United States is first in everything because we rule!

[Beco]

Kinda like the Iraq war?

least this way we can put people to work instead of death and have something to show for our dollars.

Try to stay on topic...I know its the " Lit way" but yanno...

 

[KRCummings]

We have high speed cars that go anywhere, and the freedom that goes with it.

No we don't.
We have a handful of cars that can go kinda fast but aren't allowed to. Nothing that compares to high speed rail service at all.

 

[Beco]

The Acela Express being the only "high-speed" rail (not really) in the USA...is of course going to be expensive.

But from a pure economical standpoint, trains are of course cheaper in the long run. Much better fuel to passenger ratio. Not to mention less maintenance and higher carrying capacity.

Planes might be catching up , though, with the new superliners.

Ya gotta build them there pal, big bucks! No payoff....

 

[TurdFergeson]

My point, such as it is, is that the Acela service is maybe 75% the cost of the equivalent air service, which seems high somehow.

If fuel was the major cost in these operations, the price differential for longer flights would be higher than it is, at least within the US. A 2500 mile flight is sometimes the same price as a 500 mile flight, and certainly not five times as expensive on average.

Just going on overall efficiency:

"For freight transport, rail and ship transport are generally much more efficient than trucking, and air freight is much less efficient."

For passenger it's the same story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

 

[JohnnySavage]

My point, such as it is, is that the Acela service is maybe 75% the cost of the equivalent air service, which seems high somehow.

If fuel was the major cost in these operations, the price differential for longer flights would be higher than it is, at least within the US. A 2500 mile flight is sometimes the same price as a 500 mile flight, and certainly not five times as expensive on average.

Acela costs more than the shuttle

 

[TurdFergeson]

Ya gotta build them there pal, big bucks! No payoff....

Airports have to be built and maintained...how many bailouts have the airline companies had from the Government?

Where's the big payoff?

Not to mention all the roads and highways, stop lights, etc.

And auto manufacturers. Payoff or payout?

It's inefficient compared to rails.

 

[firespin]

Just going on overall efficiency:

"For freight transport, rail and ship transport are generally much more efficient than trucking, and air freight is much less efficient."

For passenger it's the same story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Intercity rail is 2650 BTU/mile, whereas air is 3260. That's not really compelling especially given the inherent speed difference.

I wonder if that's due to the twenty people per vehicle for trains. That sounds low, depending what a vehicle is in that context...the whole train?

 

[TurdFergeson]

Intercity rail is 2650 BTU/mile, whereas air is 3260. That's not really compelling especially given the inherent speed difference.

I wonder if that's due to the twenty people per vehicle for trains. That sounds low, depending what a vehicle is in that context...the whole train?

It must be...on average for the whole nation. Every train engine only carried ~20 people per trip on average. Which is kind of sad.

If trains were utilized more...that average would surely be more, but as it is, air travel is obviously far more popular.

 

[Beco]

Airports have to be built and maintained...how many bailouts have the airline companies had from the Government?

Where's the big payoff?

Not to mention all the roads and highways, stop lights, etc.

And auto manufacturers. Payoff or payout?

It's inefficient compared to rails.

Im not comparing railroads to airports, you are. Airlines have always been a thin business. Im just saying, a rail line from say LA to Vegas is worthless and expensive. Amtrak, $11 trillion in projected federal budget deficits between now and 2019. You do the math...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a high speed train. To get from DC to NY in two hour, that would be awesome.

 

[Powertone]

Kinda like the Iraq war?

least this way we can put people to work instead of death and have something to show for our dollars.

you're getting a little too predictable

 

[firespin]

Amtrak, $11 trillion in projected federal budget deficits between now and 2019. You do the math....

I'd better. When YOU do the math, we have Amtrak accounting for 30% of the federal budget, more than social security or defense. I don't think that's right somehow.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Im not comparing railroads to airports, you are. Airlines have always been a thin business. Im just saying, a rail line from say LA to Vegas is worthless and expensive. Amtrak, $11 trillion in projected federal budget deficits between now and 2019. You do the math...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a high speed train. To get from DC to NY in two hour, that would be awesome.

And most big projects that improve society and infastructure are done at a net loss.

The payoffs are future dividends in faster progress and improved quality of life for citizens.

All modes of current transport are a loss. Air, autos, and rail. Shipping might break even because they have such a huge carrying capacity.

But we still improve, maintain, and build new airports and highways.

So why not rails?

 

[Beco]

I'd better. When YOU do the math, we have Amtrak accounting for 30% of the federal budget, more than social security or defense. I don't think that's right somehow.

I meant the entire deficit created by Obama by 2019

 

[Beco]

So why not rails?

cant afford it right now and its a money drain, always will be

 

[TurdFergeson]

cant afford it right now and its a money drain, always will be

Disagree, it's less of a money drain than air travel or maintaining all the highways.

Better efficiency means more savings and less waste, which is exactly what is needed during tough times.

 

[JBCorbell]

cant afford it right now and its a money drain, always will be

Then why are railways both efficient and profitable in Europe?

 

[firespin]

Then why are railways both efficient and profitable in Europe?

European countries pack their people in a lot more closely.

Note the European countries with more than 280 people per square mile,some many more than that, vs. the US with an average of 80.

Rank ↓ Country/Region of special position ↓ Population ↓ Area
(km2) ↓ Area
(mi2) ↓ Density
(/km2) ↓ Density
(/mi2) ↓ Notes ↓

27 Netherlands 16,423,431 41,528 16,034 395 1,020 [14]
32 Belgium 10,415,000 30,528 11,787 341 880
52 United Kingdom 60,776,238 242,900 93,800 246 640
54 Germany 82,689,210 357,022 137,847 232 600
56 Liechtenstein 34,521 160 62 216 560
58 Italy 58,092,740 301,318 116,340 193 500
63 Luxembourg 464,904 2,586 998 180 470
65 Switzerland 7,252,331 41,284 15,940 176 460
82 Czech Republic 10,403,136 78,866 30,450 132 340
83 Denmark 5,417,000 43,094 16,639 126 330
86 Poland 38,529,560 312,685 120,728 123 320 [18]
91 Portugal 10,528,000 92,391 35,672 114 300 [18]
94 France (Metropolitan) 60,495,540 551,500 212,900 110 280

...

177 United States of America 302,741,000 9,629,091 3,717,813 31 80

 

[Beco]

Disagree, it's less of a money drain than air travel or maintaining all the highways.

Better efficiency means more savings and less waste, which is exactly what is needed during tough times.

When would you expect to reap those savings? What century?

 

[Beco]

Disagree, it's less of a money drain than air travel or maintaining all the highways.

Better efficiency means more savings and less waste, which is exactly what is needed during tough times.

David Levenson, a University of Minnesota professor of civil engineering and author of the Transportationist blog is more out front about the perils. The scholar concluded a proposed California high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco would squander funds, contribute to urban sprawl in the state's Central Valley and create huge technological challenges, because high speed rail has its niche in high density areas with available right-of-way and no intervening mountain ranges. He estimates the total costs of a California high-speed rail segment could total $80 billion or more.

There are other kinds of costs associated with construction. A Booz Allen Hamilton study of two potential high-speed lines in Britain -- one connecting London and Manchester, the second linking London-Edinburgh and Glasgow -- concluded pollution associated with construction of the systems would offset most of the environmental advantages over air travel. On bottom-line costs, the consulting firm concluded the system's profitability hinges on how many people switch from air to rail.

All of which makes one wonder whether rail proponents and smart growth people can sustain enthusiasm for the high-speed projects once the economy recovers.

 

[Beco]

The problem is that developing a true, nationwide high-speed rail network will cost a lot more than the $13 billion the administration currently has earmarked. Some studies suggest building a high-speed, inter-city rail network could cost between $250 billion and $500 billion. --Wall Street Journal