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 July 22nd, 2009, 03:41 PM   #641
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basincreek View Post
Of course you also have to deal with the Republicans whose solution to every problem in the history of everything is tax breaks for the rich. That makes funding things harder.
Nice soundbite! The trouble with those is that they rarely capture very much of the truth. Stick to the point.


Look, this isn't supposed to be a political forum but the trouble I see with the "investment in the US economy" is that it has to be done with borrowed money. So while you are investing in the economy by actually building something, a much better use of tax dollars than handouts IMHO, you are still paying interest on it. Our Federal Government is in such a financial mess right now, a mess started by one party and worsened by the other, that something like this will probably not "grow legs" for a while. Our deficits now are at such levels that even some Democrats are balking at new programs. The 8 billion that was in that economically unsound "stimulus" bill will get spent but beyond that I don't see this as anything more than dreams for a while.


I agree that the train would be competitive, I agree that to some extent it is cleaner, I even agree that building it Governmentally is OK but the fact is we do have the air network and we do have the highway network so the big question is this: how much do we actually NEED this new rail system?


A question to our Euro Bretheren. All of these wonderful trains you have, did your Gov't's have to borrow the money to get them built?

Last edited by FlyFish; July 22nd, 2009 at 04:01 PM.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 22nd, 2009, 03:50 PM   #642
RawLee
Registered User
 
RawLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Budapest
Posts: 9,447
Likes (Received): 1083

The EU itself is willing to pay a huge chunk of HSRs. And since the money of the EU comes from the members,I'd say they are not built from loans.
RawLee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2009, 03:58 PM   #643
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

You see, that in my mind is a huge difference.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2009, 06:15 PM   #644
ArthurK
Legum Magister Scientiae
 
ArthurK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,360
Likes (Received): 8

The Dutch HSL did cost around 7 billion euros to construct. The funding from the EU is far less than in Eastern Europe for example, as it's one of the whealthiest regions in the EU. Holland and to a lesser extend Belgium pay far more to the EU as they get back from EU subsidies. In 2006, the gap between payments and revenues was 0,47 percent of the Dutch GDP, which is really huge! There are many Dutch politicians who were upset about that.

So it depends largely on which country we're talking about. The Dutch high speed line is built as a PPP-construction. As Holland has an public debt of 45 percent of the GDP, the money should be borrowed. The EU subsidy was a mere 200 million euros [source], while the Madrid-Valladolid high speed line could get 55 percent EU funding and loans [source].
ArthurK no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 04:36 AM   #645
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Hey, new to the thread! Interesting discussions, especially on the plane v. train.

I know that in Seattle, there are a lot of flights to Portland and the airport is becoming more and more crowded. In the future, there's only so much expansion you can do to the airport. One solution is to build another airport for just short-length flights. Or you can build high speed rail...
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 06:03 AM   #646
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
Nice soundbite! The trouble with those is that they rarely capture very much of the truth.

You're one to talk about soundbites. That's all you have to offer.

"Government sucks, spending is bad, **** the less fortunate, WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 06:10 AM   #647
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post




I agree that the train would be competitive, I agree that to some extent it is cleaner, I even agree that building it Governmentally is OK but the fact is we do have the air network and we do have the highway network so the big question is this: how much do we actually NEED this new rail system?


How much did we need airports or the interstate highway system? After all, we had excellent rail service and there were canals and other inland waterways that could be used to transport people.

I would say the U.S. desperately needs high speed rail. Airports and highways are big polluting concrete pieces of shit that consume far more land than rail. Airports and highways drastically lower property values, especially in the inner city, and are completely incompatible with human-centric development (the type that allows for walking and biking). Not to mention that our major roads and airports are heavily congested and expanding them is just as if not more expensive than building a HSR system.

The key to a good transportation system is DIVERSITY. HSR can easily compete with and often does out-compete air travel over distances of 500 miles or less. This is borne out by the total shift in passenger traffic from plane to train in France and Spain along certain high speed rail routes.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 06:12 AM   #648
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
You see, that in my mind is a huge difference.
So if a nationwide HSR program was funded by spending cuts in another area of government or via a dedicated tax you would have no problem with it?
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 09:48 AM   #649
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2771

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
How much did we need airports or the interstate highway system? After all, we had excellent rail service and there were canals and other inland waterways that could be used to transport people.

I would say the U.S. desperately needs high speed rail. Airports and highways are big polluting concrete pieces of shit that consume far more land than rail. Airports and highways drastically lower property values, especially in the inner city, and are completely incompatible with human-centric development (the type that allows for walking and biking). Not to mention that our major roads and airports are heavily congested and expanding them is just as if not more expensive than building a HSR system.

The key to a good transportation system is DIVERSITY. HSR can easily compete with and often does out-compete air travel over distances of 500 miles or less. This is borne out by the total shift in passenger traffic from plane to train in France and Spain along certain high speed rail routes.

I think that is false and it is very arguable that planes are less environmentally destabilizing to their surroundings. Sure airports take up a huge swaths of lands but they are rather isolated and as long as they are not built in environmentally sensitive areas they can be pretty relatively environmentally neutral. Roads and rail by contrast run huge scars in the landscape which planes do not. Flights once they are takeout from their town sized airports are rather inconspicuous to humans, foliage, and animals along their route unlike trains and auto's.

The point about highways and airports lowering land values is also somewhat of a species argument. There are numerous towns and subdivisions with highways and airports right near them. Yes, nobody likes to live right next to either but nobody ideally chooses to live right next to a busy freight train either. Train lines/yards often separate neighborhoods and lessen aesthetics and movement similar to busy roads and expressways in urban neighborhoods. Granted I see more of a necessity for those train yards and viaducts but don't tell me they don't aren't detrimental to the urban continuity in their own way either.

I think it is highly arguable if expanding airports would be as expensive as a build out of HSR that you talk about. For instance the 10 billion St.Loui's-Chicago 10 billion projection. O'Hare is going to get up upgraded capacity of over 50 million for between 10-15 with the O'Hare modernization project. This capacity is MANY more times then the demand of the St.Loui's-Chicago route could ever dream to necessitate.

Diversity is good but there has to be limit sometime (not saying that HSR is necessarily that limit). Perhaps those that sing the virtues of MagLev will intently say the inclusion and diversity that MagLevs bring is paramount in addition to HSR, air, and auto's. There are needs and wants in our society. How much is HSR a need compared to a want in contrast to other programs? Is making sure that the 50 million who don't have insurances get coverage less important then building HSR even given that there are other modes of transit?

Did we NEED airports or highways? I think we could have muddled through without most highways but I do think airports were absolute essential. If you think that America would have remained competitive insisting that travelers come to the U.S. by ship in the 21rst century or deny most Americans the privilege of traveling across the continent in mere hours when technology provided I think you are extremely naive to suggest that would have been a sustainable political platform to run on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
So if a nationwide HSR program was funded by spending cuts in another area of government or via a dedicated tax you would have no problem with it?
That is a fair question. Another fair question is is there any approximate amount of accumulated debt or threat of financial insolvency of this nation that should prohibit or slow down the most ambitions plans for comprehensive HSR?
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”

Last edited by nomarandlee; July 25th, 2009 at 10:31 AM.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 08:00 PM   #650
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
You're one to talk about soundbites. That's all you have to offer.

"Government sucks, spending is bad, #%[email protected] the less fortunate, WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Ugh, I don't think I ever said any of that....oh and watch your language, there could be kids reading this. You can make your point without the MTV language.


Yes, I'd be OK if Gov't built this without borrowing as long as it did so in a manner that makes sense........NOT by locating segments first in the districts of the Congresspersons who have the most seniority. I am against dedicated taxes, we are taxed enough as it is. This Government spends too much, that's what should be looked at to close budget gaps.


You keep going back the the interstate system. Stop posting in the past. Whether we needed the interstates sixty years ago is not relevant, we HAVE them now. You keep argueing to make the same "mistake" again. You are against the idea of us having built the interstates because we had rail and didn;t need them and now you want to do the same thing again. Build a huge HSR system that we don't need because we have the interstates. The environmental footprint of the highways and airports is an irrelevant arguement because those aren't going to change no matter what rail is built. Sheesh, what do you think is going to happen, build the train and then tear down O'Hare? The need of a system like this is simple. Is there overcrowding of the current systems and can the rail alleviate it? Leave the environmental stuff out of it, that's feel good nonsense with very little bearing on reality. You have to generate the power to run the train and like it or not right now that means mostly burning something so the train really isn't that clean.


Spend the 8 billion on the NE corridor and the LA-San Fransisco corridors. make them true high speed runs and lets see how it goes. Then let's meet back here in ten years once we've got our financial house in order (I am an optomist) and see if it REALLY makes any sense to expand it.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2009, 09:36 PM   #651
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I think that is false and it is very arguable that planes are less environmentally destabilizing to their surroundings. Sure airports take up a huge swaths of lands but they are rather isolated and as long as they are not built in environmentally sensitive areas they can be pretty relatively environmentally neutral. Roads and rail by contrast run huge scars in the landscape which planes do not. Flights once they are takeout from their town sized airports are rather inconspicuous to humans, foliage, and animals along their route unlike trains and auto's.
That's not true. Planes consume a huge amount of fuel and release a huge amount of emissions. Did you think airplanes have Harry Potter broomstick technology and can just levitate? http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mf.html

Roads leave WAY more scars than rail. More people / cargo can go over one rail than over a single lane of road. Your arguments are hilarious. No one said airports aren't necessary, but flights within the contiguous United States can be replaced or the overcrowding can be lowered with HSR!

I also know a lot of airports that have been built over mangroves with infill or simply infill a beach and create an artificial island for your airport. Not exactly environmentally friendly.

Inconspicuous to humans? You should come to Puerto Rico or if you live near an airport. The FAA has organized all flights over land and NOT water. The sound of these planes flying above is so annoying. Though, to be fair HSR makes noise too. Either way, as long as we avoid the tunnel booms we'll be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
The point about highways and airports lowering land values is also somewhat of a species argument. There are numerous towns and subdivisions with highways and airports right near them. Yes, nobody likes to live right next to either but nobody ideally chooses to live right next to a busy freight train either. Train lines/yards often separate neighborhoods and lessen aesthetics and movement similar to busy roads and expressways in urban neighborhoods. Granted I see more of a necessity for those train yards and viaducts but don't tell me they don't aren't detrimental to the urban continuity in their own way either.
Well, with all this talk of Smart Growth®, people are realizing that it's better to live closer to a mass transit station than to a highway exit. Even the government is promoting it. So property values will go up if you're near mass transit (in most cases).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I think it is highly arguable if expanding airports would be as expensive as a build out of HSR that you talk about. For instance the 10 billion St.Loui's-Chicago 10 billion projection. O'Hare is going to get up upgraded capacity of over 50 million for between 10-15 with the O'Hare modernization project. This capacity is MANY more times then the demand of the St.Loui's-Chicago route could ever dream to necessitate.
It will be more expensive over the long run because airports, like roads, pollute too much and if you just keep building more of them, securing the addiction to roads America has, it is not efficient. That O'Hare modernization project: Does it involve new designs, entirely new system? Then WHY are you using it in your argument? It's an unfair comparison, though I can understand you were simply replying to what hoosier said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Diversity is good but there has to be limit sometime (not saying that HSR is necessarily that limit). Perhaps those that sing the virtues of MagLev will intently say the inclusion and diversity that MagLevs bring is paramount in addition to HSR, air, and auto's. There are needs and wants in our society. How much is HSR a need compared to a want in contrast to other programs? Is making sure that the 50 million who don't have insurances get coverage less important then building HSR even given that there are other modes of transit?
HSR is a need because of our overdependance on fossil fuels, especially foreign ones. Diversity is fair, therefore necessary. You can't expect everyone wants to pay for gasoline, but if you make it a need, it becomes unfair. An HSR is very much in need, though priority should be given to those who need it the most *COUGH* California. or NEC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Did we NEED airports or highways? I think we could have muddled through without most highways but I do think airports were absolute essential. If you think that America would have remained competitive insisting that travelers come to the U.S. by ship in the 21rst century or deny most Americans the privilege of traveling across the continent in mere hours when technology provided I think you are extremely naive to suggest that would have been a sustainable political platform to run on.
Like I said no one said destroy all airports and HSR!! Hoosier said and I quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
How much did we need airports or the interstate highway system? After all, we had excellent rail service and there were canals and other inland waterways that could be used to transport people.
I guess it could be debatable what he meant, but what I understood was he was referring to travel between the contiguous 48 states. Therefore, keep airports for international travel, but if local flights are causing overcrowding, than let's lessen the need for expansion (not modernization! lmao).
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 12:24 AM   #652
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2771

Quote:
Originally Posted by davsot View Post
That's not true. Planes consume a huge amount of fuel and release a huge amount of emissions. Did you think airplanes have Harry Potter broomstick technology and can just levitate? http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mf.html

Planes make up for less then 2% of all Green House gasses in the world. What I thought was clear in my post was talking about the ground environment on which planes, cars, autos traversed on route. If one wants to look like a dip and claim that a plane up 30k feet in the air overhead is as much of a nuisance to those on the ground for say 300 miles as a road/track is then go ahead.

Quote:
Roads leave WAY more scars than rail. More people / cargo can go over one rail than over a single lane of road. Your arguments are hilarious. No one said airports aren't necessary, but flights within the contiguous United States can be replaced or the overcrowding can be lowered with HSR!
Again, where did I claim that roads left less scars then rails?

Quote:
I also know a lot of airports that have been built over mangroves with infill or simply infill a beach and create an artificial island for your airport. Not exactly environmentally friendly.
The VAST (like 99%) majority of airports are not built on infill and or artificial islands. Where artificial airport have been used there likely have been other alternatives that could have been implemented.
There are also railroads which run through pristine areas like Empire Builder which cuts through beautiful wilderness near Glacier NP and runs right alongside the Columbia River Gorge.

Quote:
Inconspicuous to humans? You should come to Puerto Rico or if you live near an airport. The FAA has organized all flights over land and NOT water. The sound of these planes flying above is so annoying. Though, to be fair HSR makes noise too. Either way, as long as we avoid the tunnel booms we'll be fine.
Yes, for a much greater majority of its route air is about as inconspicuous to humans as it gets.

I live less then a few miles to the 2nd busiest airport in the world so I am well accustomed. I also grew up for a time less then 300ft from a CN route in the Chicago region as well where I could feel the foundation of my house shake when freights rolled by. For me the latter was worse (though I can't say I am particularly bothered by either).

Quote:
Well, with all this talk of Smart Growth®, people are realizing that it's better to live closer to a mass transit station than to a highway exit. Even the government is promoting it. So property values will go up if you're near mass transit (in most cases).
Trains and their infrastructure exist more then just in terms of mass transit. Believe you me I am all for smart growth and I think the government should promote regardless of an effort to promote high real estate prices. It is simply myopic to claim though that roads decrease land values and rails promote them.
I will use the Chicago region as an example. Suburban west Northbrook is miles from rail and near a major expressway and is vastly more expensive real estate then West Garfield Park that has the Green Line going through it only miles away from downtown. As far as the aesthetics or urban continuity the IC rail viaduct that runs through Hyde Park in Chicago serves to separate a neighborhood and could be considered a visual scar every bit as much as the Dan Ryan x-way a mile to its west.
Now I think the the benefits of this scaring from viadcuts and embankments of rail is higher then the scaring of auto roads to my line of thinking but as a rail fan don't disingenuously beat up on roads and act as if rail doesn't sometime carry approximate issues for which we damn autos.

Quote:
It will be more expensive over the long run because airports, like roads, pollute too much and if you just keep building more of them, securing the addiction to roads America has, it is not efficient. That O'Hare modernization project: Does it involve new designs, entirely new system? Then WHY are you using it in your argument? It's an unfair comparison, though I can understand you were simply replying to what hoosier said.
Again that is arguable. Would a 787 flying from NYC-Chicago pollute appreciable more then a HSR like that of the Jet Train? Or would a HSR train that runs through states that depend primarily on coal plants? Would algre fuel in planes level the equation in the future or if we do primarily go to wind in the future would that enhances HSR supposed advantage even more still. There are many variables and future changes that could change with each to that could potentially change the equation
Long distance for personal autos will likely never come close to be as carbon neutral as trains even given technological improvements (unless the big IF of hydrogen ever comes to fruition) however I don't have not advocated that personal autos and the infrastructure for them should be be catered to in order to enhance travel for Americans.

Quote:
HSR is a need because of our overdependance on fossil fuels, especially foreign ones. Diversity is fair, therefore necessary. You can't expect everyone wants to pay for gasoline, but if you make it a need, it becomes unfair. An HSR is very much in need, though priority should be given to those who need it the most *COUGH* California. or NEC.
Diversity is fair? So in order to be "fair" we need to build MagLev infrastructure as well? That is like saying that even though most everyone has the right to basic medical care that everyone has a right to alternative medicine as well just because it is possible. Our society already provides a plethora of options by way of air, bus, low speed rail, and autos. Does that mean HSR should not be part of platform? No, but this argument that for many people not having HSR is a NECESSITY for their lives (like oh say in contrast to not having medical coverage to get a lump removed) is a bit of a stretch.


Quote:
I guess it could be debatable what he meant, but what I understood was he was referring to travel between the contiguous 48 states. Therefore, keep airports for international travel, but if local flights are causing overcrowding, than let's lessen the need for expansion (not modernization! lmao).
Even if he was talking primarly about cross continental travel it would still apply that Americans would have never been for denying them fast travel across the nation by air by their politicans.

I myself hope we can both increase air capacity and further HSR in this nation. I just take issues that increasing airport capacity is an economical boondoggle when HSR is not. Like I say, O'Hare modernization has a 10-15 billion price tag that will enhance capacity to 50 million per year for people all throughout the world. If one wants to claim that Chicago-St.Louis HSR for ten billion will be nearly as utilized for approximate price tags I would love to see one argue that.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”

Last edited by nomarandlee; July 26th, 2009 at 02:27 AM.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2009, 06:27 AM   #653
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Planes make up for less then 2% of all Green House gasses in the world. What I thought was clear in my post was talking about the ground environment on which planes, cars, autos traversed on route. If one wants to look like a dip and claim that a plane up 30k feet in the air overhead is as much of a nuisance to those on the ground for say 300 miles as a road/track is then go ahead.
All right. Do you have a source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Trains and their infrastructure exist more then just in terms of mass transit. Believe you me I am all for smart growth and I think the government should promote regardless of an effort to promote high real estate prices. It is simply myopic to claim though that roads decrease land values and rails promote them.
I never said roads decrease land value. I only said that living near mass transit is better than living close to a highway exit. Why? Because while you will always have access to roads, having proper access to mass transit isn't always possible. So, would you rather have a choice than not to?



Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Again that is arguable. Would a 787 flying from NYC-Chicago pollute appreciable more then a HSR like that of the Jet Train? Or would a HSR train that runs through states that depend primarily on coal plants? Would algre fuel in planes level the equation in the future or if we do primarily go to wind in the future would that enhances HSR supposed advantage even more still. There are many variables and future changes that could change with each to that could potentially change the equation.
Long distance for personal autos will likely never come close to be as carbon neutral as trains even given technological improvements (unless the big IF of hydrogen ever comes to fruition) however I don't have not advocated that personal autos and the infrastructure for them should be be catered to in order to enhance travel for Americans.
It's only arguable because you make it so. Unfortunately, I never stated what my preferred technology is. First of all, electrification. Second, picking your energy sources carefully. There, now you know what my example is, and it definitely beats the plane.

Listen, the point is that rail has ways of not polluting as much, if the technology is implemented correctly. Airplanes so far have zero ways of lowering their emissions. They are testing out biofuel technology but last I checked biofuel still pollutes. It would be nice to have helium-filled zeppelins and fitting more people on less planes (through double-deckers) to reduce the fuel consumption, but they still don't compare to the ideal HSR.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Diversity is fair? So in order to be "fair" we need to build MagLev infrastructure as well? That is like saying that even though most everyone has the right to basic medical care that everyone has a right to alternative medicine as well just because it is possible. Our society already provides a plethora of options by way of air, bus, low speed rail, and autos. Does that mean HSR should not be part of platform? No, but this argument that for many people not having HSR is a NECESSITY for their lives (like oh say in contrast to not having medical coverage to get a lump removed) is a bit of a stretch.
You keep taking my comments and turning them into monsters lmao. I don't think MagLev infrastructure is worth it. The only reason the Japanese are doing it is because they are so successful with rail, they actually profit from it. Which means they can devote time and money on R&D for MagLev. If the US can't even do basic HSR right, why should they do MagLev? Either way, I never mentioned MagLev in my argument sooo... I do think there should be some form of HSR on routes that can benefit from these.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Even if he was talking primarly about cross continental travel it would still apply that Americans would have never been for denying them fast travel across the nation by air by their politicans.
It's a free country. Politicians shouldn't take away airline routes. They should however build HSR where it makes sense because last I checked the government pays for airports, so why shouldn't they pay for train terminals that make sense? And then let the market decide what they like best.
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2009, 05:38 AM   #654
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 59

HSR is a far more efficient way of delivering people than flying. The trains can hold more people, are not delayed by weather, and provide city center to city center service.

Rail is far less intrusive on the environment than a highway or an airport. Two rail tracks consume a small amount of right of way, and if electrified, emit ZERO pollution!!!

I strongly disagree that airports are more needed than HSR. For international, trans-oceanic travel, yes airplanes have a place, but HSR is a much better way of moving people distances of less than 500 miles. It is absurd that there are flights from Detroit to Grand Rapids or Chicago to Madison. I can name MANY other short-haul flights that could be easily eliminated by HSR. A good HSR system would eliminate the need for the O'Hare expansion. Many flights in and out of O'Hare are to other Midwestern cities a short distance away.

And what is with the opposition to CHOICES in transportation? High speed rail is NOT an unproven technology like Maglev. Americans got around on the train for over a hundred years before the government decided that airports and highways were the way to go.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2009, 07:29 AM   #655
Johnny Ryall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 1,779
Likes (Received): 22

I know HSR is hip and I'd love to see more of it in the future, but I'd cut it from the budget and concentrate on paying down the national debt (not to mention ending both of W's wars). The world is holding it's breathe as we teeter on the brink of default. China mortgages $1,000,000,000 of $4,000,000,000 of U.S. debt... DAILY.
The auto industry & oil companies have shelved technology for decades that would give cars unfathomable MPG. We have an incredible interstate system that would be a nice combo for really efficient cars. Don't get me wrong, I ride Amtrak to NOLA quite freqently and I can see that HSR would be a great amenity for people & the enviroment.
My point is that the USA shouldn't spend a dime for something that doesn't provide sharp returns of investment until the national debt is greatly reduced (except for matters of health, education, etc., of course). It would take year$ & ten$ of billion$ to get something like this to be able to compete with planes & automobiles. Although, I hope it does prevail in the future.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Jul 2009 is:

$11,618,179,490,201.92

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3,910,000,000 PER DAY since September 28, 2007

These numbers are a runaway high speed train that must be stopped.
Johnny Ryall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2009, 08:23 PM   #656
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ryall View Post
I know HSR is hip and I'd love to see more of it in the future, but I'd cut it from the budget and concentrate on paying down the national debt (not to mention ending both of W's wars). The world is holding it's breathe as we teeter on the brink of default. China mortgages $1,000,000,000 of $4,000,000,000 of U.S. debt... DAILY.
The auto industry & oil companies have shelved technology for decades that would give cars unfathomable MPG. We have an incredible interstate system that would be a nice combo for really efficient cars. Don't get me wrong, I ride Amtrak to NOLA quite freqently and I can see that HSR would be a great amenity for people & the enviroment.
My point is that the USA shouldn't spend a dime for something that doesn't provide sharp returns of investment until the national debt is greatly reduced (except for matters of health, education, etc., of course). It would take year$ & ten$ of billion$ to get something like this to be able to compete with planes & automobiles. Although, I hope it does prevail in the future.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Jul 2009 is:

$11,618,179,490,201.92

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3,910,000,000 PER DAY since September 28, 2007

These numbers are a runaway high speed train that must be stopped.

Bravo!
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2009, 10:45 PM   #657
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ryall View Post
I know HSR is hip and I'd love to see more of it in the future, but I'd cut it from the budget and concentrate on paying down the national debt (not to mention ending both of W's wars). The world is holding it's breathe as we teeter on the brink of default. China mortgages $1,000,000,000 of $4,000,000,000 of U.S. debt... DAILY.
The auto industry & oil companies have shelved technology for decades that would give cars unfathomable MPG. We have an incredible interstate system that would be a nice combo for really efficient cars. Don't get me wrong, I ride Amtrak to NOLA quite freqently and I can see that HSR would be a great amenity for people & the enviroment.
My point is that the USA shouldn't spend a dime for something that doesn't provide sharp returns of investment until the national debt is greatly reduced (except for matters of health, education, etc., of course). It would take year$ & ten$ of billion$ to get something like this to be able to compete with planes & automobiles. Although, I hope it does prevail in the future.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Jul 2009 is:

$11,618,179,490,201.92

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3,910,000,000 PER DAY since September 28, 2007

These numbers are a runaway high speed train that must be stopped.
Agreed, but only on one condition: When the time comes to renew the transportation bill, it shouldn't balance in favor of roads. It must be equally divided between road, rail and pedestrian infrastructure.

Maybe the stimulus should've never happened...
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2009, 11:01 AM   #658
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

I'm really wondering how our debt is ever going to be paid off...
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2009, 04:37 PM   #659
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

I'm 45 and I'll never live to see it.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2009, 06:59 PM   #660
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
I'm really wondering how our debt is ever going to be paid off...
by inflation.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 no está en línea   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 09:01 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