The answer? HIGH SPEED RAIL across America

[Taverner]

Yep, you should be able to board a train in SF and make it to NYC in under 7 hours. We have the technology

You should be able to ride our already existing transit systems at twice the speed (which would be around 100 mph) We have the technology

You should be able to take a high speed rail from SF to LA in 2 hours. We have the technology

Thing is, our Air Travel system is overstressed, and can't possibly handle all of the demand and still turn a profit - it simply isn't scalable.

But a rail system - much more scalable - if you fill up one train, add another car

Make comfortable seats, bring back the pullmans and bring back the dining cars

Hell, even give travelers an option to pay extra to bring their car on board

We have the technology for all of this. And we have the existing infrastructure

[tridim]

1. Damn socialist train-lovers.

How does this idea make the filthy rich, richer?

:nosarcasmneeded:

[tonysam]

2. I Wish We Had It in This Country

It's probably too expensive to have coast-to-coast high speed rail, but I sure loved taking the high speed trains in Italy. They were first-class of course, between Rome and Florence, and Rome and Naples, but man, they were great.

[Taverner]

11. Their employees can do business trips for cheap

T & E is a huge huge expense

[gauguin57]

88. Here's MY favorite damned socialist train-lover

[BlooInBloo]

3. /signed.

[newmac]

4. The French have been doing it for years.....

We could have maglevs for ALL to use across the US; it would enchance our productivity and economy.

Instead we poured trillions down a war shithole.


Look where we are now.

[FSogol]

30. Bad agrument. French is slightly larger than Georgia.

Here in No. Va commuter rail must yield to CSX trains, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to use existing tracks.

Good idea, but not as easy a project that some suppose.

[Angleae]

72. Actually, it's the size of Texas. 5 times that of Georgia.

And a population almost twice that of California.

[deadmessengers]

5. 400mph?

NYC-SF is about 2800 miles. That would mean your train would have to average 400mph, including stops. The fastest trains in common use (The French TGV, the German ICE, and the Japanese Shinkansen) anywhere in the world max out at around 320kmph, or about 190mph. In fact, the world's record of 574kmph (or about 360mph) was set in France a couple of years ago.

I'm as big of a fan of rail travel as anyone - I've been on all three of the rail systems referred to above - but I just don't see long-haul high-speed rail being viable in the US because of the sheer size of this country. One of the many reasons that Amtrak is laughable is the fact that it was poorly suited for cross-country trips. It's not a coincidence that the only profitable lines that Amtrak runs are in the densely-populated Northeast.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Sure, but it's not really the point...

For long stretches (1/2 the country, about), air will be the way to go. For less than that, it would be train, in a well-run country.

[deadmessengers]

15. Ultimately, people have to choose it, though.

For rail travel to be a preferred alternative over air travel for any given route, it will have to be substantially faster, substantially cheaper, or substantially more comfortable, and preferably all three. Right now, for any rail trip of more than five hours (Atlanta to Charlotte is an example of a five-hour rail trip), that is simply not the case.

Rail has it's niche - among people with severe irrational air-phobia, for example. In fact, my mother-in-law is visiting right now from New York (I'm in Atlanta), and she takes Amtrak even though it's costs roughly double the price, and takes ten times the time, because she's petrified of the idea of being on a plane.

There are a number of things (for example, dedicated passenger rail right-of-way acquisition) that could make medium haul rail travel closer to viable in the US, but I remain unconvinced that they're politically possible or even the most efficient use of transportation dollars.

[BlooInBloo]

23. (facepalm)

[deadmessengers]

26. Not sure where you were going with that. n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

83. It's kind of hard for people to choose something that isn't available

except for a couple runs on the east coast.

[Taverner]

9. Well they haven't been built yet, but the technology is there

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. That's right

It pleases me greatly to totally agree with your points on this topic.

[Taverner]

38. If you agree with me does that mean one of us will explode before midnight?

:P

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. I would hope not!

I'm just happy there is something upon which we agree! :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. I'm old enough to remember when there were a lot more rail lines

in the Midwest, where I grew up. I've taken trips that lasted overnight, and frankly please give me trains over planes any day of the week. We just need to upgrade the existing lines, re-established the old lines, and add connectors.

[Taverner]

68. Bring back the Pullmans!

Sleeper cars were nice in Asia

[zeemike]

85. It could be a lot different if we think innovative

In National Geographic in 1969 I think Aug or Sep issue although I don't remember the exact month they covered a plan to build high speed ravel that would make the airplane obsolete with the high speed lines that could reach near the speed of sound...faster than a jet and would use a fraction of the energy, and would eliminate traffic accidence DWI and a host of other problems associated with transportation.
Now before you call it pie in the sky just remember the National geographic is petty respectable, and if you can find some old issues and look it up for yourself. It could have been done in 1960 with that eras teck and it would be even easier now.
I don't have time to describe it to you but if interested you can find it.

[cali]

6. 3,000 miles in 7 hrs by rail?

Could you provide some links for that? That's over 400 miles an hour.

[saltpoint]

22. My Aunt Laura May, God rest her soul, could drive at least that fast in a

Buick.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. Yes, we should do it.

and here is one way to do it.

[GoesTo11]

10. Agree, but with some qualifiers

To do SF to NYC in 7 hours would require a dedicated line (so no delays for switching to a different train) going over 400 miles per hour. Fastest trains are close to 200 miles per hour. At that speed, it would be 15 hours or so, and it would probably cost about $100B (slower 125 MPH trains are about $20M per mile). With a cost of capital only 5% plus operating costs on the same order, this line alone would cost $10B per year to operate. How much traffic is there now between SF and LA? Let's guess it has about 1 million passengers a year. Then the cost per passenger comes out at $10k per trip. For comparison, try Washington DC/NYC. 150 miles, capital cost around $5B, so annual cap plus operating cost of $1b, would have 10-100x as many trips, cost per passenger trip comes out at $10-$100. Maybe around $30 (comparable to low cost intercity HS trains in Europe). Also, since this would be faster than flying (and cheaper), should be easy to utilize it. From there, it would make sense to add other high-volume short distance links (NYC-Boston, Chicago-...) around a few hubs. Cross-country links would be the last thing, maybe once costs somehow come way down.

High speed trains are an excellent idea, but to gain acceptance, it's best to give the right economic argument rather than hype. For short distances, they would already be attractive to US consumers compared to flying. For long distances, they would just be government waste (at least for now).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. From 2005:

[GoesTo11]

28. Good start.

But I'd can the Oklahoma City - Tulsa line - wtf? It'd be cheaper to provide free jet service to everyone who ever wants to travel between those two cities. There's a few others like that there. And why doesn't the network reach Orlando? Heck, they could make the last leg a monorail!

Looks like a lot of this is pork, just so most states can get something. But it's the right idea. Maybe this is ok for phase 2 or for lower-speed high speed trains, once the technology is accepted here and we learn how to do it right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. I'm assuming it's a precursor to a Tulsa-St. Louis line.

:shrug:

Eta: A San Antonio-STL line. Which eventually hooks up to the east coast.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. I would soooo do this rail thing!

To be able to drive to Little Rock and take a TRAIN to DFW would make the trip so much less stressful. And I hate to fly--changing air pressure does a horrible number on my ears--so this would be a dream come true.

I hope the next step would be to link the corridors, like a line from Houston to DFW, a line from Little Rock to St. Louis, a line from St. Louis to Carbondale IL.....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Yep.

[AntiFascist]

56. gee, where's the route that connects Disneyland to Las Vegas?

Rush talked about it so it must be true.

:sarcasm:

[Thothmes]

76. Looks like a much more doable plan

than a transcontinental line this thread supports, JMO

[catnhatnh]

12. Infrastructure, New Hampshire to Florida....

Train Dover NH to Boston MA. Taxi to separate train station. Boston MA to NYC. Change trains. NYC to DC. Change trains.DC to Orlando FL. Detrain and load onto bus.Orlando to Winter haven....Total 22hrs at a cost of over $500.

Jet Blue Boston to Orlando. 3 Hrs, $117.

I like trains but they have to be viable first.

[Taverner]

50. Supply and Demand

Make them as uncomfortable as Amtrak and sure, no one will ride them

Make them comfortable, fast and SUBSIDIZED just like the airlines are

[janet118]

91. Comfort is important . . .

I took one of the first ACELA rides to NYC from Boston. They made the seats like coach airline seats and had people standing in the aisles and because of delays and stops it was not much faster than a regular AmTrak train.

Keep the seats comfortable - lots of people are willing to give up the speed if they have the comfort of stretching their legs. Add better food and communication services. Trains also have the advantage of ending up right in the city - not at some airport on the outskirts (Dulles to DC cab fare @ $70/about 1/2 hour.

Use the airlines for speed. Slowness is not a bad thing if it is relaxing and rejuvenating and you can get a bit of work done.

[tanyev]

13. It's ridiculous that Texas doesn't have it.

It would be the best way to connect all of our large cities. I think the Southwest Airline lobby has fought it tooth and nail, though.

[Deja Q]

14. Texas lacks all sorts of things.

Including functioning brain cells, but at least the airport smells like leather boots.

[Captain Hilts]

16. I really don't want to go THAT fast on a train. Let's get NY-Chicago/DC-BOS squared away first...

and get a bazillion planes out of the air on the East Coast.

[Lex]

17. Agreed.

nt

[SpartanDem]

18. The focus needs to be

on regional high speed corridors east coast, west coast, etc. The over stressing of air system is not due to long distance travel, but short to medium distance. Cross country rail travel died in 1950's so thinking of ways to make it viable again are a waste of time.

[saltpoint]

20. Very sound idea for job creation. Very good also for our long-term

transportation and energy needs.

Very good for regional economies and collateral job creation.

A safe and impressive way to get from coast to coast.

I'm for this to happen, as extensively as it can be undertaken and as soon as possible.

[NeedleCast]

21. I dont think you understand how supply and demand works

[WillyT]

24. Looks Like They Want To Start Here:

Notice that routes that involve western mountains are not considered as of yet.

Not sure about the engineering and speeds through mountain ranges...

Anybody know?

:shrug:

[bananas]

40. some info on mountains

I've seen this discussed on cahsr.blogspot.com and googled a snippet.
I think the main reason there are no HSR mountain corridors is that there aren't many people there,
HSR is mainly useful for connecting nearby megacities. See the map at www.america2050.org
edit: In the snippet below, ICE stands for InterCityExpress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid#German_high-speed_competition

http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/04/harry-reid-moves-on-maglev-to-vegas.html?showComment=1208448240000#c8603494026002562089

<snip>

Maglev brings several advantages to the table, and I'm quoting from the TransRapid web site, so if you think I'm blowing a lot of hot air then take it up with them...

1) Lower energy consumption at speed, roughly 2/3 that of HSR. This is because of the frictionless guideway. The 2/3 that is still used is primarily due to aerodynamic drag as the second anonymous poster points out.

2) Better performance on gradients. The ICE has a maximum grade of 4% while the Maglev can do 10%.

<snip>

[Taverner]

51. I smell a song about monorails coming on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAk2BBhQm1o

[Taverner]

47. Use the old line in CA that passes by Mammoth Mtn

Bonus: Mammoth Moutnain can be easily reached from the Bay Area for the first time

[XOKCowboy]

57. The Cascades and the Rockies are huge obstacles to HSR

The existing corridors through those mountains would have to be completely re-engineered for High Speed rail of any kind. Even through the flats of Nevada the current westbound Amtrak trains are down to 30-40 mph on some of the uphill switchbacks. I'm not sure what it would take to get HSR over Donner Pass.

[Taverner]

58. How about if you bypass the Sierras and Rockies?

And just have a high speed from LA to Orlando that connects with other lines?

OR: get this

Starts in LA, goes through the desert and then turns North right before the Appalachians, and heads East to DC?

[XOKCowboy]

61. That would seem to be easier

Follow I-10 then up to I40 and it's a straight shot to the Mississippi and beyond. Spurs up to Las Vegas, SLC, Denver, Chicago, Texas, etc. Yeah I can see it. The point is though for High Speed Rail we're still talking about upgrading or replacing all of those lines.

[Taverner]

62. And that would mean jobs, right?

Jobs all around - building, upgrading, planning, engineering, coordinating...

[leftofthedial]

25. how much would ongoing track maintenance cost?

[stlsaxman]

63. ongoing track maintenance would cost about all the jobs it would produce.

[mainer]

27. 9/11 made me a big believer in trains

I got stranded on the west coast and couldn't fly home to New England for over a week. No rental cars available. Buses full. It made me realize how utterly dependent we are on airlines -- and what a terrible idea it is to be so reliant on one form of transportation in this country.

[LWolf]

29. That's one answer,

and I'll support it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

31. Sounds good, but ...

I bet TSA will find a way to screw up the experience ...

Same checked baggage limits as airlines, same 3oz limits on liquids, jammed into a one-quart sandwich baggie, and, you want to load your car on my brand-new spiffy high-speed train? Terrist! We gotta bring out the explosive/drug/produce-sniffing dogs.

I don't think it will be like just getting on an Amtrack or Greyhound.

DHS and TSA won't miss this opportunity to expand their kabuki.

:hi:

[Taverner]

44. Meh - just put cops at the stations

Give them a healthy dose of cash to design the perfect security arrangement for that city.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. Good morning, America, how are ya?

Don't you know me, I'm your native son?
I'm the train they call the City of New Orleans
And I'll be in style before Obama's done!

(with apologies to Steve Goodman for re-writing his song).

[onethatcares]

39. man, that would be awesome.

I was in Italy for a short time and the train rides were better than the tourist traps by far/:toast:

[Cerridwen]

42. Upsides, downsides of building on and/or expanding current rail infrastruction?

_{I, {not I, Cerridwen} the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one.}

From this link

Do we need to re-invent the rail or rail lines?

[Taverner]

43. Well if we do, we already own the land...

[Cerridwen]

48. Do we still? Or do the rail lines now own it? I'm feeling too lazy to google.

A downside would be replacing inadequate our outdated materials. Would costs of "tearing up" and replacing be offset by other factors?

[dysfunctional press]

45. and the question- "What's would be a great boondoggle to distract investment in electric vehicles?"

while i might eventually like to see high-speed rail done on regional levels, and grown to a nation-wide network...it's not something that the majority of people would want or use. people LIKE their personal vehicles, and we'd be much better off investing in electric cars and the infrastructure to support them.

[Ron Green]

52. Make electric vehicles easily available for rent at the train station.

Multimodal solutions are the future; owning personal transportation is a limited idea.

[dysfunctional press]

54. "owning personal transportation is a limited idea."

sorry- but it's what the vast majority of americans GREATLY prefer.

[Ron Green]

55. Of course they do. But what people prefer and what is sustainable for continued life on earth

are sometimes different things.

The private automobile has had a hundred years, a good long run. If we want to keep the technology for future use, we're going to have to share: instant rentals, co-op use, and public transportation.

[dysfunctional press]

59. the private automobile is what our infrastructure and socirty is already centered around...

and will continue to be for a good long time.

obviously, they won't always be powered by internal combustion engines- but here in the u.s, they will remain the primary means of conveyance, for the bulk of the populace. there already is/are, and will continue to be car rentals, co-op use, and public transportation, where the need is there to support such alternate services.

[Taverner]

67. That's why it would be nice to take your car with you on a trip, no?

Imagine paying the extra $20 to ship your car with your person

[dysfunctional press]

74. actually- i'd rather fly and rent.

most of our long-distance trips are to dive locations anyway- islands and the like.

[1]

75. heh. yeah, imagine that. like it would ever cost $20 to ship your car with you...

how about we think about the $1000 it would really cost you.

imagine how fun that would be.

each way.

do people actually think about things before they post here? or do they just imagine...

[Taverner]

79. No I like fucking with total assholes like you

[DrCory]

77. Personal Ownership...

of transportation is empowering. I, for one, am deeply suspicious of folk who advocate primary reliance on the state for personal transportation.

[DainBramaged]

46. One, right of way, two construction costs to create high-speed capable rail

three, what is the passenger potential?? Anyone know?

[Kazak]

49. I've been clamoring in Oklahoma for years.

Connecting all OKC metro area with it's outlying areas (Norman, Edmond, Mid-Del, Bethany, ect... (connect to Tulsa network as well)). I believe commerce would benefit along with other obvious environmental payoff. Probably won't even happen with these sticks in the mud. :mad:

[sufrommich]

53. I would love to see that. I hate to fly. I do it but I hate it. nt

[Thothmes]

60. What technology do we have toda

that will allow you to run a train at 400 mph up to 6,000 ft in the Rocky Mountains.

[Taverner]

64. Bypass the Mountains

Run a line of slower connector rails that only go 100MPH that connect to a line that goes from LA thru AZ, NM, and then heads up to avoid the Appalachian Mountains, and off to DC.

[Thothmes]

65. What technolog do we have today that will allow

100 mph train over the the Rockys Eastern CA, AZ and NM all have substantial mountain ranges. The Applachian Mts run from Maine to central Georga. Your route adds at least 800 miles to the route. What speed will a train have to make to cover that distance in 7 hours.

[Taverner]

66. Magnetic

No the HHS will provide the backbone with HS trains making up the difference

[hack89]

86. MAGLEV is incredibly energy intensive

how many more power plants are you counting on to make it work?

[1percenter]

71. Still mountains in New Mexico

You still have the problem, at least in New Mexico, of a lot of big mountain ranges that run north-south. Some of them are really big - not Colorado big, but still 9-10000 feet.

[Cerridwen]

69. I've been googling a bit. Apparently, if we combine a few ideas

from those "evil foreigners," we might be able to create high-speed legs based on France's TGV ("The newest high-speed lines allow speeds of up to 320 km/h (200 mph) in normal operation") and get around, up, and through mountain ranges using technology as they have in the Swiss Alps. Of course that may mean we have to traverse the Rockies and the Appalachian ranges at places other than their highest peaks. The Colorado River for the Rockies and the Hudson for the Appalachian. The Swiss Federation is currently tunneling through the Alps and so presents another option.

Of course, rail in Europe never quite died out like ours did here so they've had quite an advantage over trying to build a complete system at once. But think of the jobs.

Oh well. It's unrealistic and we can't do it. We have neither the ingenuity, the political will, nor the willingness to accept "foreign" technology in favor of our own.

Or so I'm told.

[XOKCowboy]

81. Tunnels and lots of them

To go west from San Francisco with HSR you have to go under the Cascades and not over them. Same in the Rockys. Now that's some infrastructure building.

[Stinky The Clown]

70. Two words: You Betcha!

[Lorien]

73. A MagLev system would be perfect

and Ive been saying that a National high speed rail system would be one of the best ways of getting people back to work and making Americans more mobile...but Big Oil will never tolerate it. :-(

[madokie]

78. I like

the idea to take the auto with one on a vacation by rail then have it to do the local traveling.

[FudaFuda]

80. Monorail!

[Cetacea]

82. I've been pondering this very idea for the past month or so. Yes!

[dpbrown]

84. To the Greatest Page You Go

We've needed high-speed rail for a long time. Let's get going.

[anonymous171]

87. Transnational rail is a gigantic waste of time and money.

Statewide rail (organized by the states themselves) would be good though.

[guyton]

89. we don' t have the infrastructure

Some random observations ...

Cars and trains don't mix. The trains in Europe don't block auto traffic, they're on different levels.

The existing routes are very often too twisty to just be used for high speed.

The only profitable part of Amtrak (last I checked, a few years ago), was the "AutoTrain" where they'd ship you and your car between NY/Florida. And the only reason it was profitable is that they (Amtrak) were able to avoid the capital expense of building the specialized cars by buying them on the cheap from the original company -- that went bankrupt.

I'm all for high-speed rail, but don't try and reuse existing right-of-ways.

Oh, and make taking your car with you easy on long trips :-)

[KG]

90. building a high speed rail network for people & freight now would be a

bold and forsightful project. in 50 years it will be seen as a precsient move.

of course there are very few men of courage and vision in places of power in this country.

[dem mba]

92. one issue though

is price.

Somehow, and I've always heard conflicting information as to why, but it can be and often is cheaper to FLY to Boston from New York City then take the train (Acela). So even if we get high-speed rail it will still need to be cheaper than flight or people will flat out not do it.

[crimsonblue]

93. EASY Solution to anti-train thought:

Legalize BYOB on trains, or make alcohol cheep and accessible. If people can sit on a train for 6 hours from KC to Chicago all the while getting drunk, then they will do it. Hell, if I could get plastered on the train, I'd think about taking the Friday train from KC to Chicago, spending a crazy weekend in Chitown, and then taking the Sunday red-eye with sleeper car back to KC. It'd be the perfect weekend trip.

[Still Sensible]

94. I think HS Rail is more likely to be

useful in large metro areas and between large metro areas and others that are within a couple hundred miles or so... like between:

LA and Las Vegas
LA ans San Diego
LA and Palm Springs
San Francisco & Reno
Phoenix and Tucson
Dallas and Houston-Austin-San Antonio
Miami and Tampa-Jacksonville
Houston-New Orleans
Detroit-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Indy
New York & Boston
New York and Albany-Buffalo
New York & Philadelphia
New York & Washington

There are plenty of these shorter routes that may make sense as opposed to trans continental.