young people, even those with cars, don't seem to see a vehicle as necessary for freedom. I have a great-niece who has so far decided not to learn to drive. I would have bet against her making that work, but so far I'm losing that bet.

And, it IS rather amusing to watch car manufacturers hurl themselves against this wall of indifference with the Same Old Come-ons - busty women in scanty clothing screaming "Value Days," lone vehicles tracking down deserted highways, heavy trucks smashing turtle eggs and destroying stream vegetation as they muddy their way up a mountain stream.

To see the car dethroned from its position of importance - never guessed I'd see that in my lifetime.

I think that's going to depend on where you live. If you're in an area with good public transportation, a car can sometimes be more of a burden than a convenience. But get out into the suburbs and more rural areas, and you will find that stories of the private automobile's death has been greatly exaggerated.

Just about all the younger people I know who don't have a car, don't have one because they can't afford it! And it's not by choice...many of them hate having to depend on friends for rides, unreliable public transportation, or, God forbid, two-footing it!

 

[ncbill]

Also the Port Canaveral->Orlando Airport->Disney World route. Probably would mostly be used by tourists (both foreign and domestic).

Yep, my kid is hoping the Orlando to Miami route is ready before they graduate because they want to play tourist w/o having to drive down there.

 

[explanade]

Yep, my kid is hoping the Orlando to Miami route is ready before they graduate because they want to play tourist w/o having to drive down there.

Are they actually building the or is it more in the planning stages?

 

[MichaelB]

Are they actually building the or is it more in the planning stages?

Brightline is operational from Miami to West Palm Beach, and the segment from WPB to Orlando is under construction

 

[Walt34]

Well, I’ve lived in NY for the last 35 years and haven’t owned a car all this time so high speed rail (even if just to take me from the city center to the airport )would have been a great way of spending my tax money - just as building bicycle paths all over the city was. And any investment in the subway system.

I’d rather finance/subsidize highways by taxing vehicle owners and gas and public transport from the federal budget.

It really does depend on one's perspective. I haven't ridden on a train for over 20 years and don't miss it a bit. On some occasions for work I rode on DC's Metrorail (with other people) and hated it - what a PITA! Drive to a station. And wait. And wait. Get on the train and go. And stop. And go. And stop. Innumerable times. Gaaa let me out of here! Then when we finally get to the destination station, hoof it for anywhere from two blocks to half a mile, usually in the rain. And in the meantime walk past at least a couple of parking garages or parking lots. Had they spent the money wasted on that stupid train on decent roadways there would be no use for the train. All other things being even roughly equal, I think most people will drive directly to their destination. Why should I have to depend on someone else's schedule?

So from my perspective, spending tax money on trains is a complete waste of money - I never use them so why would I support that? And yes I've heard the argument that the people who ride the train aren't in cars. But what if instead of wasting money on that stupid train they spent it on decent roads? Then we wouldn't use the train. And they still aren't spending enough on Metrorail to properly maintain it so the full cost is not yet paid. I predict it'll end up just as ratty as New York's and Boston's, always operating on the brink of collapse from lack of maintenance.

So this car owner will oppose every effort to waste my tax money to serve only a relative elite few who want a free ride off everyone else. Really - if one thinks cars and trucks should bear the entire cost of roadways, the reverse is equally valid - commuter rail should be supported entirely by fares so the users - and only the users - pay for it.

 

[explanade]

What do you mean by better roads?

Resurface them?

Or add more lanes?

Adding more lanes never gets rid of congestion. Traffic is like gas, if you increase road capacity, it will just bring more cars to fill the added capacity.


Just got back from a trip to Costco, which involves going through a major freeway interchange.

They are building in FastTrack lanes where you pay to go on this exclusive lane. I guess they will track it with some chip because they're not going to put in toll booths or anything.

If they get enough people on those for-pay lanes, would it ease traffic in the regular lanes?

I would doubt it, may just draw in more people who were taking alternate paths until they heard about these express lanes.

Building more freeway lanes is just not sustainable.

 

[Andre1969]

Walt, when is the last time you've had to drive into DC, or take the Metro? If it's been 20 years or more, trust me, it's only gotten worse. I can remember, back in the late 90's, I used to go into DC a lot. I had a '79 Newport, which was not a small car, even by 1979 standards, yet I rarely had trouble finding a place to park. But, it's a lot worse now. A lot of street parking these days is limited to residents of that particular area, and they'll make you put a permit sticker on your car. Roads that used to be only gridlocked for a couple hours now seem like they're gridlocked almost 24/7. I don't know that adding more roads and parking structures would be the answer. Route 50, going in from Maryland, would easily need to be doubled in width, and then would still be congested.

There's the old joke about why do we drive on a parkway, but park on a driveway. Well, the Baltimore-Washington "Parkway" throws that joke to the wind. And again, not just during rush hour anymore.

Commuting is bad, whether you're in a car or taking the Metro, but I think they still need each other, sort of an unholy matrimony!

Oh, and don't get me started on bike lanes though. They've put a bunch of them all over DC, to the benefit of a relative handful of people, and all the bikers do is bitch whenever one gets blocked. Yet they don't have a problem running red lights, riding on the sidewalks, hitting pedestrian, and so on. They've taken out parking spaces, and even travel lanes in some occasions.

I haven't been into DC in a few years now, but I think the last time I drove there, I had to park about a mile away from my destination. That was probably in 2018. The last time I went to DC, by any means, was 2019 to see a friend, but that time I took the Metro in. And once I got there, it was still about a half-mile walk.

Oh, and let's not forget that damn Benning Road streetcar of theirs. I think it's been in work for years now, and has gone millions of $ over budget. It messes with parking, snarls traffic, and does nothing that a bus couldn't do. There was also some streetcar that they tried to build down in the Southeast part, on the Maryland side of the Anacostia River. But it's just a bunch of tracks in the pavement that go nowhere, as it was abandoned before it was finished. Politics at its best, I guess.

 

[Gumby]

Mass transit advocates always sing the same tune - "if only we could make life more miserable for car drivers, they would finally see the light and take the train. So we must oppose improving the roads, and argue that traffic will expand to fill any capacity improvement." First, there are only so many people and they can only drive one car each. Once everyone is driving, traffic cannot increase further. So, yes, we could in fact increase the road capacity beyond people's ability to fill it. And second, all that song does is make people cranky.

If you want to sell trains, convince people why they should buy them. There are many selling points - they are more comfortable, you can sleep or read a book or socialize with other people while you ride, you don't have to find a place to park, which may be expensive if you do find one, you don't have to maintain your car so much, it is ultimately cheaper, it's better for the environment and so on and so forth.

I'm obviously sold on the train, since I commuted to work by train - two hours each way - for many years. But I have found most mass transit advocates see transportation options as a zero sum game and would prefer forcing people to take the train rather than selling them on why they should.

 

[Andre1969]

What do you mean by better roads?

Resurface them?

Or add more lanes?

Adding more lanes never gets rid of congestion. Traffic is like gas, if you increase road capacity, it will just bring more cars to fill the added capacity.

You only get more cars if there is more development. I.e., more houses and neighborhoods built, and more businesses and commercial districts and such. And, those places are getting built, regardless of the road infrastructure that's in place.

Might as well improve the roads, which in some cases does mean more lanes, because if you don't, it's going to get even worse, even faster. Plus, there are other ways to improve, such as better timed traffic lights, longer merge lanes, and in some cases, overpasses with interchanges, rather than at-grade intersections with traffic lights.

 

[explanade]

Mass transit advocates always sing the same tune - "if only we could make life more miserable for car drivers, they would finally see the light and take the train. So we must oppose improving the roads, and argue that traffic will expand to fill any capacity improvement." First, there are only so many people and they can only drive one car each. Once everyone is driving, traffic cannot increase further. So, yes, we could in fact increase the road capacity beyond people's ability to fill it. And second, all that song does is make people cranky.

If you want to sell trains, convince people why they should buy them. There are many selling points - they are more comfortable, you can sleep or read a book or socialize with other people while you ride, you don't have to find a place to park, which may be expensive if you do find one, you don't have to maintain your car so much, it is ultimately cheaper, its better for the environment and so on and so forth.

I'm obviously sold on the train, since I commuted to work by train - two hours each way - for many years. But I have found most mass transit advocates see transportation options as a zero sum game and would prefer forcing people to take the train rather than the selling them on why they should.

Well I've only taken mass transit when I travel, never around home because it's so bad.

NYC subway isn't bad but the last time I took it, I couldn't get on a train in midtown which wasn't packed. One time, many people didn't even get in, figured they'd wait for the next train but that was equally packed.

I've taken the DC metro from the airport to downtown, without changing lines, so that is great for a US city.

But in recent years, I've also taken trams in Florence and Nice into the centers of those cities from the airport, for well under 5 Euros in both cases.

Seems like NY and DC are the only cities with subways which are almost as convenient as those in Europe and see Asian countries.

But after the pandemic, I'm far more wary about taking them.


I'm not advocating more mass transit necessarily.

But around here, adding extra lanes was voted on and voters had to essentially vote themselves some additional fraction of a sales tax to fund these additions.

It really didn't take long for traffic to return to previous levels so nobody seems to be pushing for more lanes around here.

 

[explanade]

You only get more cars if there is more development. I.e., more houses and neighborhoods built, and more businesses and commercial districts and such. And, those places are getting built, regardless of the road infrastructure that's in place.

Might as well improve the roads, which in some cases does mean more lanes, because if you don't, it's going to get even worse, even faster. Plus, there are other ways to improve, such as better timed traffic lights, longer merge lanes, and in some cases, overpasses with interchanges, rather than at-grade intersections with traffic lights.

I think one possible explanation is that new lanes bring more people who were taking other routes previously.

Like I said above, we voted on adding extra lanes a few years ago and they haven't changed traffic.

The pandemic in the spring of 2020 changed traffic a lot.

But it's all back to pre-pandemnic levels and then some. That is despite all the tech industry workers around here who are able to work from home.

 

[mews]

High speed rail is a wonderful idea

I have traveled on truly high-speed rail in other countries, and I think it's a wonderful thing.

Consider north south lines, connecting states in the Midwest. For example start Houston to Dallas and then northward to major cities of each of the states stacked on top of Texas.

I am also aware of the problems of stupidity, corruption and cost overruns that would be possible/ probable

Perhaps hire a non US firm that has successfully done construction on rail lines that came in on time and under budget.

 

[Gumby]

... then northward to major cities of each of the states stacked on top of Texas.....

Aren't those states mostly empty? I can't see sufficient traffic to make the cost worthwhile.

 

[youbet]

Poll Seems to be an equal split on Yeas vs Naes.

So, it probably would be doable...

OP draws conclusion for US acceptance of HSR based on a tiny sample.

Only with the way you edited the post to change the meaning…..

 

[Walt34]

What do you mean by better roads?

Resurface them?

Or add more lanes?

Adding more lanes never gets rid of congestion. Traffic is like gas, if you increase road capacity, it will just bring more cars to fill the added capacity.

I mean adding more lanes. Lots of them, not just one at a time as is usually done. Now, I'm under no delusion that will ever happen (traffic congestion was THE major reason we moved to WV 20 years ago). And of course more cars use added capacity when it is added. Those are from trips that weren't being made before, or sometimes when the hassle of driving is less than the hassle of mass transit people naturally gravitate to the path of least resistance.

Given the choice, and all other things being equal, I do believe that most people will drive instead of taking mass transit.

 

[explanade]

Thing is, the capacity you add to alleviate the worst traffic would be only for rush hours so maybe 6-7 hours a day.

Rest of the time those additional lanes wouldn't be utilized as much.

People question the returns on HSR, I would imagine adding "lots of them" wouldn't fare too well to cost/benefit analysis.


Since I RE, I've only been in main rush hour lanes once or twice. Now I make sure to schedule things like doctor appointments after 10:30 if not 11 or 11:30.

 

[braumeister]

Thing is, the capacity you add to alleviate the worst traffic would be only for rush hours so maybe 6-7 hours a day.

Rest of the time those additional lanes wouldn't be utilized as much.

Which is precisely why we NEED those flying cars we were promised so long ago!

 

[Koolau]

I voted no for several reasons

A. Density the US ranks 175th out of 225 countries/territories. I don't think any country with a lower density has a high-speed rail.
B. Technology progress. I don't know if it hyperloops, self-driving taxi's, or autonomous drones, or star trek teleporting, I just think there will big changes in transportation. So I don't see the point in investing in 200-year-old tech.
C. The US sucks at infrastructure programs lately. I think for the last 10-15 years, all I read is one failed transportation infrastructure project after another upgrading subways in New York or Big Dig in Boston.

I was in Bejing a few months before the 2008 Olympics. They were in the process of completing numerous infrastructure projects. I remember one was 20+ mile light rail system, that was very similar in capabilities to the one proposed in Honolulu.
The Chinese finished theirs in 18 months. 12 years later the Honolulu project not only is not done but is now scheduled for 2033,and 3-4x over budget.

And, as you know, we have the worst infrastructure maintenance in the country. The Aloha bowl was eventually closed as it virtually rusted away. Kapiolani ave. is virtually always being dug up to fix water mains or whatever. I could go on and on. I don't think we know about (or even understand) the concept of a sinking fund but YMMV.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Mass transit advocates always sing the same tune - "if only we could make life more miserable for car drivers, they would finally see the light and take the train. So we must oppose improving the roads, and argue that traffic will expand to fill any capacity improvement." First, there are only so many people and they can only drive one car each. Once everyone is driving, traffic cannot increase further. So, yes, we could in fact increase the road capacity beyond people's ability to fill it. And second, all that song does is make people cranky.

This reminds me of a lengthy political battle going on in Milwaukee. Suburban lawmakers would love to widen a stretch of freeway that funnels suburbanites into downtown. All that would be needed would to be to carve into a couple cemeteries, one of which is occupied by veterans.

That it itself in unpalatable, but on top of that, inner-city folks see no benefit to improving the comfort of suburban commuters, many of whom are openly unsympathetic to the urban population.

This may be getting uncomfortably political, but if the national climate is anything like my microcosm, further expansion of freeways to make it easier to navigate into city centers from suburban sprawl is unlikely.

 

[savory]

This reminds me of a lengthy political battle going on in Milwaukee. Suburban lawmakers would love to widen a stretch of freeway that funnels suburbanites into downtown. All that would be needed would to be to carve into a couple cemeteries, one of which is occupied by veterans.

That it itself in unpalatable, but on top of that, inner-city folks see no benefit to improving the comfort of suburban commuters, many of whom are openly unsympathetic to the urban population.

This may be getting uncomfortably political, but if the national climate is anything like my microcosm, further expansion of freeways to make it easier to navigate into city centers from suburban sprawl is unlikely.

When I was commuting from the Milwaukee suburbs to Racine, for at least some of the time, we car pooled. It was not a financial decision for the 3 of us who were carpooling.
Just imagine in these times how easy it would be to set up car pool if we really wanted to reduce traffic with the least investment. I know that X% of people can't do it but I expect enough can carpool to reduce traffic, pollution and other benefits.