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.
Compared to? HSR slots into the intermediate short-air-ride/long-car-drive distance, and it's not as if cars, planes, airports etc. are maintenance-free. Per passenger-mile, I'm not at all sure air wins out.
Planes fly through the air..........air does not require much maintenance........
On the other hand Trains run on high carbon steel.. very expensive. They require "ties" either wood,concrete,or steel,with the appropriate fasteners..........all VERY expensive. Airport runways would not even come close either........
China built 22,000 km (14,000 miles) of high speed rail in about 8 years, accounting for 65% of the world total, vastly transforming the rail transportation in the country. The US so far has built none, and one argument is that it is too expensive.
Admittedly it is much cheaper to build HSR in China than in the US. For China's case, it cost about $340 billion.
According to the world bank, it is 1/3 cheaper to build HSR in China than in developed countries. Let's say US cost is even higher and is three times as much. To build the same network it would cost US taxpayers $1 trillion.
Sounds expensive? Not really. During the same time China was building HSR, the US spent $2.4 trillion in the Afghanistan and Iraq war alone, enough to build the Chinese network 2.5 times.
Yet people still think it is too expensive to build high speed rail in the US, even in the densely populated coastal areas.
It is just unbelievable that there is not an outcry over such wasteful taxpayers money on foreign wars while not investing in the outdated infrastructure. For those who think "we have cars and planes, and we don't need the damn high speed rail", come on. That's just provincial because you have never taken a high speed rail.
...the sheer cost....all the people it will unhouse due to the thievery of eminent domain
all the crop land it will destroy
all the environment it will destroy
the economies it will destroy
and the shear cost of trying to build it
people don't like having their property stolen or taken...
people are not going to want a 200mph train screeching through or by their property
people with LIVELYHOODS are not going to want those jobs and careers destroyed because some feel good people said a hsr is the solution,....when there are dozens of other options
the COST, in not only time(aka man hours)(money) and equipment (also money) is very high
track (even the slow freight, or the standard passenger ) HAS to be kept with in gauge ((((The distance between the inside edges of the rails of standard gauge track 4 ft 8½ in.)(on slow freight lines you have about an inch to an inch and a half play (going wider (you CANT go narrower or else the trucks (what a train wheel is called) will ""walk over the track"" (derail))))(on passenger tacks like amtrak the tolerance is even tighter of less than 3/4 inch.....on HSR you HAVE to be exact)( but some play (1/4 inch to 3/8 inch) is needed to prevent binding in curves)
every day tracks get ''beaten-up'' by weather, movement of the earth, vibration of trains running on them, rotting ties, loosening spikes, etc
track maintenance crews (also know as a maintenance of way team) have to inspect/ repair/ replace ties, spikes, connector plate, switches, etc....you also have different types of rail (weight of rail) like 70 rail, 90 rail, 110 rail, 150 rail, etc.....maintenance of way is not just track maintenance, but also maintaining the way (clearance) (ie shrubbery that gets too close to the track)
also the radius of turns has to be considered, long passenger cars can not make a small radius'...then you also have your switches (normally a straight with a curve turn off) rail experts need to know the difference between a #4 switch, a #7 switch, and a #9 switch....HSR will need its OWN right of ways...will require special radiuses for curves
Quote:
Among the requirements would be acquiring the right-of-way for tracks with “minimum 3-mile radius curves vs. half-mile radius for traditional commuter rail track,” for safety at higher speeds. The proposed route would arc through central Connecticut rather than parallel to existing tracks.
not to mention new tunnels for the Hudson river crossing, especially since many of the old tunnels are getting quite old:
Quote:
“If we don’t get two new tunnels in New York in the next dozen years, we’re going to have major problems,” Boardman said.
The current rail tubes under the Hudson River leading to Manhattan were thought to have a lifespan of about 20 more years, but damage from Hurricane Sandy is worse than feared, as erosion to wires and concrete accelerates. Closing even one of the 3-mile long tunnels will mean reducing the current capacity of 26 trains per hour to only six.
The last plan to build new tunnels under the Hudson was killed in 2010 , because rising costs made it too expensive for the states to fund. While the threat of losing Hudson River access is the primary worry, Amtrak’s currently proposed Gateway Project calls for a complete upgrade of the Northeast Corridor with faster trains, updated stations, new bridges and other infrastructure to support faster service.
one of the big ticket items that helps track maintenance is The Sperry Rail Car, a bright yellow vehicle fitted with ultrasonic and induction test equipment, is designed to detect internal rail defects not readily visible to the human eye. Defects that are found can then be immediately by a crew of track maintenance personnel......the newest variant of the car.....15 million dollars
snip........
to the west coast project:
The $68 billion project is already running behind schedule and won't be completed until at least 2028. The Los Angeles Times reports that there are still significant political and financial hurdles ahead: The system isn't fully funded yet, some parcels of land within the right-of-way haven't been acquired, and a deal with freight railroads hasn't been worked out yet. There's a very real risk the rail line won't be completed at all.
Meanwhile, the world has only a few short decades to tackle blossoming carbon emissions in time to keep global warming under so-called safe levels, defined as a rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius. On the world's current carbon emissions trajectory, we'll use up our total carbon budget by 2042. Amtrak's true high-speed rail line in the Northeast corridor, promising three-hour transits between Washington, D.C., and Boston (down from seven hours currently on the Acela), isn't slated for completion until 2040. Time is not on our side.
Given the incredible pressure that global warming is inflicting, we can't waste precious resources on high-speed rail. It's impractical to hope that truly high-speed rail—the kind that will compete with air travel—will arrive in time to do much good.
Instead, limited public transportation funds should be prioritized for climate-friendly projects that will pay off more than high-speed rail in the same time frame. Some options for politicians: 1) Expand the use of upscale electric buses, 2) support self-driving vehicle technology, and 3) regulate airline emissions.
That $68 billion California plans to spend on its high-speed rail system could buy 82,000 state-of-the-art electric buses, 55 times Greyhound's entire nationwide fleet. And they could start operating immediately. Dedicated bus lanes and congestion pricing have done wonders for reducing commute-hell in many cities, like London. There are ways to make intercity bus travel more appealing, too, as evidenced by the expansion of carriers like wifi-enabled MegaBus in recent years. Similar "curbside" buses are the fastest growing mode of intercity transport and are the most carbon-friendly way to travel medium to long distances in the United States.
Self-driving cars would also do wonders for the climate if they can fulfill their promise to virtually eliminate traffic. A recent Columbia University study showed that replacing New York City's fleet of taxis with an optimized swarm of self-driving cars would reduce operating costs (and presumably fuel use) by more than 80 percent. Plus, you'd have to wait only seconds to catch one. Of course, there are significant technical, cultural, and legal hurdles before this vision becomes a reality—but the potential is truly immense.
Short-haul flights, those 400 miles or less, are the single most carbon-intensive activity most of us ever do. The proportion of domestic flights that are short-haul (and thus could hypothetically be replaced with rail or bus travel) has been declining in recent years, thanks in part to a rise in video conferencing and frustration with security procedures. But total miles flown on airlines are still increasing in the United States and booming internationally. High-speed rail would do precious little to slow that growth any time soon. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to issue new rules pertaining to air travel by 2016. Since planes frequently fly overseas, the EPA is likely to coordinate its rules with the United Nations, which could result in the first-ever emissions standards for newly built aircraft.
Good point...there are apparently a lot of HSR fans who think you can use existing freight rails for HSR, when you can’t. About the only part of an existing freight line you can use for HSR is the right-of-way the rails sit on. You’ll have to pull up the existing track and rebuild the whole thing, and it will cost much, much more per mile to build a high speed passenger rail than your average freight rail.
Exactly! The Northeast Corridor is built upon two predecessor systems -- The New Haven between Boston and New York, and the much better-engineered Pennsylvania between New York and Washington, The New Haven's electrical catenary is not as suited to higher speeds as the "Pennsy's", let alone the much newer wire north of the New Haven's namesake city. And as with the antiquated drawbridges, and even more so, the century-plus-old Hudson River tunnels, the costs are so high that the politicians don't even want to think about the price tag.
California is to be played under an entirely different set of rules; the centerpiece is an entirely new, no-freight-conflicts, 200-mph right of way between Bakersfield and Merced -- a huge improvement in speeds and performance; but getting into the metropolitan anchor cities from there will be a challenge -- don't even think of meeting the start-up dates promised via the rose-colored glasses of the political hacks. (I've posted in a couple of locations at this site regarding the origins of railroading in California, the freight-service bottleneck at Tehachapi, and how it affects this issue),
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-18-2017 at 03:32 PM..
"Inflated" wages?? I'd like to see you work on railroad tracks in that danger and against the elements at all hours of the night and day for about $25 an hour.............
Illegals would do it for $12 an hour and no pension. There is an ample supply of illegals. Funny how liberals who are the biggest supporters of illegals go to great lengths to protect inflated union wages.
Planes fly through the air..........air does not require much maintenance........
...
Airport runways would not even come close either........
I don't think anyone would deny that the up-front investment is higher for rail (and road) than for air. Of course, the runways are a minor part of the airport cost. Congestion in the air is becoming an issue - major airports are running very low on slots for take-off and landing. Aircraft are expensive, aircraft maintenance is very expensive, and aircraft wear out per cycle (take-off/landing) - which means that short trips are the more expensive in terms of aircraft life.
There is probably certain areas of the USA where it HSR would work......well, at least they could justify building it, it would still be a huge money-loser. But overall, it really does not make sense to build HSR....so many better, cheaper ways to get around.
Illegals would do it for $12 an hour and no pension. There is an ample supply of illegals. Funny how liberals who are the biggest supporters of illegals go to great lengths to protect inflated union wages.
That's just too funny.........I worked with those "illegals for decades. Trust me.......even they would not work under those conditions for $12,also working on the railroad is not as simple as some body raking your leaves......
I don't think anyone would deny that the up-front investment is higher for rail (and road) than for air. Of course, the runways are a minor part of the airport cost. Congestion in the air is becoming an issue - major airports are running very low on slots for take-off and landing. Aircraft are expensive, aircraft maintenance is very expensive, and aircraft wear out per cycle (take-off/landing) - which means that short trips are the more expensive in terms of aircraft life.
Meh, guesswork. Can't find solid figures.
You think locomotives and the other rolling stock are not expensive to maintain?
You think locomotives and the other rolling stock are not expensive to maintain?
As compared to aircraft maintenance? Dirt cheap. (Pretty much everything is dirt cheap compared to aircraft maintenance.) But we're spitballing, we need cost per passenger-mile.
Too many Americans are convinced that high-speed rail (or any sort of rail) is a dastardly commie boondoggle, and a power-grab by rapacious centralized government. Good idea or bad idea, it will never happen in America.
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.
