High speed trains...

[Q5Quint]

I thought we tried the train thing once- had a bunch of chinamen building railroads across the country etc..... why did all that go away?

I think railroads are a great idea- but in todays distribution model utilizing highways, trucks, and busses I am not sure rails would win even if they were cheaper.

What are you moving? If it is people connecting the population centers makes sense. If it is goods then connecting ports and production centers makes sense. The thing is once you get off the train station you will still need to rent a car...

I can go from Charlotte NC to new york city for $107 bucks-
Thats 10-12 hours in a car or about 13 on the train (the traffic around DC is the hold up). $ wise it would be about the same in gas, but I don't have to worry about my car exploding on the train.

[z31maniac]

Amtrak would be profitable if it was a business that was allowed to shut down unprofitable service. You know, like the USPS.

^
So argumets for further rail devopment would flounder even more as it woud never pay for itsef either way

nrubenstein, how do you not get this?

[mrsleeve]

^

No dissagreement with that here. But then interstate rail service would be limited the NE and maybe some of the comuter routes around chicago into WI and MI but even then that would be a big if. So argumets for further rail devopment would flounder even more as it woud never pay for itsef either way

[nrubenstein]

Yes Amtrak has been OH so profitable.

How about the had to have it train line in portland iirc that had more coyotes riding on it than people.

Amtrak would be profitable if it was a business that was allowed to shut down unprofitable service. You know, like the USPS.

[mrsleeve]

^

Our fuel is not low cost while there is a pile of taxes built into its pricing matrix before you get to pay retail taxes on it, its just not taxed as much as the rest of the world.

So lets call a spade a spade here with the fact that even in this country the Feds make more money on Big oil than big oil does

[einhander]

What would it take to get some high speed rail? NY to SF would take about 24 hours. That's at 185mph and allows time for stops. I'm okay with that. I hate flying. I rode the TGV from Paris to Bordeaux and it was fantastic. Very easy to get on, organized, much better than flying, especially flying in America.

A cross-country HSR would be impossibly expensive to build. HSR is only economical compared to regional flights, ie - Northeastern Corridor.

In any event, I'm a fan of HSR. I haven't seen any analysis that looks at cost of subsidies versus overall economic and environmental impact, but I would assume that the overall benefit of HSR, even taking into account a subsidy, makes more sense than air or road travel.

And, our gasoline is insanely low priced. It's not a strict subsidy, but let's call a spade a spade. Oil companies park profits offshore, destroy the natural environment, and get generous tax breaks all over the place. I consulted for a few some years back and they were ridiculous!

[z31maniac]

Well, rail is also the only transit system that people seem to expect to operate unsubsidized. Make no mistake, highway and air travel is also heavily subsidized. It's just done differently.

This

Yes, highways are paid for by the gasoline tax. A use tax. (Even though this tax needs to be raised to reflect the cost of maintaining our infrastructure).

Rail and air travel get paid for by everyone, even those who don't use it.

That's what I'm against. Why should the rest of the country subsidize my vacation flights?

[mrsleeve]

Yes Amtrak has been OH so profitable.

How about the had to have it train line in portland iirc that had more coyotes riding on it than people.

[herbivor]

Well, rail is also the only transit system that people seem to expect to operate unsubsidized. Make no mistake, highway and air travel is also heavily subsidized. It's just done differently.

This

[nrubenstein]

High speed rail is a NOTORIOUS money loser.

Only two lines in the entire world are profitable. And the gov't would screw up the ease of train travel just like they have with air travel.

Well, rail is also the only transit system that people seem to expect to operate unsubsidized. Make no mistake, highway and air travel is also heavily subsidized. It's just done differently.

[mrsleeve]

High speed rail is a NOTORIOUS money loser.

Only two lines in the entire world are profitable. And the gov't would screw up the ease of train travel just like they have with air travel.

This

[z31maniac]

High speed rail is a NOTORIOUS money loser.

Only two lines in the entire world are profitable. And the gov't would screw up the ease of train travel just like they have with air travel.

[slammin.e28]

Bascially I was having a little chat with Inufaye about HS rail vs flying.

Started with this:

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-05-03/Spirits-100-carry-on-bag-fee-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/54736508/1

Airlines are a racket, but everyone seems to want to keep high speed rail suppressed, with only one, by definition high speed line in the North East.

I know it's a Wiki, but this is a pretty good read about HS rail in the US, and what has been keeping it from taking foot (not just a bad economy, but that is part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States

Discuss.

What would it take to get some high speed rail? NY to SF would take about 24 hours. That's at 185mph and allows time for stops. I'm okay with that. I hate flying. I rode the TGV from Paris to Bordeaux and it was fantastic. Very easy to get on, organized, much better than flying, especially flying in America.