Skip to comments.Here's What An American High Speed Rail Network Could Look Like (See the map)
Posted on 02/06/2013 8:05:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
High speed rail is moving forward in California, but progress is pretty stagnant around the rest of the country. Still, there are a lot of proposals out there, and when placed on one map, they form an impressive rail network.
This map was put together by California Rail Map, led by Alfred Twu, which combined existing proposals from high speed rail advocacy groups around the US.
The US High Speed Rail Association, a nonprofit trade association, predicts a network similar to this one could be in place by 2030.
Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood has called for a large HSR network, saying it could link 80 percent of Americans within 25 years, for $500 billion.
Based on this map, starting in Los Anglees, a high speed train could get to New York, with stops in Denver and Chicago, in well under 18 hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
This is one of the goals of socialism (democrats)
that’s why they love this stupid rail crap
they hate we have cars and can be independent and free to go where we want to
The people don’t care one wit about a trail system but hey, gotta create more jobs for the TSA.
With our present form of Government, the US can build no public project cheaply. We have the most expensive and complex Gov’t in the world.
This is all a pipe-dream.
If you’re going to do it, do it like Japan were EVERY RAIL LINE IS PRIVATIZED.
Where will the government find enough cash to keep such a money sink afloat? Mass transit has ever been a money losing proposition.
Plus they can bring more of these worthless illegals and socialists to your doorstep. What I like about the countryside it’s because of it’s isolation and inaccessibility. Now, it’s going to be just another station.
And as much as I am a train watcher and supporter; if I'm an investor, this is a non-starter. It would cost probably 2X in ticket pricing and 3X in travel time (I'm also not buying that 'under 18 hours' bit). So why even consider this?
I'm sorry, but train travel is great for cargo (and should be expanded where possible for that purpose), but the convenient of air and even car travel is far more advantageous for passengers. So yes - I would defund Amtrak if I were in charge.
We could have had that and more out of the private rail industry, if the federal government had not both regulated/taxed the railroads out of existence and “competed” against them buy building the infrastructure of other transportation modes with tax dollars. What an awesome “thank you” the feds gave the railroads after WWII for their service during that war, eh? (Most of the technology used in high-speed rail would not have come to pass if not for US technology developed by people like Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse among others.)
why passenger rail?
Google autodrive would be much more comfortable and personal.
Also high speed rail is not all high speed. it is only fast for a little bit.
Florida is already working on dumping theirs since it would be cheaper to just buy all the potential passengers a limo and driver for life.
is it shaped like a bankrupt white elephant?
And we had a poster here once who was a fanboi of lightrail.
He had no problem with government forcing us to subsidize it.
I would gladly take a high speed train if it is built with private funds and no cost to the taxpayer and is cheaper than air travel or my car and the tickets must not be subsidized by the government.
What that really means is I will not be taking a high speed rail trip.
Haven’t stopped laughing yet! I thought flying cars were the wave of the future!!!!!
Wyoming looks safe
That map almost perfectly mirrors the current Amtrak route map (which, by the way, no one is using)
Most high speed rail has an average speed of 145 mph.
Whether on paid business travel or on vacation, my time is worth $50/hr. Only on short trips of <360 miles is a train not going to make my trip vastly more expensive.
Say someone is making $25/hr, an additional 6hrs on the train equals $150. And the last time I checked, AMTRAK was already more expensive than flying.
Also, driving inside of 250 miles is almost always faster than total trip time of flying, from home to final destination.
Finally, with relatively little additional cost, current trains could be running at 100mph over most lines, but they don’t because it would be more expensive.
RE: Why would I spend 3 days on a train when I can go coast to coast in 8 hours on a plane?
Takes me only 5 hours to fly from NY to LA.
I like trains, but even ignoring the “We don’t have $500 billion to build a rail system that will need ongoing subsidies even if we thought the government should be running passenger rail service” argument, it is solving a problem we do not have.
Claiming that the proposal will connect 80% of Americans is ridiculous, unless you can bring your car along. Sure, if you take the train to Manhattan or Chicago, you can take a frequently occuring train/bus to other points in that city. But suburban coverage is much spottier. The USA is not Europe. Our businesses and people are not organized around downtowns.
Once done with the cherry picking in the northeast corridor, the drop-off is very fast. LA to Vegas to SF might get decent ridership. Chicago to where ... Cleveland? St. Louis? New Orleans? How many trips on the schedule? How many cars can you fill?
You live in Hoffman Estates, a suburb of Chicago. You want to go to St. Louis, to see the Rams game in person. Should be a pretty ideal trip, right? Okay. Well, first you have to face Chicago traffic when you drive from Hoffman Estates to Chicago. That should be good for almost 45 minutes, assuming traffic is light on Sunday morning. Now, you get to park your car somewhere in the vicinity of Union Station. That should run you $40 or more for the day. You have to get there a bit early, as TSA hangs out at Union Station. (”Nice doggie!”) say 30 an hour. It still isn’t as bad as the airports. Of course, so far you are farther from your destination than when you started. Pay your money, hop on board, and relax. And only two hours later, you are in downtown St.Louis, and the Stadium is within easy walking distance, and you don’t thave to pay for parking on the stadium end.
That’s a pretty ideal scenario, and still you saved HOW much time? About half an hour. And the cost of your trip was certainly greater, especially if you tend to take friends with you to the football game.
What’s more, long haul trains are subject to more delays than flights, and MANY more than hopping in your car when you feel like going.
IF freight were running on the same rails, we could talk, since the rails would serve multiple functions. But freight ain’t gonna ride those rails. Freight trains are for SLOW and HEAVY. 90%+ of the time those rails are gonna go unused. Planes fly in the air. Pretty cheap infrastructure once up there. We need roads anyway for the last mile, may as well let cars use them for the whole trip by connecting them all together! Oh ... we did that already.
Oh, and Americans like/need to take their stuff with them.
Trains ... a 19th century solution for 21st century transportation needs.
Japanese National Railways (centralized) is the one that built that bullet train system, and with World Bank funds (claiming that they were relegated to the status of a “developing” nation or suchlike). Privatization came afterwards, and it is by no means full privatization, not to mention that Japan Railways Group monopolizes all of the nominal “private” companies and the freight business is completely monopolized. I wouldn’t follow that lead.
The map “could” look like that but the cited speeds (220 mph) means someone is drinking a lot of bong water. I’ve seen figures that would imply that to get all that trackbed able to sustain those speeds - let’s say you’re talking billions PER MILE. Ain’t never going to happen. The “shovel ready” projects back in 2008 consisted of union workers and companies owed by brothers-in-law filling potholes and causing interstates to filter down to one lane roads for a net gain of ZERO. Basically we can’t do infrastructure any more in this country. To the extent that we pretend to do so, it’s just a means of stealing money from the govt. (which in turn has stolen or printed the money) and causing traffic delays. /rant
Bet the deer and the antelope are going to love it.
You forgot to add “built and run by China” as a means of paying the ‘interest’ on the debt criminally created by the traitors in our government to them.
Last time I heard, California has spent many, many millions of dollars on "High Speed Rail", and has yet to put down even a single meter of track.
I went across Canada by train.
For a tourist it's great, much better than flying, better scenery, better food, better service, numerous chances to stop and smell the roses, enough time to hang our with your fellow passengers, etc.
For business, or whenever getting there quickly is more important, no, never.
OTOH, if our congress critters were required to go by surface transportation, perhaps they wouldn't be quite so contemptuous of "flyover country"...
all this will do is make travel more difficult and give tsa more power to restrict people’s movement. plus it will never ever break even, it will be a huge money loser, like all passenger rail service is. fast amtrak. that’s it. only losing money a lot faster than amtrak.
next we’ll be forced to take it. we need to prop up rail by letting the highway system go to hell.
They're apparently getting 300 MPH in Japan.
...of course that's ignoring simple factual differences -- the several states are HUGE compared to Japan; there are wide-open spaces (low population density) all around; and the cost of such a continent-wide infrastructure.
Not only that, they have yet to purchase the land for the track.
Three simple words: air traffic control.
I see Chicago is THE major hub for this... debacle. I wonder if they think this will “rehabilitate” Murder City’s reputation or will they just export their problems across the rest of the country?
On the other hand it does link all of the “Liberal” pest-holes together.
It makes a lot of sense to have a modern and efficient rail system. That being said, there is no way to have one that is either if the government is involved.
Think of this, a private rail line that has motivation to have the most efficient operations possible (a government run line has no such motivation) is required to build, maintain, insure and be taxed on every foot of track, every bridge, every facility and every piece of equipment. Trucking companies use public roads and airlines use public airports financed with the very taxes that the rail lines pay. In essence the railroads are forced to pay for their competition.
There will be no viable rail alternative until this stops
SeekAndFind ~ Takes me only 5 hours to fly from NY to LA.
Including getting to the airport, parking, cavity searches, waiting for luggage and renting a car at the destination?
Uh, nevermind, you'd have to do those things at the rail terminal...
Gosh! Why that's faster than...um...it used to be.
And in one third of the time you could fly it for a Hell of a lot less money than any HSR would have to charge even with a hefty subsidy from the taxpayers.
Welcome to the liberal mind thought of "moving forward." Choo Choo trains, windmills and electric cars.
stupidest thing anyone ever thought of!
Chicago has been a transportation hub since, well, transportation.
I don’t want any form of transportation that makes it easier for anything to come out of Chicago.
WADR, you misread that. The maglev was, is and always will be experimental. Conventional rail with high-speed operation (186 mph, usually) does get average speeds of 145 mph from end to end.
The only thing driving up the cost for infrastructure is government. A lot of existing railroads are quite straight (curveless) and could support high-speed running with minimal improvements. On top of that, government has gotten in the way of development of technologies that would permit high-speed operation without the additional expense of overhead wire infrastructure. Also funny that our “benevolent” government never thought of combining high-speed rail infrastructure and highway infrastructure, thus driving down the cost for both, yes?
Passenger rail has been a losing proposition ever since the automobile gained popularity, and even more so when air travel came about. Class I railroads in this country were probably only too happy to let the government take their passenger traffic (and pay them for use of their rails to boot!).
I’ll hold out for the personal transporters (ala Star Trek). About as likely to happen as this and the research money would likely be less.
No, like Michelle’s overstuffed ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.