What if Atlanta was a site of a massive nation-wide high speed rail? (2013, credit)

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Enough when you have people going to Clemson, Spartanburg and Charlotte on the same train. Perhaps even longer, Raleigh, Richmond, Washington D.C.

A real HSR system won't be stopping at Clemson and Spartanburg. As stated above, Atlanta-Charlotte, straight shot, that's more likely. Not even Atlanta-Macon-Savannah. Houston-Dallas might work as they are huge population centers with nice flat land between them. But I don't know how much traffic there is between them.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Yes, they are virtually unconnected and inaccessible now. Driving and flying to these places are both tantamount to a huge sojourn whereas riding a train is little more than getting to the station, and jumping on.

I flew to Seattle recently. Got to the airport, shot through TSA, hopped on the plane, and in a few hours, I was there. Way faster than by train.

Or they can take Megabus, or possibly even Amtrak to these "inaccessible and unconnected" places. It's like that ridiculous assertion that LRTs will "connect" Atlanta neighborhoods. Yes, yes, until the LRT comes along, places within Atlanta just won't be connected.

Subsidies are needed for highways too, especially now that the fuel tax can no longer pay for maintenance (if it ever really could). Even when (if) it could, subsidies were still needed to build the roads in the first place. Adding a robust transportation system to the region would pay the costs back in increased economic activity even if the fare recovery ration is less than 100%.

Why should HSR lead to more economic activity than before? Roads can carry commercial vehicles at all hours too whereas HSR is purely passenger. Probably better taking all those hundreds of billions of dollars for HSR and instead spend it on the highways rather than creating another subsidy to feed.

Oh good grief. I guess since private companies didn't build the Interstate Highway System you want it ripped up and all subsidies stopped?

Well, that's what a Turnpike is for and they work. But the Interstate System was largely paid by gasoline taxes. But it would be more appealing if the railroads were willing to put up a large part of the money along with federal funding but the railroads seem to be more interested in hauling freight.

[MattCW]

A train from Atlanta straight to Charlotte would take about 1:10 at 220mph without any stops. Adding just 3 stops only adds 45 minutes, but you get a large MSA, and a major college town. No one is going to fund a train straight from Charlotte to Atlanta with no intermediate stops, not enough ridership to justify it. But adding just three stops (plus maybe one at Charlotte airport) would easily justify the investment. Real HSR trains have much shorter distances between stations. They have to! Germany only has the area of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina combined. Some German Intercity Expresses between Munich and Nuremberg (105 miles) stop once between the endpoints, which gives an average station per mile of 52 miles, which for the 245 miles of Atlanta to Charlotte is 4.7 stations, or 3-4 intermediate stops, depending if you round up or down. So that's Clemson, Greenville, and Spartanburg, and a Charlotte Airport could still be justified. Please learn something about worldwide HSR and how it's actually done.

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I flew to Seattle recently. Got to the airport, shot through TSA, hopped on the plane, and in a few hours, I was there. Way faster than by train.

Well of course Seattle to New York is faster than by train. It always will be until we get 500mph+ maglevs (not in my lifetime). No one's debating that planes will be faster for long distances.

Or they can take Megabus, or possibly even Amtrak to these "inacessible and unconnected" places. It's like that ridiculous assertion that LRTs will "connect" Atlanta neighborhoods. Yes, yes, until the LRT comes along, places within Atlanta just won't be connected.

And how much more connected will they be once [insert_transit_type_here] is built?

Why should HSR lead to more economic activity than before? Roads can carry commercial vehicles at all hours too whereas HSR is purely passenger. Probably better taking all those hundreds of billions of dollars for HSR and instead spend it on the highways rather than creating another subsidy to feed.

Because, HSR is faster than the roads. All economic activity is generated by people, and non-perishable cargoes generally don't matter how long they're in transit as long as they get there.
The highway expansion will just create more subsidies to feed. Sounds like you're just anti-rail, because roads and airports need subsidies too, but you aren't railing against them.

Well, that's what a Turnpike is for and they work. But the Interstate System was largely paid by gasoline taxes. But it would be more appealing if the railroads were willing to put up a large part of the money along with federal funding but the railroads seem to be more interested in hauling freight.

Name a turnpike that is 100% economic solvent including making back the capital costs of its construction please.
Why should the railroads put up the money for an unconnected system that won't affect them in the slightest? You can't make money directly by hauling people anymore. That's why it's far more profitable for a large jurisdiction that sees the profit as increased revenues to put up the capital funding than for private entities to. If airlines and bus lines were held to the same standards as rail seems to be regarding funding, there might be two or three big airports, and a few busways between major points.

[Ant131531]

Well it works for places like Japan because Japan is much smaller and has very dense metropolitan areas including the largest one on the Earth, Tokyo.

[germansoldiers]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

How do you propose paying for this system? (I can't wait for this answer)

Hmmm, maybe the same way we paid for the interstate highway system? Would you be against that?

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by germansoldiers

Hmmm, maybe the same way we paid for the interstate highway system? Would you be against that?

Comparing the financial situation of the country in the 50's vs. today makes little sense.

Try again.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Comparing the financial situation of the country in the 50's vs. today makes little sense.

Try again.

You do realize we still fund the interstate system with tax dollars today, right? Maintenance and expansion is on-going and not cheap. It barely broke ground in the 50's. And want to talk about cost over-runs? The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006 dollars) and took 35 years to complete the initial build out, finally completing the original plan in 1992. And is expected to cost between $1.3 trillion and $2.5 trillion to rebuild the interstate highways over the next 50 years.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by jsvh

You do realize we still fund the interstate system with tax dollars today, right? Maintenance and expansion is on-going and not cheap. It barely broke ground in the 50's. And want to talk about cost over-runs? The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006 dollars) and took 35 years to complete the initial build out, finally completing the original plan in 1992. And is expected to cost between $1.3 trillion and $2.5 trillion to rebuild the interstate highways over the next 50 years.

And that highway system moves how many people on a daily basis? How much freight does it move and how much commerce does it facilitate?

Compare that to the cost of a nationwide high-speed rail system as some on here are advocating. The amount of benefit doesn't even come close to what the interstate system has provided. The subsidy from taxpayers on a per mile basis traveled on highways is miniscule because of the number of miles traveled. A HSR route would come no where near matching this, hence it would require much larger subsidies.

It is comical that THIS of all things is the reason that people are giving to build HSR.

[roadtrip75]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

See, unlike the anti-transit Far-Right, China understands that you have to invest in your infrastructure to make it work. They've now got a transportation system that puts ours to shame. What do we have?

One thing we have is a massive number of immigrants fleeing awesome China in favor of shameful America.

[jsvh]

GT, you have been through this before. You are biased against rail and in favor of cars. Any of your arguments could be used can be made both for and against the interstate and high-speed rail. The interstate is a massive public works project subsidized by tax dollars which has had massive economic benefits. High-speed rail is the same. I say turn all the roads into toll roads and let the market decide. Then transit and high-speed rail become a very sustainable private enterprise. Why should we subsidize one but not the other? How long would you resist transit if you had to pay $15 in tolls everyday to get to / from work? Or pay $50+ tolls to drive across the state?

Originally Posted by roadtrip75

Only a liberal could include increased housing costs in a list of "savings"

This is the difference between owning and renting. As a property owner you do cheer when property values increase. Also, oversimplifying political views will not get you far in life.