Obama Unveils Plan to Fund High-Speed Passenger Rail

[Goronmon]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123989461947625407.html

President Barack Obama on Thursday set U.S. transportation policy on a new course, announcing at least $13 billion to enhance passenger rail service as an alternative to clogged highways and overcrowded airports.

Good idea? Bad idea?

[National Kato]

I'm always in favor of high-speed rail.

[Wraith]

Good idea, though it obviously only serves certain areas of the country (due to geographical factors that we don't have much control over).

[Generation ABXY]

Can't say for sure. I don't use regular public transportation myself and I don't know how much use it gets, though I do hear people complain about the state of it all the time.

At the very least, I hope it won't end up being a complete waste.

[National Kato]

My hope would be that it would create a ton of good jobs and release the airline choke-hold on high-speed travel.

[OUX]

I'm always in favor of high-speed rail.

That's what she said.

[Telefrog]

Why should my hard work pay for other people's transportation? Fooey! I'm teabaggin all of it!

[Johan]

It's not enough money, but it's better than nothing. The report I heard on this says that they should focus this money on the one line that is truly working right now, the DC to Boston line. If they poured the money in there and made it work really well, it could build support for the cost of replicating it elsewhere, which will be far more than a puny $13 billion.

[Generation ABXY]

Why should my hard work pay for other people's transportation? Fooey! I'm teabaggin all of it!

Nice.

I'm sure if you look, you'll find that even Republicans are in favor of infrastructure spending – hell, even though it admittedly had vast military applications, the Interstate Highway System was championed by Eisenhower (he'd be a Republican, FYI). It is a lot of those little silly projects – of which you will find many, if you only look – that a lot of people are objecting to, especially since they look to have very little impact on the economy at large. But we couldn't be bothered to look at every aspect of the stimulus, oh no, it had to be passed now, despite the fact that so much of this emergency funding won't kick in for another couple of years...but, I digress.

Normally, I'm opposed to simple make work, but this could have far reaching consequences by potentially opening up the availabilty of easy access jobs that aren't local.

[torrefaction]

Rarely am I pro government spending, but this is one thing I'd love to see fixed, as high speed public transportation is a way forward in solving our energy problems.

[Ancalagon]

Its a good idea, but not nearly enough. I think repairs and upgrades to London's tube network runs in the tens of billions of pounds. So, a high speed rail network across the entire of the USA, which is much much much bigger than the UK.... well it'll cost many times that.

But I suppose this bill was never intended to pay for the whole thing, just an incentive for states to do it themselves. That way, the states themselves reap the benefits and get a kickback on the side. Though, I'm not sure how many state budgets could afford it even with an incentive, but hey, I'm sure they can do something.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Its a good idea, but not nearly enough. I think repairs and upgrades to London's tube network runs in the tens of billions of pounds. So, a high speed rail network across the entire of the USA, which is much much much bigger than the UK.... well it'll cost many times that.

But I suppose this bill was never intended to pay for the whole thing, just an incentive for states to do it themselves. That way, the states themselves reap the benefits and get a kickback on the side. Though, I'm not sure how many state budgets could afford it even with an incentive, but hey, I'm sure they can do something.

I seriously hope that my state tries to get some of this money.

[Ox]

I'm skeptical. As a practical matter, there's definitely going to be some difficulty in making sure Congressman Dipshit (I - Bumfuck) doesn't decide we need to build a monorail between the two biggest cow patties in his district. One of the big reasons Amtrak costs so much in subsidies is that we subsidize slow trains that go through Chicago and LA, passing through nothing in between: high-speed back in 1875, now only the preserve of train enthusiasts.

Moreover, I can offer a little personal experience here. I once worked some litigation involving the Acela system in the Northeast Corridor. It's really easy to underestimate how hard high-speed rail is. Amtrak doesn't own most of its own railbeds -- the freight companies do. This is why lumbering coal trains are often given priority over passenger trains. Ordinary tracks aren't good enough for even the half-assed high-speed of Acela: the tolerances for high-speed passenger rail are far stricter than freight rail, and Amtrak has to basically bribe the freight companies to make the proper changes. You literally have to pace out the entire length of track with a laser caliper, find every tiny imperfection in endless lengths of rusty steel, then rebuild the entire track. And then you need to maintain it perfectly.

I also don't want to tell tales out of school, but certain folks have claimed that Amtrak is perhaps not the absolute best-run company in the world. With Acela, it outsourced a lot of the maintenance to the manufacturer -- and then a litigation promptly arose over whether Amtrak was deliberately trying to undermine the manufacturer's ability to perform maintenance through stuff like slapping hard-to-remove stickers on all the interior surfaces of the cars, so that the manufacturer couldn't properly clean and maintain the train in the time allotted and would have to pay Amtrak a lot of money in penalties. Sort of the equivalent of the video rental store telling you the movie needs to be back by midnight, then sneaking over and letting the air out of your tires. Note that these were only allegations. And let's not forget the rather infamous toilets on Acela.

Don't get me wrong, I like Acela. I ride it occasionally. But even today, with our supposedly high-speed Northeastern rail service that's undergone substantial improvements in performance since Acela started, the Philly-New York Acela is not exactly cost-effective. Tonight, I can book a regular Northeast Regional train leaving Philly at 5:18 p.m. and arriving at 6:35 p.m., total travel time 77 minutes. Or, if my time is important to me, the Acela Express leaves at 5:32 p.m. and arrives at 6:48 p.m., total travel time of a blazing-fast 76 minutes. Given that the ticket prices are $64 and $143 respectively, it's not really appealing for anyone except someone desperately pressed for time and with money to burn. Which is why plenty of Acela trains travel around half to two-thirds full, even between the most important urban centers on the East Coast.

[Sandman]

Simpsons did it.

A3xGtjhZ_Yg

[biosc1]

Just spend some more money on our government subsidized Bombardier trains(who make some nice faulty trains on occasion) so that we can get a little of that money loving up here in Canada :)

[Esquilax1138]

Those Japanese high speed trains are dead sexy, make it coast to coast and laying the new rail lines for all that would put tons of people to work for years, as well as helping to get off the oil addiction when it's finally working.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Those Japanese high speed trains are dead sexy, make it coast to coast and laying the new rail lines for all that would put tons of people to work for years, as well as helping to get off the oil addiction when it's finally working.

Well, the Japanese can pull it off a lot better consider their country is nearly 1-dimensional. It's a lot easier to justify when you can build a handful of lines and get everywhere in the whole country.

edit: Japan is also 145,000 square miles, compared to 3.7 million for the US. Difficult to pull off.

[Ox]

Guys... you know the broken window fallacy, right? Obama's just talking about connecting a few, close-together cities. Let's not suggest he's really planning a LaRouchian national monorail network.

Unless he is, in which case, I'll be in my bunker weeping softly.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Guys... you know the broken window fallacy, right? Obama's just talking about connecting a few, close-together cities. Let's not suggest he's really planning a LaRouchian national monorail network.

Unless he is, in which case, I'll be in my bunker weeping softly.

My comments were related to his tying this into oil dependence.

[Johan]

Let's not suggest he's really planning a LaRouchian national monorail network.

With only $13 billion on the table, he barely has enough to make the DC-Boston line work properly.

[Esquilax1138]

Well, the Japanese can pull it off a lot better consider their country is nearly 1-dimensional. It's a lot easier to justify when you can build a handful of lines and get everywhere in the whole country.

edit: Japan is also 145,000 square miles, compared to 3.7 million for the US. Difficult to pull off.

Well not saying you'd want to build them everywhere, but a coast to coast connection with a few lines going north/south off of that could help a lot if done right. LA to New York with hubs to normal trains in the major cities could be done, sure it's a lot of money but if stimulus is just spending money on anything, getting one decent rail line out of it can't hurt.

And those bullet trains are still dead sexy! Would be fun to ride even if it just went in a circle :p

[Wraith]

All this talk of Monorails... I'm going to have to play some more SimCity tonight.

[Ox]

LA to New York with hubs to normal trains in the major cities could be done
Sure, we have the technology. If the trains travel at 250 miles an hour, it would take around nine and a half hours. Then you'd take another train to your actual destination city.

That will be the best way to get around until we acquire the power of flight. But who knows when that will be?

EDIT: Whoops, sorry. Forgot trains don't really go that fast. Average speed of the shinkansen (the Japanese bullet train) is 164 mph. So you're actually looking at 15 hours from New York to LA.

[Johan]

You crack me up. I picture you in a tweed jacket, with a fine cigar and a glass of sherry (or perhaps port), rhetorically rampaging through the countryside. :)

[National Kato]

The shinkansen is a dream ride. I've enjoyed every trip I've taken on one. The 'sway' from passing trains can be a bit disconcerting, but in an exhilirating way.

[Ancalagon]

I've taken the eurostar to and from brussels once before, its such a convenient way to travel. For the right distances, it can be a lot better than flying.

[Ox]

You crack me up. I picture you in a tweed jacket, with a fine cigar and a glass of sherry (or perhaps port), rhetorically rampaging through the countryside. :)
This is a disturbingly accurate picture of me in college. Now I wear a tie and work in a nonsmoking building.

[OUX]

Sure, we have the technology. If the trains travel at 250 miles an hour, it would take around nine and a half hours. Then you'd take another train to your actual destination city.

That will be the best way to get around until we acquire the power of flight. But who knows when that will be?

EDIT: Whoops, sorry. Forgot trains don't really go that fast. Average speed of the shinkansen (the Japanese bullet train) is 164 mph. So you're actually looking at 15 hours from New York to LA.

Well sure, but try driving a train into a building. It will create jobs and be anti-terror.

[DylonCorp]

Well sure, but try driving a train into a building. It will create jobs and be anti-terror.

Is you not afraid the terrorists will drive a train into the White House? What if they laid the track at night?

[CES]

Is you not afraid the terrorists will drive a train into the White House? What if they laid the track at night?

Then I'd give them respect for being both stupid and ballsy enough to pull it off.

For the most part, rail travel is good though I've got a bad tendency to fall asleep on the newer trains because of the damned seats with heaters under them.

Oh, and British Rail are complete dicks are trying to repair/upgrade the track.

[MagGnome]

I would love to see this take off. A train from Minneapolis to Chicago would be a Godsend. Sure there's Amtrak, but it is slow and just as expensive as flying.

[Wraith]

I would love to see this take off. A train from Minneapolis to Chicago would be a Godsend. Sure there's Amtrak, but it is slow and just as expensive as flying.Earlier today, just to compare the cost / trip length, I compared traveling from Fargo to Chicago. Driving took about 10 hours, according to Google maps, and would cost around $50 worth of gas. Taking Amtrak would take almost 14 hours and would cost $113. (Trying it on another day, the price was $87.) A non-stop flight was 1hr 45min, and about $213 (for half a round trip ticket).

High speed rail would never beat a non-stop flight for speed, but it should be faster than driving. And one would hope that boarding & departure is a much faster process than traveling by air. (Faster stops, shorter delays.)

[Ox]

I would love to see this take off. A train from Minneapolis to Chicago would be a Godsend. Sure there's Amtrak, but it is slow and just as expensive as flying.
Wouldn't high-speed rail, which is more expensive to maintain and build, be more expensive than flying? Note also that, per passenger-mile, flying and high-speed rail are about equally carbon-efficient (and both are worse than driving for underbooked travel, especially if a significant fraction of the cars have two or more people).

High speed rail would never beat a non-stop flight for speed, but it should be faster than driving. And one would hope that boarding & departure is a much faster process than traveling by air. (Faster stops, shorter delays.)
Current estimates are that high-speed rail is quicker than flying for rail trips up to around 2-5 hours, depending on assumptions (how far the airport is from the center of town, etc.)

[Wraith]

Current estimates are that high-speed rail is quicker than flying for rail trips up to around 2-5 hours, depending on assumptions (how far the airport is from the center of town, etc.)Is that based on in-transit time (takeoff to landing, leaving the station to arrival), or the total time involved for the traveler (security clearance, baggage check, avg. delays, etc)?

On my little sample trip, the distance by road was 643 miles, which would take over four hours if you managed to average 150mph w/ high speed rail (which I'm guessing is too high for a long-range trip). The nonstop flight was under 2 hours, though there would definitely be more time involved before takeoff/after landing.

[CES]

Wouldn't high-speed rail, which is more expensive to maintain and build, be more expensive than flying? Note also that, per passenger-mile, flying and high-speed rail are about equally carbon-efficient (and both are worse than driving for underbooked travel, especially if a significant fraction of the cars have two or more people).


In the UK, it's dependant on a few factors but for the most part, the train is the more expensive of the two transport methods. Generally, you can get a plane from one end of the UK to the other for around £100 while you can expect to pay double that on the train.

[Ox]

Is that based on in-transit time (takeoff to landing, leaving the station to arrival), or the total time involved for the traveler (security clearance, baggage check, avg. delays, etc)?
Total, although I'm not certain it includes delays. That would be too hard to generalize, since air delays vary dramatically depending on which cities we're talking about and rail delays can be either extremely common or extremely rare (and it's very hard to predict beforehand whether your rail line will suck). But it also includes the tremendous advantage of station convenience: rail stations tend to be in the hearts of cities while airports are on the outskirts, so you can save 30 minutes or more even for transit betwen small cities just on that factor alone. In New York, you could easily shave 45 minutes to an hour simply by getting into Penn Station rather than LaGuardia.

On my little sample trip, the distance by road was 643 miles, which would take over four hours if you managed to average 150mph w/ high speed rail (which I'm guessing is too high for a long-range trip). The nonstop flight was under 2 hours, though there would definitely be more time involved before takeoff/after landing.
This is probably towards the outer boundary of feasibility for competing with the airline, but it's not necessarily impossible. A big factor, of course, is how fast the train would be and how long it takes to get to and from the airport.

Note that the European and Japanese experiences aren't totally applicable to the US, because US cities are far more car-dependent than other cities are. You can easily putter around London for years without a car; but except for the big Eastern cities in the US, you can't easily rely on the subway and bus system for all your needs. So people will be more inclined to drive rather than take intercity rail, and the rail service will be chiefly competing with airlines rather than roads. This is one of the many reasons why the Northeastern Corridor is basically the only part of Amtrak that isn't spouting red ink like a Mortal Kombat fatality.

[Hexxagonal]

$13 billion is just not enough money to even make a dent in this. California alone wants $45 billion, but clames $20 billion/yr in waste from congestion http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/. I think the cost benefit ratio would be much better spending this on other things. It's good PR for Obama and that is it.

Don't get me wrong... I too would love a Minneapolis to Chicago high speed train..

[Wraith]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/rail_map_blog.jpg

http://i.gizmodo.com/5215079/obamas-crazy+ambitious-plan-for-high+speed-rail-lines-in-america
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/

[TheFlyingOrc]

Woo! Charlotte and Raleigh are go!

My last trip to NY by train took 10 hours. I'd love to take it in 3.

[torrefaction]

Finally, a way to leave Florida.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I'll be excited if Rockford gets a line to Chicago. They've been talking about it in the paper a lot lately, I would love being able to get into Chicago quick and easily.

[Sandman]

Nice...so I could go to Jacksonville and take the high speed rail to NYC instead of flying? Will it be ready by August of next year? (my current planned date for my long planned NYC trip)

[Johan]

Finally, a way to leave Florida.

Look at the map more closely. High speed rail doesn't cross the Florida border into another state. You'll have to go regular rail, as you already can. Sorry. :(

[Sandman]

Look at the map more closely. High speed rail doesn't cross the Florida border into another state. You'll have to go regular rail, as you already can. Sorry. :(

Look at it again, that one dot is in Jacksonville. I know it's a small map and you may have to squint but that dot is below the Florida/Georgia line and it goes north through GA.

[Ox]

Also, I think August 2010 is ambitious. Amtrak started soliciting bids for Acela in 1994. The first high-speed train ran on December 11, 2000.

[Johan]

Look at it again, that one dot is in Jacksonville. I know it's a small map and you may have to squint but that dot is below the Florida/Georgia line and it goes north through GA.

That's cheating.

Oh well...so one tiny corner of Florida can leave by high speed rail. I was wrong. :shrugs:

[Sandman]

Also, I think August 2010 is ambitious. Amtrak started soliciting bids for Acela in 1994. The first high-speed train ran on December 11, 2000.

That was kind of rhetorical.....they probably won't even have work started on it by then.

[National Kato]

Oh well...so one tiny corner of Florida can leave by high speed rail. I was wrong. :shrugs:

Jacksonville is the largest city, in area, in the contiguous 48 states at 758 square miles, not including the beach communities of Atlantic, Neptune, and Jacksonville Beach. I think it's a good place to include in the high-speed rail plan and not at all 'one tiny corner.'

Of course, full disclosure leads me to admit I'm a bit biased as I live here. :)

[Johan]

Jacksonville

Jacksonville is a pretty nice city. I have family that lived there until recently, as well as family in other parts of Florida.

In my defense, the resolution of the image made it quite difficult to see that the rail system crossed the Georgia/Florida border, and on the map, it is a very, very tiny spot. :)

Nice city, though.

[torrefaction]

Nice city? I disagree. Ugh.

[Slack3r78]

disneyland2vegas lololololololol

[Slack3r78]

Jacksonville is the largest city, in area, in the contiguous 48 states at 758 square miles, not including the beach communities of Atlantic, Neptune, and Jacksonville Beach. I think it's a good place to include in the high-speed rail plan and not at all 'one tiny corner.'

Of course, full disclosure leads me to admit I'm a bit biased as I live here. :)
Jacksonville's also a fairly major port city.

[Johan]

Nice city? I disagree. Ugh.

I haven't been there in perhaps eight years. Is it substantially different? I might be suffering false memories from a nice visit to an elderly relative, too...that's possible.

[National Kato]

Depends on what side of town you're on. Westside is shit, Beaches are nice, Riverside is beautiful, as is San Marco. Southside is overdeveloped.

A lot of changes, but there's a lot of it so it's not hard to find a nice area.

[Sandman]

Why doesn't Jacksonville get more big tours? I'm tired of having to go to Orlando, Tampa and Atlanta for shit.....love when I can just make the ~2 hour drive over to Jacksonville to the Arena or other places.

[National Kato]

We get some of the big 'Palooza'-type fests, although none of the really big ones, but yeah...bands skip us because we're so close to Orlando. I hate it, but not as much as you do...'cause I'm closer. ;)