True, but to a lesser degree than the country’s we’re comparing with. The areas that are totally empty are usually between nowhere and nowhere, and areas that are conveniently right between two urban areas are somewhat rural with a lot of suburbs mixed in. And we do have the interstate highway system, but a lot of people (including myself) believe that something like that could never get built today. Should we have invested in HSR 60 years ago? That’s an interesting question, but it isn’t really pertinent to whether we should do so now.
Plus… you can take Megabus for a pittance.
I agree that the US isn’t a great place on the whole for high speed rail. For example, Cecil did a takedown on a Midwestern high speed rail plan a few years back.
I would think that it might work in the Northeastern corridor, as well as parts of Florida. Also, I understand that there’s a stronger case to be made for upgrades that would allow 80 MPH transit. You could do that in Washington state, IIRC.
You cannot run high speed light weight passenger rail traffic on a track designed for low speed heavy freight. The design requirements of the two are different.
For reasons of right of way you’re not going to get the land to build the high speed rail in the east.
In the west perhaps you can get the land, but you’re going to have to force people at gunpoint to take rail over air.
Rather than across the country, I think America should look down the country - Vancouver to Seattle and on down to San Diego seems pretty sensible. Ditto Quebec City to Montreal to Toronto to Detroit and Montreal to New York to Washington and on down to Miami.
Why not?
Well, in Texas anyway, the high speed rail project that’s getting the most traction is between Houston and Dallas, and once you get south of about Ennis and north of about Conroe, there isn’t squat between the cities except a middling-small town every 15-20 miles or so- more or less 150 miles of zilch that the high speed rail would zip through without stopping.
I’m all for it; yes, taking SWA is marginally faster (45 minutes in the air, but all the hassle of going to the airport, going through security, dealing with weather, dealing with boarding, and so on and so forth. When all’s said and done, it still takes roughly 2-2.5 hours to fly from Dallas to Houston.
HSR is supposed to be about an hour and a half, and avoid 90% of the BS involved with flying between the cities. If my European high speed rail experience (Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Eurostar-London/Paris) is any guide, that’ll be true and the trip will be more comfortable and relaxed as well.
However, the hick legislators out in east-central Texas seem to have some sort of ass-pain about the idea that seems to be generated out of sour grapes arising from whatever eminent domain/condemnation may be necessary (they’re planning on using existing right-of-ways anyway), and a recognition that this rail line will bypass their towns and not allow them to sell barbecue, gas and other crap to drivers on the 5 hour trip between the cities on I-45.
Originally Posted by The Joker and the Thief View Post
And we do have the interstate highway system, but a lot of people (including myself) believe that something like that could never get built today.
I agree it could not be built in these times. Why.
NIMBY
Environmental Reviews
Save the desert rat
Save the prairie gopher
Save the mountain mice
Save the polar bears
you name it, some group will be come up with a cause and sue to stop.
I think the government with manly firmness and perhaps some liberal use of the National Guard to disperse the weepers and upper middle-class twits can deal with the worst impediments in this regard.
I don’t think the cost of laying down all-new track would be worth the cost, especially if additional land must be purchased.
Why the love for HSR*? Is it more environmental than other options?
-
- Not directed at BG.
For one, the country’s population has grown enormously since the beginning of the Interstate Highway System—by nearly 150 million, in fact. So the amount of disruption that would be caused has increased substantially. In addition, there’s a host of new laws that make new construction more difficult and expensive. Things like environmental reviews are almost certainly beneficial, but they also add to the cost of construction, and most importantly they provide a powerful mechanism for interest groups who don’t like a project for whatever reason to permanently stall and delay it.
As our incomes have increased, we’ve also become more accustomed to lives of leisure and luxury. So collectively, we’re less willing to tolerate forcing people from their homes, endless construction and noise, and the general inconvenience that accompanies all new projects. Put another way, the NIMBYism is worse than it once was.
But the biggest thing may just be that we have collectively lost the will to undertake huge and expensive engineering projects. I understand that this is subjective, and I suppose someone could disagree, but it seems that we just don’t have the desire to build big things anymore.
That seems to be a relatively good location for HSR. But I think it’s worth noting that passenger rail of all stripes has a pretty poor track record in the US. When an airline goes bankrupt, the public at large isn’t really harmed (beyond losses from lack of competition and jobs). When a railway goes bankrupt because Texans hate the government and refuse to not drive their pickup trucks, the public who paid for the project loses a lot of money. That isn’t a trivial consideration.
I think its sort of a chicken and egg proposition here-the public has lost much of its vision and will to undertake great engineering projects simply because few have been seriously proposed much less undertaken in recent years. While its true many have been seduced by the anti-modernist ideologies-both the neo-primtivism and anti-Occidentalism of the left as well as the do-nothingist libertarians on the right, most people still marvel at for example the various satellites and probes we have sent to the outer planets. Similarly, I think a national campaign can build support for new engineering projects and additionally could be the centrepiece of a revived New Deal liberalism that unapologetically embraces national greatness.
I don’t think it’s loss of vision but could be skepticism of execution. I live in Boston and the Big Dig was a major feat of engineering that turned into a cash boondoggle. Nobody wants to go through that again.
I think the race to driverless cars is a great engineering project.
Self driving cars on demand seem to be a better way for us. Totally autonomous, with a greater proven safety rating then human driven, better and unique use of road surfaces adapting dynamically, all traffic laws abolished, DWI a none issue, texting while driving a none issue, travel is faster, and fear from law enforcement is gone. Travel speeds are much higher yet safer, and people get to where they are going much faster, cats and dogs living together*.
- I may have dated myself on that one.
HSR is just silly. What would make more sense, as well as being more efficient, would be non-stop, live-station fast rail. At a steady 70mph, a train could cross the country in a bit over two days, using live-swapped tail cars to service stations along the way without having to stop, diving into tunnels in urban areas in order to avoid street traffic without slowing down.
Fuel? No problem: the locomotive and carriages ride in a tunnel, connected to the cars by struts that rise through a slot (a sort of “terrafoil” concept). The locomotive is a 1GW liquid salt thorium breeder reactor that turns most of its steam power into mechanical motion. Stations around the country have underground parking spaces where locomotive reactor units sit and generate municipal electricity while they are not pulling trains. As local power needs change, these reactors can be moved around the country to where they are needed. The tunnels insure that these units never derail and also afford a layer of shielding from the radiation.
Have passenger railways EVER paid for themselves? Even 200-ish years ago freight subsidized the passenger side of the business.
Unclear. When rail was the only fast method of travel, however, it had a big advantage. Even if it was a slight money-loser, it was almost certainly covering its variable costs and therefore contributed something to the net bottom line. Thus, it was valuable business. However, passengers are really annoying from a rail perspective, which is one reason the railways were eager to dump them once there were so few it wasn’t worth doing. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s expensive and slow compared to most alternatives today.
Freight subsidizes the highways as well, if it were not for truck traffic, we would probably not have our nice paved highway system. And motor fuel itself is heavily subsidized, the real price of a gallon of gas should be in excess of $8.
And how much do airlines actually pay to maintain the infrastructure (airports, ATC, NOAA) that they use, not to count how much their fuel is subsidized?
Transportation only looks like it fits properly into the free market. In reality, if mass transportation were run by not-for-profit GSEs, we might be able to get a better idea of the real costs.
The eminent domain bill is sponsored by Lois Kolkhorst, my very own Republican state senator. The rationale for her bill doesn’t even make sense. Here is a paragraph from her statement of intent:
[QUOTE=Sen. Lois Kolkhorst]
S.B. 1601 separates high-speed rail systems from railroads. All we are doing is calling a spade a spade. There is a very obvious distinction between railroads as they were originally intended and the idea of a high speed rail. One is founded in freight and commerce while another is focused on means of transportation. This bill is about keeping up with new technology and innovation.
[/QUOTE]
However, what her bill is really about is blocking the construction of high speed rail in Texas. I believe bump is mistaken in the reason for this. The needs of local communities is not the issue. This is a sop to the oil and gas industries, which are very prevalent in Senate District 18. Rail will take cars of the highways. The oil industry cannot have that!
Believe it or not, the plan is to have it a privately funded, for-profit enterprise.