daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 26th, 2011, 01:35 AM   #2681
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
The more you post, the more painfully ignorant you reveal yourself to be.
No need for personal offenses. We are discussing some (infrastructure) that is as lifeless and emotionless as it can be. It's concrete, steel and wires after all. No need to take those issues personally as if people were hurting you by not agreeing with your position. And this forum is not an advocacy site for like-minded people feed one another on repeated arguments over and over anyway.

Quote:
Florida didn't reject the $2 billion for the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of spending concerns, Governor Scott wanted that money directed to wasteful road projects instead.
From the beginning it was quite clear that money available to HSR programs would not be "divertable" for any other transportation project but HSR, which is/was a right political decision to avoid a raid on funds for the program. The main concern of Florida was about the fact that, after completed, there was no secured funding for the extension of HSR to Miami or JAcksonville, where it could boost sharply its ridership, and FL would be left on the hook for operational deficits on the train (on the train, not on the infrastructure capital expenses, note) that the Feds were not willing to cover. Those expenses could amount to $ 80-140 mln./year on the first years of operation, and there were no commitment that the extension to more populated areas would ensue soon.


Quote:
The full costs of autocentrism have not been borne by the individual, and if they were- people would be clamoring for alternative transportation.
Gas costs up to 3.4 times more in Europe (used to be 5 times more when gas was $ 1/gal.) than in US. That means smaller cars and less drive, but it didn't kill the "car culture" at all. All reliable data sources show that car accounts to more than 67% of all passenger*mile traveled in Europe in all Western Europe countries.

This is just the latest excuse of people that want gas to be more expensive just to force drivers to use other transportation, even if oil is still relatively cheap. If oil starts costing $ 500/barrel, then people will drive far less and buy far more efficient-engine cars.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 26th, 2011, 01:40 AM   #2682
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post


Gas costs up to 3.4 times more in Europe (used to be 5 times more when gas was $ 1/gal.) than in US. That means smaller cars and less drive, but it didn't kill the "car culture" at all. All reliable data sources show that car accounts to more than 67% of all passenger*mile traveled in Europe in all Western Europe countries.

This is just the latest excuse of people that want gas to be more expensive just to force drivers to use other transportation, even if oil is still relatively cheap. If oil starts costing $ 500/barrel, then people will drive far less and buy far more efficient-engine cars.
Car users do not bear the full cost to maintain roads. A higher gas tax will help ensure they do.

Of course cars are going to consume the bulk of passenger miles traveled, because they are predominantly used for long distance travel in Europe.
Mass transit is not used for a 70 km journey. And there are still far more roads than rail lines meaning the car is the only available option to get between certain cities.

Thus your continual mention of this statistic in no way buttresses your argument that cars are significantly more popular than mass transit in Europe. Being forced to use a car doesn't make the car popular.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud

Last edited by hoosier; June 26th, 2011 at 01:48 AM.
hoosier está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2011, 01:45 AM   #2683
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
The main concern of Florida was about the fact that, after completed, there was no secured funding for the extension of HSR to Miami or JAcksonville, where it could boost sharply its ridership, and FL would be left on the hook for operational deficits on the train (on the train, not on the infrastructure capital expenses, note) that the Feds were not willing to cover. Those expenses could amount to $ 80-140 mln./year on the first years of operation, and there were no commitment that the extension to more populated areas would ensue soon.
Again, either you intentionally ignore the fact that private entities were willing to cover the operational expenses of the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of their confidence in its profitability or you truly are clueless and ignorant.

The same people you mention as being opposed to the HSL because of a lack of federal commitment to fund its extension to Miami are the same people that opposed any funding for HSR in the first place!!!

This line was opposed on purely ideological grounds- no commie pinko train was going to be given the chance to eat into oil company profits. God loves oil and the car after all.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2011, 02:29 AM   #2684
TheAnalyst
Havok
 
TheAnalyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 98
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
Nice of you to name just the beginning and ending point of the INITIAL segment of CAHSR, failing (intentionally perhaps) to mention that Fresno and Bakersfield- cities with a combined metro area population of almost 2 MILLION- will be connected by this segment.
First of all, Corcoran is 60 miles north of Bakersfield. And 2 MILLION?! Wow!

The newest Chinese HSR link goes from Shanghai to Beijing, which have a combined metro population of 30 million people, plus tens of millions more along its densely populated corridor. Even so, there are concerns about its profitability. The Tokaido Shinkansen, one of the very few profitable lines in the world, connects metro areas totaling 50 million people. 2 million is nothing.

Quote:
Florida didn't reject the $2 billion for the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of spending concerns, Governor Scott wanted that money directed to wasteful road projects instead.
Which would be far wiser than spending money on a line that nobody, besides an occasional tourist, would use. There is no advantage whatsoever in using HSR if you can drive there in under an hour. Add the time and cost it takes for you to drive to both stations (and back!) and you'll see it's an absurd idea.

Quote:
America is only a car culture because it has spent a ridiculous amount of money on roads and a bubble of cheap oil- which will soon burst- has allowed autocentric development to remain relatively cheap. The full costs of autocentrism have not been borne by the individual, and if they were- people would be clamoring for alternative transportation.
I will not disagree with you said here, but HSR is a link between cities. For it to work, you'd need decent public transportation on both ends - which we don't have. It is a lot more desirable to invest in mass transit in metro areas than HSR.
TheAnalyst no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2011, 02:42 AM   #2685
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnalyst View Post
Which would be far wiser than spending money on a line that nobody, besides an occasional tourist, would use. There is no advantage whatsoever in using HSR if you can drive there in under an hour. Add the time and cost it takes for you to drive to both stations (and back!) and you'll see it's an absurd idea.

I will not disagree with you said here, but HSR is a link between cities. For it to work, you'd need decent public transportation on both ends - which we don't have. It is a lot more desirable to invest in mass transit in metro areas than HSR.
The last-mile problem was to be particularly problematic for the Tampa-Orlando HSR. On short distances, HSR only works if they are well connected to local transit networks. On medium and long distances (> 250-300mi), you can think of them as substitutes for air travel, because they cut long distances fast. So you can also think of facilities like HSR stations build near major Interestate interchanges, and offering car rentals easily there (like in almost all international airports). So people can then drive to a HSR station, take a train, disembark, rent a car and drive to his/her final destination, all together faster than driving 380mi, for instance.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2011, 03:51 AM   #2686
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 337
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnalyst View Post
First of all, Corcoran is 60 miles north of Bakersfield. And 2 MILLION?! Wow!

The newest Chinese HSR link goes from Shanghai to Beijing, which have a combined metro population of 30 million people, plus tens of millions more along its densely populated corridor. Even so, there are concerns about its profitability. The Tokaido Shinkansen, one of the very few profitable lines in the world, connects metro areas totaling 50 million people. 2 million is nothing.



Which would be far wiser than spending money on a line that nobody, besides an occasional tourist, would use. There is no advantage whatsoever in using HSR if you can drive there in under an hour. Add the time and cost it takes for you to drive to both stations (and back!) and you'll see it's an absurd idea.



I will not disagree with you said here, but HSR is a link between cities. For it to work, you'd need decent public transportation on both ends - which we don't have. It is a lot more desirable to invest in mass transit in metro areas than HSR.
Old news, the initial construction segment is now going to Bakersfield. Again, what is the best way to spur mass transit development, HSR? Mass transit is an expensive proposition and it mostly benefits commuters. Again, most HSR lines are profitable. Tokaido Shinkansen and Paris-Lyon are considered the only profitable lines based off if captial costs are repaid. You probably need to wait 30-50 years for the HSR investment to pay off, but I have yet to hear of a statistic that the operations revenue of the Interstate Highway system has made a profit.
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2011, 09:04 PM   #2687
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
This line was opposed on purely ideological grounds- no commie pinko train was going to be given the chance to eat into oil company profits. God loves oil and the car after all.
Please leave God out of your ideological bickering, will you?

There are plenty of anti-HSR atheists (the atheist portion of the Libertarians for example) and also plenty of religious supporters of HSR.

Even more ridiculous is saying that to Suburbanist. AFAIK he is a secularist. Basically you just proved your ignorance and bigotry.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 05:03 AM   #2688
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

The entire argument seems to be that the U.S. is not structurally read for HSR, but though the point that we should focus on less capital-intensive developments to start is rational, I fail to see how upgrading tracks from 70mph to 90mph is going to capture the sort of attention that is necessary if we're going to actually refocus the American transportation system. HSR would obviously be a hugely expensive gamble as a PR move, and the cost of failure is all that much higher, but it's got to start somewhere.

And I still have to wonder why exactly there's almost no discussion about carrier cars, the sort they use in the Channel Tunnel that you can simply drive on and off of. Wouldn't that completely elliminate the issue of transportation at the HSR destinations. I shouldn't say I just "wonder", I'm genuinely confused as to why carrier cars haven't entered this argument at all, to my knowledge.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 05:51 AM   #2689
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
The entire argument seems to be that the U.S. is not structurally read for HSR, but though the point that we should focus on less capital-intensive developments to start is rational, I fail to see how upgrading tracks from 70mph to 90mph is going to capture the sort of attention that is necessary if we're going to actually refocus the American transportation system. HSR would obviously be a hugely expensive gamble as a PR move, and the cost of failure is all that much higher, but it's got to start somewhere.
I think HSR could be good as a project in two circumstances:

(1) connecting the NEC, where local transit already exists

(2) connecting cities placed far away enough that it is a competitor to airplanes, mainly (thus downplaying the issue of last mile mobility as air passengers still need to negotiate that anyway), which makes me think of California, Texas triangle, and some lines branching off Chicago (not the perfect area, but the terrain helps a lot and reduces cost).

Quote:
And I still have to wonder why exactly there's almost no discussion about carrier cars, the sort they use in the Channel Tunnel that you can simply drive on and off of. Wouldn't that completely elliminate the issue of transportation at the HSR destinations. I shouldn't say I just "wonder", I'm genuinely confused as to why carrier cars haven't entered this argument at all, to my knowledge.
Rolling railway operations are expensive as hell. A modern, average American car weights almost 2 tons. They very long train consists also. Then, if you are trying to move all that thing at high-speeds, costs of transport will rise a lot.

Large-scale train shuttles only flourish in Europe when they are used to transpose a physical barrier like the English Channel, or the Swiss Alps (in winter, on certain routes).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 08:55 AM   #2690
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

Ah, I see. Well I have to ask then, if you find HSR would be sensible in some parts of the U.S., why do you seem so against it? Or am I misperceiving your position?
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 09:54 AM   #2691
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Ah, I see. Well I have to ask then, if you find HSR would be sensible in some parts of the U.S., why do you seem so against it? Or am I misperceiving your position?
HSR is a cool technology. The question - as with many other projects - is how much does it cost? How can it be financed and paid for by means other than extorting drivers and air passengers with yet more taxes?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 10:49 AM   #2692
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
HSR is a cool technology. The question - as with many other projects - is how much does it cost? How can it be financed and paid for by means other than extorting drivers and air passengers with yet more taxes?
You say that as if the cost of driving in this country is already astronomical, never mind that the current federal gas taxes constitute about 5% of the cost of a gallon of gas. It's absolutely necessary that the gas tax be raised just to keep up with current infrastructure needs, nevermind the fact that population continues to increase in most areas, so miles-traveled will as well, and the fact that as vehicle fuel economy mandates reduce the amount of gasoline consumed, revenue from that tax can only fall further and further behind necessary upkeep costs.

I know we're not arguing the necessity of a gas tax increase here, but you can't deny that the way the transportation budget is setup, rail is being ignored to an unreasonable standard, and that considering how little the whole situation makes sense, from almost any perspective, all options should be kept open, including taxing gasoline to set up a general infrastructure. I'll agree that given the way this country is currently populated, choosing rail over road and air would have to be pretty much arbitrary, but accepting the inefficiencies of those methods of transportation against rail for what is essentially historical accident isn't a smart way to plan for the future.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 11:28 AM   #2693
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17032

NJ is about to raise tolls to fund Rail and Road projects....and add more tolls....so take that drivers....
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 03:41 PM   #2694
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
NJ is about to raise tolls to fund Rail and Road projects....and add more tolls....so take that drivers....
This is the problem with the mentality of "take that": in the medium/long term, it backfires politically. It happens with many politic issues, not only transportation. The most clear example: UAW using their leverage and saying Big Three "take that" in the 1970s, to the point they were decimated by outsourcing and painful re-negotiations.

In California, state governments back in the 1960s started increasing local entitlements and social programs - "take that, racist middle class families" -, only to have the budget process made crazy by the electoral reaction that followed later.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 04:34 PM   #2695
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17032

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
This is the problem with the mentality of "take that": in the medium/long term, it backfires politically. It happens with many politic issues, not only transportation. The most clear example: UAW using their leverage and saying Big Three "take that" in the 1970s, to the point they were decimated by outsourcing and painful re-negotiations.

In California, state governments back in the 1960s started increasing local entitlements and social programs - "take that, racist middle class families" -, only to have the budget process made crazy by the electoral reaction that followed later.
Well you don't live in this region , and don't have to put up with the Growth and traffic congestion. It has alot of support because it funds our Transportation fund....
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 05:03 PM   #2696
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
This is the problem with the mentality of "take that": in the medium/long term, it backfires politically. It happens with many politic issues, not only transportation. The most clear example: UAW using their leverage and saying Big Three "take that" in the 1970s, to the point they were decimated by outsourcing and painful re-negotiations.

In California, state governments back in the 1960s started increasing local entitlements and social programs - "take that, racist middle class families" -, only to have the budget process made crazy by the electoral reaction that followed later.
But the point is that essentially that is what's been going on since the middle of the 20th century for rail--funds that would have/could have/should have gone to rail investment were spent instead on highways and airways, to the near total dissolution of passenger rail transport in this country. It's not "take that", it's "bitch, you stole this, give it back". If you agree that HSR and rail transit are feasible, useful methods of mass transit in this country, then you've got to agree to a rebalancing of where state and federal funding goes. To the best of my knowledge (which is admittedly imperfect), not one country has or has ever had a railway system entirely operated by the private sector, and when constructing and operating a system as expensive as one in the U.S. would be, then the case for serious private investment is basically null; nonetheless, this seems to be what your meta-argument is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2011, 06:32 PM   #2697
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

My solution is simple. The government builds TRACKS, STATIONS and SIGNALS out of the budget, from whatever source, like it wold build a new freeway. You know, the stuff that stays in place. Then, it opens the public, open-access HSR to whatever private operator that pays to use it, according to the private operator schedule and wills.

Of course, there is a constrain capacity, so if more than one private operator wants to run a train at the same time on a public railway, the gov't puts that slot for auction and whomever pays more gains the right to run a train in specific date and time, say, up to 180 days ahead. Whomever pays less don't run a train and will be forced to adjust accordingly.

What I loath and fiercely oppose is government involvement with direct operation of vehicles and schedules, be them buses, trains, boats or airplanes. Unless, of coruse, we're talking of military, civil protection, rescue, FEMA stuff.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2011, 07:57 AM   #2698
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
My solution is simple. The government builds TRACKS, STATIONS and SIGNALS out of the budget, from whatever source, like it wold build a new freeway. You know, the stuff that stays in place. Then, it opens the public, open-access HSR to whatever private operator that pays to use it, according to the private operator schedule and wills.

Of course, there is a constrain capacity, so if more than one private operator wants to run a train at the same time on a public railway, the gov't puts that slot for auction and whomever pays more gains the right to run a train in specific date and time, say, up to 180 days ahead. Whomever pays less don't run a train and will be forced to adjust accordingly.

What I loath and fiercely oppose is government involvement with direct operation of vehicles and schedules, be them buses, trains, boats or airplanes. Unless, of coruse, we're talking of military, civil protection, rescue, FEMA stuff.
As far as I know, only Japan has HSR service run by private companies; the rest are all essentially government owned. But fine, let the private sector operate the trains. I'm sure that'd win over the minds of a lot of conservatives in favor of developing a US HSR system.

But it still seems to me as though what you really oppose is finding some source of funding for the building of the necessary infrastructure.

We all know that the budget and deficits are a major issue for a lot of people in government right now, so simply taking on more debt isn't going to be a very popular method of raising funding. However, taxing other forms of transit in order to fund construction is evidently a non-starter for you, too. At this point in time, raising funds off of existing passenger rail services would be unlikely to work, either, considering the still relatively-low overall number of rail users, and of course raising fair prices would only reduce the total number of passengers as well, thus weakening the apparent need for rail investment.

So I guess my question for you is, just how much do you actually support high-speed rail development in the U.S.?
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2011, 12:47 AM   #2699
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53462

I don't know how instructive this is but I just wanted to post it since it gives another side to the debate about HSR. The US has so many complicated processes to getting major things done that we wind up logjamming ourselves. If we still lived under 19th century legal and social conditions, HSR would have been running here decades ago.


__________________
We are floating in space...

Last edited by desertpunk; July 2nd, 2011 at 12:56 AM.
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2011, 07:45 PM   #2700
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
So I guess my question for you is, just how much do you actually support high-speed rail development in the U.S.?
Look at his username. He is a road *****.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium