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.
I would love to be able to go across the country on HSR, travelling well over 100mph, but what is it going to cost? The cost to build it will probably never be covered by the revenue from tickets, but there is an even higher expense that a lot of the designers have never considered.
The United States economic power was built on railroad tracks
Without the railroad, US would be a 3rd World country.
The United States economic power was built on railroad tracks
Without the railroad, US would be a 3rd World country.
Before 1900, it was the preferred method of travel for passengers going further than a days ride on horse and buggy. Trains still carry a significant amount of freight, but not so much for short distances. We are pretty much still dependent on rail freight to move bulk freight such as coal, crude oil, other chemicals, cement and the like.
But, when it comes to passenger traffic, rail has a lot more competition these days. If we had to choose between eliminating passenger traffic on trains or the automobile, There would be a lot of rail passenger cars on the market as surplus. There are places where the rail passenger service makes sense, but we are no longer dependent on it.
I would love to be able to go across the country on HSR, travelling well over 100mph, but what is it going to cost? The cost to build it will probably never be covered by the revenue from tickets, but there is an even higher expense that a lot of the designers have never considered.
An airplane can be brought down relatively easy by a terrorist if security is lacking at its point of origin. That has been proven time and time again. If security is tight, once the plane takes off, the plane has an almost 100% chance of making it to its destination.
But what about high speed trains? A terrorist would not have to be anywhere near a station or even a big city to blow up the train anywhere along its tracks as it passes by. Can it be secured all along its path? How much would it even cost to do so? Don't forget that high speed rail will only become viable with long enough routes to overcome the down side of the time it takes to get to/from the station at either end, not to mention the need to have a rental car much of the time.
It is not healthy to be paranoid about the possibility of a terrorist attack, but it would be silly not to consider the possibility at all. All it would take is one such incident to turn 100s of billions of money invested in high speed rail into a money pit. They are talking about tens of billions just to run one of these trains between DC and Baltimore right now.
Do you think it's worth it to spend that much to turn a 40 minute drive into a ten minute trip, when you can actually get to where you want to go in less total time?
I cannot see any good reason for HSR unless it is built from surplus funds, something we have not seen in the US for a long time, if ever.
I don't think terrorism should come into the question of high speed rail. The trains already travel at a speed high enough for terrorists to target.
Also I don't think high speed rail is being considered for cross country trips. Only for certain shorter trips between high population areas.
That being said I would love a faster train ride across America.
In this discussions nobody ever mentions how much it cost to build a highways and how much it cost to maintain it.
Does take a genius to see that is cheaper to build and maintain rail.
In this discussions nobody ever mentions how much it cost to build a highways and how much it cost to maintain it.
Does take a genius to see that is cheaper to build and maintain rail.
Rail systems vary greatly in cost depending upon the purpose for which they're intended; a rail line that hauls only a single commodity, preferably not prone to damage (I.E: coal or ore), in large quantities but single trainload shipment, and is not heavily trafficked is much less costly to build and operate than one offering frequent passenger schedules in an urban environment. And the problems and expense go even higher when freight and passenger operations share trackage.
I expect rail passenger operations to continue to expand -- particularly now that the West Coast "HSR"? project is off the drawing board and the dirt is flying. But the people who are expecting something on a par with the built-from-scratch French and Japanese systems have a lot to learn, and it will take a lot of time to learn it.
And Mr. Costaexpress' enthusiasm notwithstanding, I wouldn't bet the family cattle ranch on "driverless cars"; the technology will continue to evolve, but the obstacles to be overcome are too diverse and too numerous to be completely resolved within just a few years.
In this discussions nobody ever mentions how much it cost to build a highways and how much it cost to maintain it.
Does take a genius to see that is cheaper to build and maintain rail.
I would imagine it is even cheaper to operate a horse* and buggy, and it can even go where there are no roads, but it wouldn't be any more practical than building only rail projects and ignoring roads.
*The fuel for the horse is generally a renewable resource.
In this discussions nobody ever mentions how much it cost to build a highways and how much it cost to maintain it.
Does take a genius to see that is cheaper to build and maintain rail.
The highway system has the auto and oil industries backing it, as well as the highway and trucking lobbies. The RR system has bubkus. This is America, where corporate interests prevail over the public interest.
Do you think it's worth it to spend that much to turn a 40 minute drive into a ten minute trip, when you can actually get to where you want to go in less total time?
I cannot see any good reason for HSR unless it is built from surplus funds, something we have not seen in the US for a long time, if ever.
Man, those Japanese must be crazy to build their Maglev rails.
But as far as I see it, the question boils down to why invest anything in yourself if terrorists can kill you tomorrow. Think how easy it is. A man with a gun, one bullet and bingo...
Think how much you can save if you don't buy food anymore, get education, pay mortgage, taxes...
What's the point?
As for infrastructure in general, US is in such pitiful situation, it cannot be considered an advanced country in line with Japan, Finland, Germany, France.. We are more in line with Mexico, Guatemala, etc.
Man, those Japanese must be crazy to build their Maglev rails.
But as far as I see it, the question boils down to why invest anything in yourself if terrorists can kill you tomorrow. Think how easy it is. A man with a gun, one bullet and bingo...
Think how much you can save if you don't buy food anymore, get education, pay mortgage, taxes...
What's the point?
To date, the maglev, like its cousin the monorail, remains an experiment, and a costly one. The problem isn't the technology itself; it's that such a system requires a heavy investment in a fixed right of way that cant be easily expanded or moved should demand or travel patterns change. Expansion and/or improvement of conventional rail-based systems is a far more flexible option.
Quote:
As for infrastructure in general, US is in such pitiful situation, it cannot be considered an advanced country in line with Japan, Finland, Germany, France.. We are more in line with Mexico, Guatemala, etc.
Oh, please stop being so judgemental! We are only "backward" when judged from the viewpoint of self-righteous Europhiles who see the natural human desire for individual mobility and autonomy as a threat to some supposed "greater common good" --- to be penalized by imposition of punitive taxes and other unnecessary demonstrations of centralized power and abuse of authority by a not-so-benevolent state.
Americans will voluntarily reduce their gasoline consumption via the natural workings of supply and demand, aided by technological progress in the form of hybrids, ethanol, and expanded public transit alternatives when and where they are feasible. The easing of crime and safety concerns, fueled in an earlier time by stronger racial and social polarization, is another positive.
When I was growing up in an essentially-rural area in the Sixties and early Seventies, I knew of the option of saving fuel and money when visiting large cities by leaving the car in the suburbs and taking the train the rest of the way, but I would find few takers among my friends and neighbors. That situation has mitigated somewhat, as much from urbanites' relocation into the exurbs as from economic considerations. But there are many of us out here in the country for whom mass transit is simply not a workable option most of the time, and we've arrived at that conclusion without Big Brother's/Sister's "help".
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-14-2015 at 01:45 AM..
To date, the maglev, like its cousin the monorail, remains an experiment, and a costly one. The problem isn't the technology itself; it's that such a system requires a heavy investment in a fixed right of way that cant be easily expanded or moved should demand or travel patterns change. Expansion and/or improvement of conventional rail-based systems is a far more flexible option.
Oh, please stop being so judgemental! We are only "backward" when judged from the viewpoint of self-righteous Europhiles who see the natural human desire for individual mobility and autonomy as a threat to some supposed "greater common good" --- to be penalized by imposition of punitive taxes and other unnecessary demonstrations of centralized power and abuse of authority by a not-so-benevolent state.
Americans will voluntarily reduce their gasoline consumption via the natural workings of supply and demand, aided by technological progress in the form of hybrids, ethanol, and expanded public transit alternatives when and where they are feasible. The easing of crime and safety concerns, fueled in an earlier time by stronger racial and social polarization, is another positive.
When I was growing up in an essentially-rural area in the Sixties and early Seventies, I knew of the option of saving fuel and money when visiting large cities by leaving the car in the suburbs and taking the train the rest of the way, but I would find few takers among my friends and neighbors. That situation has mitigated somewhat, as much from urbanites' relocation into the exurbs as from economic considerations. But there are many of us out here in the country for whom mass transit is simply not a workable option most of the time, and we've arrived at that conclusion without Big Brother's/Sister's "help".
The problem is that people keep using Europe as an example of everything as of European civilization is some sort of standard in the world. When it comes to high-speed rail, they keep using countries that are small in size and dense. The United States is neither. there are areas in the US such as Northern California and the north east seaboard where such high-speed trains could potential abuse. Very mind that a lot of these areas already have very good train links. But to say that this country as a whole needs high-speed rail and force other people to ditch their cars to take trains is a hilariously ignorant view.
It comes down to the quest for the control of the population.
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.
