11 billion later

[questionmark]

WASHINGTON — On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-mile-per-hour Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and plans to bring it up to Japanese bullet-train speeds will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.

The Obama administration has spent nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, but the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China, where some trains can top 220 m.p.h. Although Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also blame missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed rail — for the failures.

Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into high-speed rail projects, they say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 m.p.h. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, in the meantime canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.

Read more

Now, I might have a novel idea... just a few weeks ago GE bought Alstom. Alstom manufactures the world's fastest train at this time. So why the hell don't they just take the French system, proven reliable and fast, and start building?

Would be a heeeell of a lot cheaper.

[aztek]

lol, and lose all development grants??? riighht

[keithisco]

Even in my little town I have access to the AVE. It travels at 330kmh and gets me to Madrid in well under 2 hours. It also uses the TGV network in France and further afield. Worth every penny spent on it

[bubblykiss]

To be fair, I would not likely shed my personal transportation for the thrilling of crowding in around disgusting strangers.

[Wickian]

To be fair, I would not likely shed my personal transportation for the thrilling of crowding in around disgusting strangers.

I used to ride the city bus a lot in high school, you meet some interesting(disgusting/out of their minds crazy) people half the time.

[aztek]

i either drive or fly, do not see any reason to take train for long distance in usa. unless you can't drive and afraid to fly

[Michelle]

I would take a train to Atlanta, about 200 miles, to catch a plane...and so would many others. We've missed too many flights due to delays at our airport and it might even be cheaper.

[aztek]

well if you live 200 miles from airport, than may be, me, i have 3 airports within 50 miles. closest one JFK is only 17 miles away, but you have a point about traffic, i always allow at least 1 hour for traveling those 17 miles.

Edited August 6, 2014 by aztek

[Michelle]

Traffic isn't the problem...it's when we have a connecting flight from our airport to Atlanta. Even if you drive you have to pay for long term parking. It's always a toss up which is going to be more convenient.

[supervike]

[Rafterman]

Now, I might have a novel idea... just a few weeks ago GE bought Alstom. Alstom manufactures the world's fastest train at this time. So why the hell don't they just take the French system, proven reliable and fast, and start building?

Would be a heeeell of a lot cheaper.

The problem isn't the technology or the trains - we've got that.

The problem is essentially having to rebuild the entire rail infrastructure in the Northeastern United States through some of the most expensive, affluent, and politically connected zip codes in the country.

Even the idea of running a high speed line from Buffalo to NYC through relatively open farmland for most of the trip is estimated at costing $50 million per mile (at least according to a Cornell professor who looked into it). That's roughly $22.5 billion to run a high speed line that many think would run at a deficit for decades if it was ever profitable.

http://centralny.twc...igh-speed-rail/

Edited August 7, 2014 by Rafterman

[questionmark]

The problem isn't the technology or the trains - we've got that.

The problem is essentially having to rebuild the entire rail infrastructure in the Northeastern United States through some of the most expensive, affluent, and politically connected zip codes in the country.

Even the idea of running a high speed line from Buffalo to NYC through relatively open farmland for most of the trip is estimated at costing $50 million per mile (at least according to a Cornell professor who looked into it). That's roughly $22.5 billion to run a high speed line that many think would run at a deficit for decades if it was ever profitable.

http://centralny.twc...igh-speed-rail/

So, the idea is to spend 11 billion without getting anywhere?

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Once again the government is sticking it's nose into a business that should be left to the private sector. If a high speed rail was viable, we would already have it. Considered the money this administration has lost(100s of billions) trying to back solar power, wind power, the health care system, and that's just to name a few of their failures.They can't even run their own agencies properly. IRS, VA, EPA, FDA, FEMA, TSA, NSA, DHS, all mismanaged bureaucracies that run rampant over the backs of the tax paying working middle class. And if someone is spot lighted for incompetency, don't fire them, give them a bonus! What a joke. How this present federal government thinks it capable of doing anything competitively with fiscal responsibility is just mind boggling.

[Wendigo Wangs]

So, the idea is to spend 11 billion without getting anywhere?

sounds like government logic to me.

[Yamato]

So, the idea is to spend 11 billion without getting anywhere?

Massive government spending is Gross Domestic Product, not partisan politics. When Obama arms Syrian rebels and Bush arms Pakistani dictators, Raytheon and Boeing report those numbers on their earnings statement. "It's the econony, stupid!" applies.

[Rafterman]

So, the idea is to spend 11 billion without getting anywhere?

Well that's the government for you - spend $11 billion before we even start to spend money.

Keep in mind though that any high speed on the Atlantic corridor would probably coast at least double the $50 million per mile stated above. Meanwhile, I can spend around $100 and catch a shuttle flight from Boston to DC and be there in about an hour.

[questionmark]

Well that's the government for you - spend $11 billion before we even start to spend money.

Keep in mind though that any high speed on the Atlantic corridor would probably coast at least double the $50 million per mile stated above. Meanwhile, I can spend around $100 and catch a shuttle flight from Boston to DC and be there in about an hour.

As somebody who has been around countries with functional railroads I can tell you that there is an absolute benefit in leaving the transport in the middle of the city instead of having to pay a cab or taking a slow metro to get there from the airport. In fact, you would need a supersonic plane to make up for the time loss.

[aztek]

countries that have functional railroads, do not have road system usa has, and distances usa has.

[questionmark]

countries that have functional railroads, do not have road system usa has, and distances usa has.

You would not be talking about Japan, Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, would you?

[aztek]

a train from nyc to miami, cost $300+ the cheapest, for 1, and it takes 30+ horus.

i can drive to miami faster than in 30 hours, will cost me about $450, for entire car. why would i want to take train????

[Taun]

You would not be talking about Japan, Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, would you?

Last time I looked none of those countries you mentioned were 3,000 miles "wide" and 1,500 miles "high"... But I do agree we need to rebuild our rail infrastructure... I'm just not sure it would be profitable and/or

effective in the western two thirds of the US...

[questionmark]

a train from nyc to miami, cost $300+ the cheapest, for 1, and it takes 30+ horus.

i can drive to miami faster than in 30 hours, will cost me about $450, for entire car. why would i want to take train????

Because you will need another $150 to park the thing or $50 in taxi to get from the parking place to your house?

And besides that, the reason they want to built a 300 Mph+ train is so you don't need 30 hours.

[aztek]

You would not be talking about Japan, Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, would you?

yea them, each one is like from 1\10 to 1\30 of the size of usa

[questionmark]

Last time I looked none of those countries you mentioned were 3,000 miles "wide" and 1,500 miles "high"... But I do agree we need to rebuild our rail infrastructure... I'm just not sure it would be profitable and/or

effective in the western two thirds of the US...

The high speed trains will be able to effectively compete with airplanes (in fact between Southern Spain and northern Germany they already do) and will be cheaper than the airfare.

[aztek]

Because you will need another $150 to park the thing or $50 in taxi to get from the parking place to your house?

lmao, i park the thing in the garage or on the street right next to my house, none of it costs anything

i would however need a taxi from a train to my house thou. and pbly rent a car to get around, on my terms.

not to mention i do not wannt rely on train, its scedule when i travel in usa, i can drive my car anywhere\anytime i want to. go do that with any public transport.

and i'm not even talking about human factor, it has been mentioned in posts above, by others

Edited August 8, 2014 by aztek