High Speed Rail

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm not a fan of this, but whatever....

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...share_blogpost

No connection from SLC to Portland or Seattle, no thank you.

[kccougar]

Have you seen the proposed costs for the high speed line between Southern and Northern California? I can't imagine what a nation-wide system would cost with Federal project management.

[myboynoah]

No connection from SLC to Portland or Seattle, no thank you.

You can connect through LA.

[Moliere]

Isn't it kind of a chicken or the egg argument? Highways and highway spending is much more efficient because so much has been invested in them over the century to make them so. Had as much effort been put into high speed and light rail, would it not have resulted in a much more efficient system?

So I guess there are two questions: (1) is it too late to start spending on rail; and (2) is it worth the investiment to hope for future efficient rail travel?

I'm somewhat biased here, but suffice it to say that I really don't think high speed rail is a good solution for the US. Sure it works great in small, condensed pockets (Boston to NY to Philly to DC) but when you get to Texas high speed or low speed rail is almost useless. Our cities are far too spread out both within the city and between cities. It's just not convenient to travel 1,000 miles by rail when we have such great air infrastructure.

Europe has invested a lot of money into rail, and it works for them. But they also have really high gas prices, very condensed cities, few energy alternatives, and small distances between major cities. You can get pretty much anywhere in France using rail and sometimes it's even convenient, but going from Rennes to Paris (halfway across France) is like going from Dallas to Houston.

[Indy Coug]

Isn't it kind of a chicken or the egg argument? Highways and highway spending is much more efficient because so much has been invested in them over the century to make them so. Had as much effort been put into high speed and light rail, would it not have resulted in a much more efficient system?

So I guess there are two questions: (1) is it too late to start spending on rail; and (2) is it worth the investiment to hope for future efficient rail travel?

I just don't see where the added value in high speed rail is. It seems to me that train is a viable form of transportation only when it serves numerous high density population areas that are in close proximity to each other and/or where other forms of transportation are not as readily available. Furthermore, it also typically requires effective forms of public transportation such as buses and subways as additional support.

Because air travel in the US is in ample supply and is both efficient and cost-effective, there really isn't much of a market for train travel to capture.

The 19th century ended quite awhile ago and the US needs to stop pissing away money on a venture that simply doesn't have any real demand and has such a terrible cost/benefit ratio.

[Indy Coug]

I'm somewhat biased here, but suffice it to say that I really don't think high speed rail is a good solution for the US. Sure it works great in small, condensed pockets (Boston to NY to Philly to DC) but when you get to Texas high speed or low speed rail is almost useless. Our cities are far too spread out both within the city and between cities. It's just not convenient to travel 1,000 miles by rail when we have such great air infrastructure.

Europe has invested a lot of money into rail, and it works for them. But they also have really high gas prices, very condensed cities, few energy alternatives, and small distances between major cities. You can get pretty much anywhere in France using rail and sometimes it's even convenient, but going from Rennes to Paris (halfway across France) is like going from Dallas to Houston.

France and Texas have comparable square mileage.

[Uncle Ted]

France and Texas have comparable square mileage.

I wouldn't mind taking a high speed train from Dallas to Houston or Austin especially if was private...

Robert Eckels, who's pursuing a high-speed rail project in Texas, says his company will take a different approach. “We’re not looking for a big chunk of cash from the state of Texas or the federal government,” Eckels told Governing.

Eckels, the former executive of the state's largest county (Harris) is now president of Texas Central High-Speed Railway, which hopes to run a bullet train between Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth area by 2021. It would transport passengers about 240 miles in 90 minutes or less. “It’s an aggressive schedule,” he says, “but not unreasonable.”

What makes Texas Central's plan different from other high-speed rail projects is that it doesn't depend on government funds. The company is still in the early process of securing financing, conducting engineering analyses, and developing economic and environmental feasibility studies, but it could be a model worth watching -- one that would be a stark contrast to the effort in California.

[Mormon Red Death]

Why hasn't any high speed rail thought of having rail cars where you could drive up in your car and it would take the whole car to wherever you are going?

[Marvin Hardtospell]

Why hasn't any high speed rail thought of having rail cars where you could drive up in your car and it would take the whole car to wherever you are going?

The Eurotunnel, which connects Folkestone, UK to Calais, France, offers this service. You drive your car onto the train and then drive it off when you are on the other side of the channel without ever leaving your car.

[Mormon Red Death]

The Eurotunnel, which connects Folkestone, UK to Calais, France, offers this service. You drive your car onto the train and then drive it off when you are on the other side of the channel without ever leaving your car.

Wouldn't that work best for America? Save the costs of taking the train into the big cities.