dagblog - Comments for "High Speed Rail is taking forever"

i always like to read some

Craigslist Dallas — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:35:00 +0000

In reply to High Speed Rail is taking forever

i always like to read some good and informative blogs and this blog is also so good and helpful. thanks for taking time to discus this topic.

The trains and public

cmaukonen — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:47:01 +0000

In reply to I just read up a bit on

The trains and public transport in France and the rest of Europe are also heavily subsidized. Say government subsidy in DC now a days for anything except the financial industry and you will get nothing but dirty looks.

I just read up a bit on

acanuck — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 05:28:50 +0000

In reply to It wouild indeed be expensive

I just read up a bit on France's TGV network (Train à Grande Vitesse). The basic technology is 30 years old, but its trains easily top 300 mph.

The TGV system turns a profit of well over $1 billion a year. And fares are comparable to those for slower trains traveling similar routes. This is sounding better all the time.

It wouild indeed be expensive

Austin Train — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 03:25:18 +0000

In reply to Donal...I would rather see

It wouild indeed be expensive to build, yet that expenditure would also be a wealth-generating multiplier, offering large numbers of highly value-additive jobs that could not be exported/offshored, because you can't outsource infrastructure - it has to be done in place.

People would also be needed to operate and maintain both track and rolling stock, attend to stations and interact with passengers/customers both at stations and on board.

And the work would extend beyond even those. Someone has to make the steel for the rail and the cars. Someone has to build the stations. An infrastructure providing power, be it electric or something else, will need upgrading or production.

China is doing it.

It's also worth considering that this could and would be amortized over quite some time, and I suspect the bonds issued to finance it would be worthwhile investments.

Only Canadians could come up

Doctor Cleveland — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 02:26:22 +0000

In reply to My impression is there's a

Only Canadians could come up with something so reasonable and practical.

We're watching you, pinko!

My impression is there's a

acanuck — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:26:02 +0000

In reply to Donal...I would rather see

My impression is there's a chicken-and-egg thing going on. Old, winding, dilapidated track is not up to carrying high-speed trains. The combined cost of rebuilding the system and buying high-speed rolling stock scares everyone off, so the whole thing just gets patched.

Just a thought: In the most likely corridors, as track needs replacing, why not upgrade to high-speed standards? Straighten where necessary, reinforce bridges, lay continuous-weld rails (if that isn't already standard). Riders will benefit, because even regular trains will be able to run comfortably at full speed.

When in a few years the entire corridor is high-speed-ready, you can replace the trains, at a more manageable capital hit. That seems to me to make more sense than putting high-speed trains on track that's not up to the task.

Donal...I would rather see

cmaukonen — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:25:39 +0000

In reply to High Speed Rail is taking forever

Donal...I would rather see money put into updating and upgrading our current rail service. A service that is used daily by many, many people. In stead of a high speed rail service that would be very expensive to build and very expensive to use and there for only used by those with the highest incomes.

Great post.This really is a

Doctor Cleveland — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:10:37 +0000

In reply to High Speed Rail is taking forever

Great post.

This really is a terrific example of how our system has become economically irrational. Super trains are both a profitable valuable outcome in themselves, and a very sensible hedge against very predictable problems (rising fuel prices, increased urban/suburban traffic). That we can't get it done means that we can't get our priorities straight at all.

I should have mentioned the

acanuck — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:54:43 +0000

In reply to While the Eastern megalopolis

I should have mentioned the Acela, since it was designed and built by Montreal-based Bombardier. But as you note, it's a potentially high-speed train that runs slowly because it lacks a purpose-built track.

There are a number of routes

Austin Train — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:51:11 +0000

In reply to High Speed Rail is taking forever

There are a number of routes that make sense. East Coast corridor stuff, certainly, once the right-of-way issues are resolved. Add in Chicago-New York, Chicago-Minneapolis, Chicago-St. Louis, LA-San Francisco, Miami-Atlanta-DC, Seattle-Portland-San Francisco. I'd add Chicago-Detroit if there was still any reason to go to Detroit.

New York-LA? Maybe not, unless there's some sort of premium experience involved and it's priced commensurately.

Those are just off the top of my head, and if it means genuine high-speed rail (200+ MPH) they will all become time-competitive with air travel, once the Homeland Security theater wait times are factored in.

This society is so far behind the curve on infrastructure it's scary.