High speed trains

[Tim]

Excellent point.

I'm guessing the Founding Fathers are continuously spinning in their graves.

Don't be naive, IPU! George Washington suggested the location for Washington, DC because much of the Virginia side of the Potomac was HIS LAND and he was interested in increasing the land value of his plantation. Don't forget that Robert E. Lee was a descendant (through marriage and adoption) of George Washington, and Lee's land in Arlington was land he had inherited from George Washington's estate.

Don't fool yourself, IPU: The founding fathers were opportunists.

[Surfah]

They're at about the same level as our taxes + the amounts we pay for things they get paid for by taxes.

Amtrak owns the rolling stock and the schedules, but until the infrastructure (which is owned by the old railroad companies still) gets improved, there's no way for Amtrak to improve the quality of their equipment. The tracks and switching systems do NOT belong to Amtrak, and they're the issue here, not the Amtrak service. Amtrak could improve speed and service if they had better infrastructure to work with.

Service is still issue an issue regardless of the tracks. I leave from an unmanned station. Nothing is automated. I buy a ticket onboard in the cafe car. It's all paper transactions. The conductor keeps everything in a backpack including a manual credit card imprinter. Who the hell still uses a manual imprinter? If anyone has waited for their train in Penn Station they'd know what a zoo it is. It's far worse than any airline terminal. They don't tell you what terminal your train is departing from in advance. Instead everyone gazes at the giant monitor with glossy eyes until it is revealed after which it's a mad dash with luggage in tow to avoid the Forrest Gump experience I alluded to previously. As JIC pointed out, the train is cost prohibitive in most circumstances despite subsidies. The cafe car is a joke. Microwave hotdogs, hamburgers, and pizza with amusement park pricing. Still, the trains are often overcrowded (and uncomfortable). I have yet to ride Amtrak (25 times or so in the last 10 months) and depart or arrive on time. My last experience I was scheduled to depart at 2:30 pm and didn't end up arriving at my destination until after 10:00 pm. Apparently the train had suffered a break down in North Carolina. But there is no up to date monitoring service from my unmanned station. Only an automated number that one can call that is woefully inaccurate let alone cumbersome to use because it is voice activated which has its own issues at a train station and outdoor platform like I was at. Riding Amtrak is no different than riding a Greyhound bus which I swore I'd never do again after my mission.

I personally believe our nation's highway systems too good for American's to seriously consider rail travel for any significant distance. As horrible as air service has been the last couple of years it's pricing is still competitive with any rail ticket. As Tim pointed out tracks are an issue, but only in that they can't sustain high speed systems found in other countries. That is an aspect of service I guess, but not integral to Amtrak's failings. The cost would be astronomical to implement a high speed train system and even with subsidies I fear that any attempt would meet Amtrak's same fate. The median track idea is interesting but is it feasible inter-city and not just inner-city? I doubt it.

[ERCougar]

Service is still issue an issue regardless of the tracks. I leave from an unmanned station. Nothing is automated. I buy a ticket onboard in the cafe car. It's all paper transactions. The conductor keeps everything in a backpack including a manual credit card imprinter. Who the hell still uses a manual imprinter? If anyone has waited for their train in Penn Station they'd know what a zoo it is. It's far worse than any airline terminal. They don't tell you what terminal your train is departing from in advance. Instead everyone gazes at the giant monitor with glossy eyes until it is revealed after which it's a mad dash with luggage in tow to avoid the Forrest Gump experience I alluded to previously. As JIC pointed out, the train is cost prohibitive in most circumstances despite subsidies. The cafe car is a joke. Microwave hotdogs, hamburgers, and pizza with amusement park pricing. Still, the trains are often overcrowded (and uncomfortable). I have yet to ride Amtrak (25 times or so in the last 10 months) and depart or arrive on time. My last experience I was scheduled to depart at 2:30 pm and didn't end up arriving at my destination until after 10:00 pm. Apparently the train had suffered a break down in North Carolina. But there is no up to date monitoring service from my unmanned station. Only an automated number that one can call that is woefully inaccurate let alone cumbersome to use because it is voice activated which has its own issues at a train station and outdoor platform like I was at. Riding Amtrak is no different than riding a Greyhound bus which I swore I'd never do again after my mission.

I personally believe our nation's highway systems too good for American's to seriously consider rail travel for any significant distance. As horrible as air service has been the last couple of years it's pricing is still competitive with any rail ticket. As Tim pointed out tracks are an issue, but only in that they can't sustain high speed systems found in other countries. That is an aspect of service I guess, but not integral to Amtrak's failings. The cost would be astronomical to implement a high speed train system and even with subsidies I fear that any attempt would meet Amtrak's same fate. The median track idea is interesting but is it feasible inter-city and not just inner-city? I doubt it.

The interesting question is, why is this so different from so many nationalized train systems in the world? Is it our high car ownership? The fact that our cities are so spread out? The low cost of gas?

[Surfah]

The interesting question is, why is this so different from so many nationalized train systems in the world? Is it our high car ownership? The fact that our cities are so spread out? The low cost of gas?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And our highway system is superior to anything else in the world and we pay very little to use it.

[Surfah]

Il Paddy should appreciate this Libertarian stance on high speed rails in America:

Scroll down for the entire article.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9753

[il Padrino Ute]

They're at about the same level as our taxes + the amounts we pay for things they get paid for by taxes.

Amtrak owns the rolling stock and the schedules, but until the infrastructure (which is owned by the old railroad companies still) gets improved, there's no way for Amtrak to improve the quality of their equipment. The tracks and switching systems do NOT belong to Amtrak, and they're the issue here, not the Amtrak service. Amtrak could improve speed and service if they had better infrastructure to work with.

In other words, their taxes are substantially higher.

No thanks. I pay too much as it is.

[il Padrino Ute]

Don't fool yourself, IPU: The founding fathers were opportunists.

But were they as corrupt as today's politicians? Were they as beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists as today's politicians? Did they believe in more government intervention in the lives of citizens as much as today's politicians?

[BigPiney]

The interesting question is, why is this so different from so many nationalized train systems in the world? Is it our high car ownership? The fact that our cities are so spread out? The low cost of gas?

The geography of the US versus Europe is a huge part of the problem. Check out the map on this page: http://goeurope.about.com/od/europea...arison-map.htm

We are just so big.

Look how many nationalized train systems it would take to just cover half of the US.

[Tim]

Yes. Yes. Yes. And our highway system is superior to anything else in the world and we pay very little to use it.

Define "superior." Spanish highways and freeways are absolutely amazing. Smooth, clean, wide, safe, flat, etc. I've been all over our country and I've never seen highways and freeways as amazing as the ones in Spain.

[ERCougar]

Define "superior." Spanish highways and freeways are absolutely amazing. Smooth, clean, wide, safe, flat, etc. I've been all over our country and I've never seen highways and freeways as amazing as the ones in Spain.

French highways were the same. But more expensive.

For the anti-government folks, just realize that we've nationalized our highway system instead of our train system. I imagine that's a function of geography, like BigPiney said.

[beefytee]

Define "superior." Spanish highways and freeways are absolutely amazing. Smooth, clean, wide, safe, flat, etc. I've been all over our country and I've never seen highways and freeways as amazing as the ones in Spain.

I have to agree. I don't see anything special about the US highway system. Sure the Interstate Freeway system is nice, but it nothing special, and I would say that the non-interstate freeway roads are substandard to the roads in Canada.

Other countries I've been to have adequate highways as well (Germany, Korea, China).

[Surfah]

French highways were the same. But more expensive.

For the anti-government folks, just realize that we've nationalized our highway system instead of our train system. I imagine that's a function of geography, like BigPiney said.

Superior in that we have an interstate system that with the exception of some tolls/taxes is pretty much free to travel. Which I guess is a nationalized product if you want to argue that. I'm not sure I buy it. Everyone here is pointing out country's that aren't even as large as some of our states. Our population density can't accomplish what these small countries can.

We are a victim of geography among other things. Most of our cities don't even have adequate public transportation. And we want a national railway system? Most of these high speed trains benefit from train/rail systems already in place. The bullet train for example in Japan doesn't go all the way to Osaka, but another express takes you the rest of the way. We don't have the local transit in place to support a high speed system like other countries do. Rails and cars need to be upgraded constantly. My wife's family owns a railroad line in Oregon. It is an expensive operation. Far too expensive a burden for the American taxpayer to build a high speed system. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't pan out. Not even close.

[ERCougar]

Superior in that we have an interstate system that with the exception of some tolls/taxes is pretty much free to travel. Which I guess is a nationalized product if you want to argue that. I'm not sure I buy it. Everyone here is pointing out country's that aren't even as large as some of our states. Our population density can't accomplish what these small countries can.

We are a victim of geography among other things. Most of our cities don't even have adequate public transportation. And we want a national railway system? Most of these high speed trains benefit from train/rail systems already in place. The bullet train for example in Japan doesn't go all the way to Osaka, but another express takes you the rest of the way. We don't have the local transit in place to support a high speed system like other countries do. Rails and cars need to be upgraded constantly. My wife's family owns a railroad line in Oregon. It is an expensive operation. Far too expensive a burden for the American taxpayer to build a high speed system. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't pan out. Not even close.

I'm not arguing for a nationalized rail system. I completely agree that it's a function of our geography--like I said in my first post. But it's not a function of "government screwing everything up" or these rail systems wouldn't work so well in the many examples we're pointing out.

[beefytee]

Superior in that we have an interstate system that with the exception of some tolls/taxes is pretty much free to travel. Which I guess is a nationalized product if you want to argue that. I'm not sure I buy it. Everyone here is pointing out country's that aren't even as large as some of our states. Our population density can't accomplish what these small countries can.

We are a victim of geography among other things. Most of our cities don't even have adequate public transportation. And we want a national railway system? Most of these high speed trains benefit from train/rail systems already in place. The bullet train for example in Japan doesn't go all the way to Osaka, but another express takes you the rest of the way. We don't have the local transit in place to support a high speed system like other countries do. Rails and cars need to be upgraded constantly. My wife's family owns a railroad line in Oregon. It is an expensive operation. Far too expensive a burden for the American taxpayer to build a high speed system. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't pan out. Not even close.

What is the infrastructure cost of building and maintaining both systems?

The rail system seems like it would scale better. But yeah, sparsely populated regions don't need to worry about scale.

I don't know which one would be cheaper to build and it seems like it would be difficult to compare.

[Surfah]

I'm not arguing for a nationalized rail system. I completely agree that it's a function of our geography--like I said in my first post. But it's not a function of "government screwing everything up" or these rail systems wouldn't work so well in the many examples we're pointing out.

Obama wants a national train system.

I'll concede that is was botched before the government intervened. The freight trains were getting killed on their passenger cars. The government should have never passed the Rail Passenger Service Act. That was their mistake. Why they felt the need to preserve passenger trains is beyond me. They keep prolonging the mistake as this "service" only continues to be a burden on taxpayers. To be fair, nobody or no private corporation can/could salvage the passenger rail system. The government should have let it go bankrupt.