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.
All systems, regardless of their function tend to have a technical evolutionary aspect to them. That realization should be the driving force in developing the necessary passenger train structures sooner rather than later. As a more viable HSR based transportation system becomes the rational choice for commuting logistics we will be needing a much more efficient system than the one that utilizes the present rail infrastructure as a cost cutting measure.
The one constant in the argument against a better transportation system is that of cost. I've looked at the costs associated with the building of large scale systems in our recent history and found that many were thought of as an astronomical burden forced upon the public. Dams, highways, space program infrastructure, huge public institutions, and a host of other costs that were absorbed by the collective of government allowed the US to have the framework to become the huge economy that it is.
That framework was the result of visionary types who advanced the notion that economies needed structure in order to expand. Now we'll need people who can look forward to the reality of energy alternatives being needed to maintain the current scale of economic activity, the cost will be staggering for a society that balks at the kind of taxes needed to scale up for that reality.
If you don't squander the money on high speed rail, some other bureaucracy will come along, take that money, like the Pentagon, and squander it somewhere else. And if there should be surplus funds one day, the Pentagon will be the first to grab it!!!
So! Quick! Quick! Build it, squander it, before that happens!
A lot of the posts in this thread don't seem to differentiate between "High Speed Rail", which involves longer distances between separate urban areas, and commuter or rapid transit services, which serve a city's suburbs and, with increasing frequency, its airport.
The only "true" High Speed Rail systems, which were built as new railroad main lines, are in Japan (1964) France (1980) and China. This was possible because Japan was in ruins when the system was proposed, and France is both dominated by a single mega-city, and allows the liberal use of the principle of eminent domain, whereby private property can be seized for public use. The German and Spanish systems involved extensive upgrading of existing rail lines. China is, of course linked to heavy reliance on centralized economic "planning", with all its potential for both miscalculation and abuse.
What passes for High Speed Rail in America is limited to the Boston-Washington "Northeast Corridor"; its Acela services have a top speed of 150 MPH, but only on a small portion of the route, 110 and 135 MPH top speeds are possible in some rural areas, but various sharp curves, tunnels, drawbridges and urbanization prevent full benefit of the technology.
The fastest "commuter" trains of which I'm aware are In New Jersey on Amtrak's min line, which allows for 110 MPH running beginning on the south side of Newark, and another increase south of New Brunswick.
California is in the early stages of developing a network, and the political polarization will keep things moving only in fits and starts. But the plan calls for brand-new trackage in the flat and less-populated Central Valley, so higher top speeds are possible. But getting over the San Gabriels into the L. A. Basin is going to be costly.
High Speed Rail is an idea that works under some conditions, but it has had the misfortune to be linked to one side of the nation's current political polarization, and by people who tend to oversimplify things. I expect it to continue to develop, but it's going to be a slow and costly process.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-12-2014 at 04:26 AM..
The cost of a high speed rail system is in the land that you would have to imminent domain. Railroads are fortunate in that the land for the track was built upon/bought up long before we expanded westward as a population. Today every foot of track would have to be bought from someone.
The cost of a high speed rail system is in the land that you would have to imminent domain. Railroads are fortunate in that the land for the track was built upon/bought up long before we expanded westward as a population. Today every foot of track would have to be bought from someone.
Eminent domain=Compulsive sale of whatever stands in governments way. There will indeed be a time of reckoning with the cost of our advancement of a more sane transportation paradigm. The automobile has seen it's sun setting simply because the population numbers have squelched it's viability, and expanded highways are not cheap alternatives to rail expansion utilizing current freeway R.O.W.
Those opposed to a more viable solution to our horrendous traffic troubles seem offended by "the cost" of alternatives yet advocate for building more roads (doing the same thing and expecting different results) as a way to mitigate the ills brought by a too large population bearing on an old infrastructure. We are entering a different time than that which built the Interstate highway system, and these times call for a solution to the failure of our roads to carry traffic at speeds they were designed for.
Rail in this century will be using different terms to define the types of utility they can offer, "high speed" is simply a term meaning faster than current heavy freight speeds, "light rail" means just that, lighter cars, lighter loads, and a lighter footprint using current road right of ways. We hear of "super trains", Mag-lev, trolley, subway, etc, but, they all will be considered when looking for alternatives. One other view is that the viability of greater housing distances (cheaper) from economic hub cities will be included in the plans to expand rail.
But the over crowding of highways are only in and around urban centers, and really only twice a day. Most places do not have crowded roadways for the majority of the day. Perhaps instead of looking for ways to move a lot of people a short distance twice a day, five days a week, we should be looking for ways to alleviate this this crowded rush.
As I said previously, the future of rail is not commutes or travel, it is and always will be freight
I'd agree, we need to change the way fuel taxes are applied. A tax based on the weight of the vehicle and miles driven would be ideal, this would increase the tax for large trucks who really aen't paying enough. That will help drive some of the long haul freight off the road onto rail where it belongs. You'll end paying more for goods in the store short term, perhaps carve out a niche in the tax for local deliveries to help alleviate that. Long term costs will decrease as more freight moves to rail, with less trucks you reduce costly maintenance on roads and can lower the fuel tax(I won't hold my breath).
But the over crowding of highways are only in and around urban centers, and really only twice a day. Most places do not have crowded roadways for the majority of the day. Perhaps instead of looking for ways to move a lot of people a short distance twice a day, five days a week, we should be looking for ways to alleviate this this crowded rush.
The best way to alleviate the crowded rush is better, faster public transportation.
That's the sticking point for many, subsidized highways were what built the entire federal interstate highway system as we know it.
Firstly not only is the Interstate sytem a hub of commercial activity it's an integral part of national defense. the full name is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. While I don't expect anyone to invade any time soon they would be of vital importance if that were to occur.
The average tax per gallon on fuel is about 52 cents per gallon. The federal take is about 18 cents and states are all over the place. Part of those fuel taxes already go to mass transit.
Determining exactly who is paying what becomes a quagmire especially with all the differences amongst states. Here in PA for example you have fuel taxes going to mass transit and tolls collected from the PA turnpike "subsidizing" other roads. It's a shell game and pinning down exactly what is going where becomes very hard.
Quote:
By the time oil does get problematic there won't be enough time
I have no concerns about oil, there will be plenty of time and alternatives when the need arises. You can make liquid fuels from coal to meet the needs for diesel, kerosene and jet fuel for the equivalent of about $50 to $60 a barrel conventional oil. That supply could long outlast the need. Why we have no private investment in this varies but the main one is exactly what is happening now. These lower prices are a shot across the bow of domestic producers. Conventional oil prices need to remain moderately high to maintain a profit and if OPEC wants too they can bury the domestic producers using alternatives to conventional oil.
Firstly not only is the Interstate sytem a hub of commercial activity it's an integral part of national defense. the full name is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. While I don't expect anyone to invade any time soon they would be of vital importance if that were to occur.
The average tax per gallon on fuel is about 52 cents per gallon. The federal take is about 18 cents and states are all over the place. Part of those fuel taxes already go to mass transit.
Determining exactly who is paying what becomes a quagmire especially with all the differences amongst states. Here in PA for example you have fuel taxes going to mass transit and tolls collected from the PA turnpike "subsidizing" other roads. It's a shell game and pinning down exactly what is going where becomes very hard.
I have no concerns about oil, there will be plenty of time and alternatives when the need arises. You can make liquid fuels from coal to meet the needs for diesel, kerosene and jet fuel for the equivalent of about $50 to $60 a barrel conventional oil. That supply could long outlast the need. Why we have no private investment in this varies but the main one is exactly what is happening now. These lower prices are a shot across the bow of domestic producers. Conventional oil prices need to remain moderately high to maintain a profit and if OPEC wants too they can bury the domestic producers using alternatives to conventional oil.
Despite your claim of having no concerns about oil most of the geological community round the world does indeed have theirs. Oil is and has been the underlying cause of our "miracle" economy. It has served in just about every manufacturing process known to man, including the extraction, sale, and delivery of any alt fuel we currently know of. The claim of 50-60 dollar a barrel crude oil alternatives can only be factored in this current construct of world market oil prices, those prices, rising in response to more expensive exploration/processing would allow the figures to get squirreled around to what would probably be the prohibitive range. In other words, it takes oil to make the stuff of alternative energy systems.
So, in any shortage, contrived or otherwise, we'll be feeling the pinch and most likely won't be fast enough on the draw with the development of new infrastructure needed to replace the oil centric highway transportation system as we know it. This is another of those issues that has generated a lot of speculation as to the viability of producing alt fuels or any other alt energy without the usual amounts of petroleum being utilized, in any oil shortage scenario the usual manufacturing processes that currently produce most if not all of the materials used in alternative energy schemes would be crippled beyond the ability to reproduce any significant manufacturing material stock. This isn't a simple view of our energy conundrum, I'm of the opinion that these alternatives are just as hooked up to oil as we are now, relative to our current manufacturing methods.
Planning for those scenarios that have been postured by people who do know the complexities of the problem makes sense to me, this thread was aimed at the "real cost of HSR", but, when all the cards are on the table it looks as though the cost will be what it is and we'll need to find a way to pay it. I think the present fear of government and the taxation fears spread around on various radio talk shows has done a lot of damage to the cause of real discourse on our most pressing issues. I don't know what the cost is for anything in our future, but, I do know the consequences of listening to the wrong people could have, I just hope we can make some progress on these fronts before we suffer more economic contractions brought to us by the people who told us they were taking care of the economy.
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.
