Why doesn't US aggressively in passenger rail infrastructure? (prices, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Commuter passenger/freight rail conflicts are a lot less common in the present-day tansportation network because "retail railroading" serving small customers is no longer profitable. But mainline freight traffic has grown while the physical plant has shrunk -- hence, more conflicts with Amtrak.
And California is breaking ground on it's much-anticipated West Coast HSR system, but there are going to be a lot of growing pains; the people citing the French, Japanese, and Chinese systems have simply been led to expect too much, and too soon. But as on the East Coast, there will be gradual improvement, and I expect land use, rather than energy concerns, to be a stronger determining factor,
Nobody's going to get everything they want, but "The Die is Cast"
I would be shocked if California ever builds it. I have very little faith in transportation progression in this country. The United States will continue to fall behind other 1st world nations when it comes to mass transit. It's quite sad given that once upon a time, the US used to be at the forefront of transportation in the world.
Look I'm not against public transportation or passenger rail at all since I have used the Keystone Corridor before myself and have stated that in this topic several pages back. I'm against commuter rail since it tends to be a half assed system. It can cause freight and passenger rail delays. My view on the matter is you might as well bite the bullet and spend lots of money to separate both passenger rail and freight rail. That way neither interfers with the other and sharp increases for freight rail won't effect passenger rail and vice versa. Freight rail is more important in the long run then passenger rail is in regards to economics, ware and tare on infrastructure (due to the amount of commercial truck traffic it takes off the road), and environmentally (again due to the reduction in commercial truck traffic). So to do passenger rail right in the United States just make it two different systems. It would work out better in the long run with population growth and increased freight on the rail roads.
Yes, and what actually happens during such proposals is that when people understand the price tag of building a parallel system, everyone including the politicians are simply going to walk away. Money doesn't stop flowing when the project is finished, railways are very expensive to maintain, and the more trains you can have sharing a track, the better return on investment you get.
Even if such a parallel system was built, people would still be disappointed. Trains can be delayed for a multitude of reasons other than interfering freight trains. It would be nice, though it would also be nice if the govt decided to build an own personal private highway for every citizen in order to avoid delays and traffic mishaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
You don't need high speed rail for most passenger rail but there is no reason why you can't have higher-speed rail. As far as passenger rail goes in the US I honestly believe it would be better to start up most of it from scratch as this point. Yes it will be extremely expensive but after it's done you would have passenger rail on it's own system and be able to increase the speed of it and have trains go across it daily then what we currently have available for passenger rail. As far as tonnage goes getting moved across the US it's all going to increase massively over the next two decades. So what's not at capacity now is going to very likely be at capacity later.
Yes, and then you'd have to pony up double the money for track maintenance if track mileage was theoretically doubled.
Considering the delays and court battle going on I think we can do a lot better then that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
^This is nice deflection but at the end of the day the two are conflicting and something needs to be done. A train full of sulfur has actually took 27 hours to go through Chicago before. Chicago has some very long freight delays caused by commuter rail in that city. So yeah commuter rail is no paradise and at the end of the day is still a piece of **** system.
27 hours is not that uncommon of a dwell time in terminals unfortunately. I agree, Chicago is a major rail chokepoint in the US, and the effects are felt throughout North America. There's a ton of projects that would need to be done to make it even slightly better. But considering all the congestion on Chicago rails, i'm amazed how well they still manage to run everything in and through it. It's unlike any other rail hub in the world.
Spending money to replace at-grade rail-rail crossings with flyovers, adding more mainline tracks, improving yards to make them more fluid, adding signal systems, improving tracks and lifting speed restrictions, in Chicago only would have a nationwide positive impact on rail traffic, unfortunately it's a work in (sometimes slow) progress. I'm not even going to count how many active and busy freight tracks an Amtrak from Chicago to St. Louis has to cross at grade before they're even out of Joliet city limits. Alot, but overpasses aren't being built, so they're going to have to run with what they have for now. It's not going to be without problems, but it's perfectly possible to develop that existing line to be a fluid one. They have top priority on that stretch, so the freight trains wanting to cross will sit and wait if need be though.
Simple answer: the US has already overextended its commitment to the highway system. We can't barely afford to keep that system up, let alone fund the expansions new exurban citizens are demanding.
We'll the oil jihadists in the middle east are keeping oil low right now. Gas is cheap. Tax the heck out of it. People will pay 5$ a gallon. That will pay for your traffic, potholed roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic_Vega
Heck if that is your attitude, why even bother leaving the house.
Agreed. This an attitude of many of americans. there is no can do spirit anymore. Its worse that soviet stagnation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llowllevellowll
Please do formulate your own republic and move there.
Its unbelievable that someone would give up their liberty for security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic_Vega
Yes, and what actually happens during such proposals is that when people understand the price tag of building a parallel system, everyone including the politicians are simply going to walk away. Money doesn't stop flowing when the project is finished, railways are very expensive to maintain, and the more trains you can have sharing a track, the better return on investment you get.
Even if such a parallel system was built, people would still be disappointed. Trains can be delayed for a multitude of reasons other than interfering freight trains. It would be nice, though it would also be nice if the govt decided to build an own personal private highway for every citizen in order to avoid delays and traffic mishaps.
Yes, and then you'd have to pony up double the money for track maintenance if track mileage was theoretically doubled.
Considering the delays and court battle going on I think we can do a lot better then that.
27 hours is not that uncommon of a dwell time in terminals unfortunately. I agree, Chicago is a major rail chokepoint in the US, and the effects are felt throughout North America. There's a ton of projects that would need to be done to make it even slightly better. But considering all the congestion on Chicago rails, i'm amazed how well they still manage to run everything in and through it. It's unlike any other rail hub in the world.
Spending money to replace at-grade rail-rail crossings with flyovers, adding more mainline tracks, improving yards to make them more fluid, adding signal systems, improving tracks and lifting speed restrictions, in Chicago only would have a nationwide positive impact on rail traffic, unfortunately it's a work in (sometimes slow) progress. I'm not even going to count how many active and busy freight tracks an Amtrak from Chicago to St. Louis has to cross at grade before they're even out of Joliet city limits. Alot, but overpasses aren't being built, so they're going to have to run with what they have for now. It's not going to be without problems, but it's perfectly possible to develop that existing line to be a fluid one. They have top priority on that stretch, so the freight trains wanting to cross will sit and wait if need be though.
I used to think that NYC was Number #1 when it comes to rail. I never knew how important Chicago was. Its a shame Chicago does not lobby for a better passenger rail system. They hold basically the western part of the nation in their hands for transportation.
Yes, and what actually happens during such proposals is that when people understand the price tag of building a parallel system, everyone including the politicians are simply going to walk away. Money doesn't stop flowing when the project is finished, railways are very expensive to maintain, and the more trains you can have sharing a track, the better return on investment you get.
Even if such a parallel system was built, people would still be disappointed. Trains can be delayed for a multitude of reasons other than interfering freight trains. It would be nice, though it would also be nice if the govt decided to build an own personal private highway for every citizen in order to avoid delays and traffic mishaps.
People said the same thing about the Erie canal and that was a major economic benefit to the US before the rise of the rail roads. People said the same thing about the Hoover Dam and look how important that is to the southwestern United States. People also said the same thing about the Interstate Highway system and yet today Americans can't imagine life with out it. Point is if the US actually did what I'm suggesting we could ship freight across the United States faster and have a rather nice passenger rail public transportation system.
Quote:
Yes, and then you'd have to pony up double the money for track maintenance if track mileage was theoretically doubled.
The United States has done it before on large infrastructure project no reason why it can't do it again.
Quote:
27 hours is not that uncommon of a dwell time in terminals unfortunately. I agree, Chicago is a major rail chokepoint in the US, and the effects are felt throughout North America. There's a ton of projects that would need to be done to make it even slightly better. But considering all the congestion on Chicago rails, i'm amazed how well they still manage to run everything in and through it. It's unlike any other rail hub in the world.
Spending money to replace at-grade rail-rail crossings with flyovers, adding more mainline tracks, improving yards to make them more fluid, adding signal systems, improving tracks and lifting speed restrictions, in Chicago only would have a nationwide positive impact on rail traffic, unfortunately it's a work in (sometimes slow) progress. I'm not even going to count how many active and busy freight tracks an Amtrak from Chicago to St. Louis has to cross at grade before they're even out of Joliet city limits. Alot, but overpasses aren't being built, so they're going to have to run with what they have for now. It's not going to be without problems, but it's perfectly possible to develop that existing line to be a fluid one. They have top priority on that stretch, so the freight trains wanting to cross will sit and wait if need be though.
What I'm proposing would costs trillions I've been upfront about that since I initially brought up the idea in the first place. My point is we can continue doing patch work or just deal with heavy cost short term pain now...or just keep on doing patchwork till it's not possible to do anymore and it hurts way worse in terms of congestion and a much higher price tag. Either way the entire rail system both freight and passenger needs to be improved. Yes it will cost trillions yes unfortunately there will be a lot of eminent domain but to be truly the best in the world rail systems without long delays is going to require it.
I used to think that NYC was Number #1 when it comes to rail. I never knew how important Chicago was. Its a shame Chicago does not lobby for a better passenger rail system. They hold basically the western part of the nation in their hands for transportation.
NYC has the most extensive passenger rail system in the country, but it's freight volume isn't that high.
Why doesn't US invest aggressively in passenger rail infrastructure?Do people like getting their civil rights violated by the TSA? Do they like getting up 2 hours earlier and waiting at gates? I hate going to the airport personally. I find train so much more convenient. may be if gas prices went went really high and traffic was backed up to hell, people would change their minds. i only like taking the bus on weekends. There's less traffic.
The reason the US isn't covered by rail is the size, and the fact that we spend TONS of money on our military bases that protect Europe's fragile infrastructure. We simply cannot afford to prop up Europe's economy and ours as well ANYMORE.
Good luck Europe on going on without the hated Americans' support, for it is surely near its' end.
We're going nuclear unless you're going to invest in renewables.
.
I fully support nuclear energy, but it's not going anywhere in the US for a while. Sure, 1/2 new reactors might be built in the next 20-30 years, but that's it. Wind and water are cute, but nuclear is the only power source that can actually replace fossil fuels and it's not taking off any time soon.
Any theoretical train will run on coal/gas.
And the "Rights being violated" speal: Who constitutes the bulk of flyers? Business travelers. What is their #1 priority? Speed. They want to go to their meeting and come home to their families, not spend 2343x hours on a train.
NYC has the most extensive passenger rail system in the country, but it's freight volume isn't that high.
Those of us who were around in the Sixties can recall a time when freight cars were floated across the Hudson to piers in lower Manhattan on what are called "car floats" -- a small portion of this technology sill operates.
And many of the railroads used to operate public warehouse subsidiaries; a carload shipment of appliances, for example, would be held at the railroad's warehouse and resold to dealers all over the city according to individual customer preference.
Al this died out as the cost of operating the "downtown" warehouses and piers escalated, and the "big box" stores found a way to deliver the product at lower cost. The same merchandise deserted the railroad boxcar for the highway trailer, but the lower line-haul cost of rail operation is putting that trailer (usually without the wheels, axles, hubs, etc.) on a flatcar, and delivering it to a terminal somewhere out in the suburbs or exurbs -- Norfolk Southern alone has at least four on the approaches to New York. From there it can be trucked to its final destination with more flexibility.
I guess the best thing to do would be to start from the state level then move up to interstate and then national.
Alexander Hamilton would turn in his grave at the pace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
