Let's build a train track for $117 Billion and pay $238,775,510 per mile of track

Absolutely. I just planted another row of money trees and expect to harvest gogillions of dollars from them this spring. I'll be sure and give it all to amtrak.

30 years LOL. Hell it'll take them that long to find enough people to do the manual labor alone.

It's too bad the government couldn't have used some of that 900 Billion to outsource the railroad construction to other contractors that would actually get the job done instead of saying "thanks for the grant, may I please have another".

The really sad thing is there are some very good HSR technologies at our disposal right now that we've literally priced ourselves out of. I think our country will see a hard crash before anything as large as a transcontinental HS railway will be possible.

WHEN our country crashes (economically), labor will probably be cheap enough that a project like this one can be built.

I'm still laughing at the 30 year time frame.

I'm still laughing at the 30 year time frame.

That would make me 91, I'm sure I will be below ground level...LOL

Between Boston and DC. Well at least the politicians are covered. What's REALLY needed is a HSR system that runs from one of the major northern west coast cities to the east coast.

There are a lot of mid-west and plains states that could and would flourish if they had a better rail system.

Why don't they spend some money to make Acela better

Unfortunately, there isn't much they can do to make it better. By better, I am assuming you mean faster. While it can reach speeds of 150mph, it only does this on 2 short tracks (one is in RI, I can't remember where the other section is, probably in Mass though). In general, it runs an average of about 75-80mph. It can't really get much faster because it shares the tracks with lower speed passenger trains and freight trains and due to some of the areas it passes through (like the dozen places it crosses a road)

Why don't they spend some money to make Acela better, or more widely available?

Concerned Citizen, states the major points as to why the Acela is being held back. However, grade separation can go a long way and can be engineered out with the proper funding.

The Northeast Regional takes a little more time than the Acela, and still offers pretty good service. Real change would require a re-engineering of the route because so much of the infrastructure (like the catenary wires) need a major upgrade to handle faster trains. Making the trains sets themselves a little lighter could not hurt as well, but blame strict safety regulations for that.

Long story short, the whole corridor needs an overhaul, including an increase in capacity if they are going to continue to run slower trains with the Acela.

Well no, I don't mean faster. The Acela rarely reaches peak speeds, because a lot of places don't have the infrastructure for that kind of speed. If they upgraded some infrastructure, the Acela could run at peak speeds more, and travel time would be improved.

Al, it isn't only politicians. The Acela's major stops are Boston, NYC, Newark(?), Philadelphia, and DC. It stops in Delaware too, I think. Those are major business hubs of the east coast, so it's definitely not just politicians.

Wilmington, in Delaware. Home of DuPont, PNC Bank, etc.

RachaelMM,

Actually the Acela has more stops than what you have listed. I think the reason the Acela stops in Newark is because of the large amount of commuters between the two cities and fewer people willing to drive any further and/or simply easier to get into New York that way from Newark, but I am not sure.

You are right, that even small improvements could increase the train speeds, but there would have to be "decent" stretches to make the extra speed worth while. Speeding up and slowing down constantly, is not going to be worth it.

Yeah, I was aware there were more stops, which is why I listed "major stops" not "all stops." I think there are decent stretches where they could go faster. A lot of the stretches of tracks in CT and NY, among other places, where the train could get up to speed, aren't equipped to handle that speed, whether because the tracks are too close together, or whatever other problems they have.

But anyway, I'm in favor of high speed rails. I love traveling by train.

They've fallen for it in the past why wouldn't they fall for it again? It's kind of like the fly fisherman at the pond. Just keep on lobbing them out there as long as they're biting.

No attitude, I was just being sarcastic.

But seriously, there are those such as amtrak (and many more) that see the government as nothing more than a fat cow that needs milking.

I believe our country needs a high speed rail system but we need to approach it intelligently and not just start throwing massive amounts of money at the project like we have in the past.

Yes build it but be smart about it.

With and attitude like yours we would never have built the transcontinental railroads if all we were concerned with was the cost.

Yeah....but that only took six years to go 1774 miles. Not 30 years to go 490 miles. Five times longer and almost 4 times shorter.

There is much to be considered. What would be the most efficient Western and Eastern cities for termination points. Which route would intersect the best cities for dispersion. What areas are least prone to earthquakes. This is a golden opportunity to create jobs at a time when jobs are needed the most.

What would be the most efficient Western and Eastern cities for termination points. Which route would intersect the best cities for dispersion.

My guess is NYC to Oakland, main trunk, branches to be determined! Would have to feed the South and the Midwest as starters, then if it works, keep branching off the feeders!

I forgot to add, bypass Ohio and Wisconsin..LOL

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/SE/20101210/NEWS/12100329

Both Ohio and Wisconsin have elected incoming Republican governors who oppose the rail projects. Those governors, whose states have been hit hard by the economic downturn, had asked if they could divert the money to other projects.

My guess is NYC to Oakland, main trunk, branches to be determined! Would have to feed the South and the Midwest as starters, then if it works, keep branching off the feeders!

Oakland would be good but I'd like to see a mainline termination point in Portland or possibly somewhere mid-Washington. Lots of people and lots of international freight and passenger traffic.

I suppose we could also bypass Texas. They don't need no steenking trains. :)

Oakland would be good but I'd like to see a mainline termination point in Portland or possibly somewhere mid-Washington. Lots of people and lots of international freight and passenger traffic.

Good points! I was stationed for a year at NAS Whidbey Island, married my bride 41 years ago, Saint Augustine's Catholic Church, Oak Harbor WA. Beautiful country you live in Al!!

No, to high speed trains....what is it about the fact that we don't have the money that is confusing?

Socrates1,

What if there were a way to fund the construction of a high speed train without using taxpayer money?

What if a national lottery could be established with all proceeds being dedicated to its construction?

People with money are spending millions upon millions of dollars a year on lotteries. Those short on money don't have to participate if they don't want to.

It's an old concept but it works extremely well. There is no need for the taxpayers to have to spend a single dime if they choose not to.

If just a little bit of creative ingenuity is used, we can make this happen.

A lottery is the best form of tax, for only those who want to be taxed, are taxed.

I believe Jefferson or Franklin actually said that at one point in time. It certainly rings true today. Super-duper-once-a-year Grand Prize, free railpass for life. Win.

And as to the maintainance?

And as to other things on which that same money could have been spent?

Maintenance costs could very easily come out of the same lottery. Simply keep the lottery going and that would make the HSR a completely self sustained system.

Socrates1, there will always be poverty in this world, and we will never be able to feed ALL the hungry in this world no matter how hard we try. There will always be a "better" place to spend the money we don't have, and our government knows that in spades. Our government (both sides of the house) has done absolutely nothing but bury us deeper and deeper in debt. They have shown the taxpayer beyond a reasonable doubt that they are totally incapable of caring for the needs of the people without adding ever increasing burdens on an already over burdened taxpayer. Maybe it's an impossible task but by God we can certainly try, and sitting on our asses whining about the problems is not the answer.

What would you have us do Socrates? Ignore our needs and forget about trying to think up ideas for making this a better place to live? If we do that our country will continue to rot away as it is doing now. We simply cannot continue to sit on our butts complaining about things we literally CAN change if we put our minds to it. But we have to quit thinking negatively or we will never be successful in anything we try.

This suggestion is my best shot at coming up with an amount of money in a short period of time that would fund this railroad project without increasing the burden on taxpayers in the slightest. What's yours?

Well...:)

Projections have a way of being wrong....and why should a lottery pay for others transport?

Not sure what you're saying in your second paragraph other then you complain about debt and then increase it.

Where did I say....ignore our needs? I don't see this as being one...and I see it as an incredible expense at that.

I don't have one and why should I? I oppose the project.

Fair enough. You oppose the project and so do I (as it is supposedly planned).

My second paragraph was sort of a frustrated attempt at attacking the seemingly negative attitude towards any ideas that might help us improve this nations transportation infrastructure without increasing the national debt. But I understand that it's hard to be positive towards something that you're opposed to, so all is well. I meant no disrespect.

The whole point of the idea was to put a mechanism into place that would not only finance a new rail system, but maintain and man it as well. That would help decrease, not increase the national debt. But I understand if you can't see the positive side of it.

At any rate, you missed the entire meaning and point and feel that our transportation system is fine the way it is. Point taken.

Thank your for your response...

I think you miss my meaning...I oppose it because is not financially feasible....regardless of whether it is subsidized through taxes, lottery, or some other form of non user fee. This applies not only to the initial investment, but even more so to the operational and maintainance costs.

This would help decrease the national debt? I fail to see how running any program at a loss will decrease the national debt

At any rate, you missed the entire meaning and point and feel that our transportation system is fine the way it is. Point taken.

I don't want to stereotype, but this type of argument is generally not Conservative.

Did I say somewhere that I thought our transportation system is fine the way it is? Nope.

Did I fail to miss the entire meaning and point? Nope.

Do I feel that the actions you support fail to even meet the objectives you support? Nope.

Do I feel that you are therefore misrepresenting my position? Yep.

don't want to stereotype, but this type of argument is generally not Conservative.

I agree. It's not only not conservative but it's also not constructive.

Did I say somewhere that I thought our transportation system is fine the way it is? Nope.

How else should this comment be taken?

Where did I say....ignore our needs? I don't see this as being one

If our system doesn't need to be upgraded couldn't that be taken to mean that it's fine the way it is? If not then it was a misinterpretation on my part and I apologize.

Did I fail to miss the entire meaning and point? Nope.

That remains to be seen but not a point worth arguing about. Certainly not for me anyway since this is supposed to be a discussion and not an argument.

Do I feel that the actions you support fail to even meet the objectives you support? Nope.

Those are your feelings, but not mine. Like you, I don't support the topic of this article for a myriad of reasons including the ridiculous costs. However, I see nothing wrong with trying to come up with creative ways to accomplish this task, only at a drastically lower cost (if possible). I just happen to believe that if a project such as this could be managed at a realistic cost it could create hundreds or even thousands of jobs. People in those jobs would be paying taxes, and that could help lower the debt. People on unemployment are not doing lowering the debt, they're raising it. If studies can prove that a dedicated lottery system cannot generate enough money to build and maintain a rail system then fine, it was just a suggestion anyway. I am just not the kind of person to just shoot something down without even giving it at least some level of consideration.

Do I feel that you are therefore misrepresenting my position? Yep.

That much seems to be certain.

I agree. It's not only not conservative but it's also not constructive.

And I provide the appropriate quote...

At any rate, you missed the entire meaning and point and feel that our transportation system is fine the way it is. Point taken.

It's as if I were to say to those who support extending unemployment benefits that the reason for their support is to bankrupt the economy, not to argue that it will bankrupt the economy and therefore they should oppose such an extention.

In other words, in most cases, the suggestion would be false, and yet would change the focus of the discussion as well as the "moral" implications.

All else follows from that disconnect.

Example...if I don't support this project, I must agree that the system does not need upgrading.

As to the project at lower cost....sure....just as anything is "for sale" at the right price.

As to my reaction....sorry if you feel the language was too aggressive....I agree that examing a variety of options can be a good thing...on the other hand, shouldn't one expect opposing views?

Well said and good points. And absolutely there should be opposing views.

High Speed Rail is a component of a transportation system. High Speed rail needs to be fine tuned with mass transit systems that also need fine tuning. HSR is just part of re-tuning our transportation system.

Considering Amtrak is seeing record ridership, it is hard for me to believe that people are not wanting better rail service.

Airlines are nice but they are far from perfect and do not have the same benefits as rail does, especially on a regional basis.

Ronin

in countries that do not have cheap air travel for the general population

I think we are there, pretty expensive to fly in the USA anymore! JMHO

On the topic of leaving your car at the train station. You have to do the same at an airport so that point would seem to be moot.

But that does bring up a point for consideration. It doesn't all have to be about HSR's.

Cars could be piggy backed on railcars so they could go with the traveler. Wouldn't take much to implement that with what we already have in place.

Cars could be piggy backed on railcars so they could go with the traveler. Wouldn't take much to implement that with what we already have in place.

That is more complex of a undertaking than one would think. However, I will agree with you that the multiple modes concept is something that can be fine tuned.

Amtrak does have the Autotrain that runs between Lorton (near D.C.) and Sanford (near Orlando). It's been a going enterprise for a while now, but has never expanded. I just checked and the fare is about $200 (one-way) for the auto, and about $189 (one-way) per person if you want to sit in a chair. Fares are somewhat higher if you want a stateroom. The trip takes about 17 hours. It leaves Lorton in the late afternoon and arrives in Sanford around 9 a.m.

I know there are others around the globe (I took one over the Alps from Switzerland to Italy one time), but I don't know anything about the technology.

816 miles, driving time per Google Maps 13 hours and 25 minutes (lorton, va to sanford, fl).

I'm thinking...17 hours in a train vs 13.5 in a car that can stop wherever it wants, whenever it wants for whatever it wants. Hmmm... Not to mention, well, I always beat Google's time...lol

Reverse the numbers and your average American might be interested. $400 to go to Orlando for a week (as an example) and have your car just doesn't make sense when you can rent one a lot cheaper. Mind you, I'd certainly rather be in my car than pretty much any rental car ever rented...so I might be biased a little.

Us damned Americans, we like to drive our cars...sigh.

Rob, I think Al had a good idea, about bringing your car with you, say if you were going on a vacation!

Like myself from Fort Wayne, to say Seattle,WA, And my car could come with me on the trip! What do you think?

Hey, if you're going for a month, the economics certainly may justify it. For any 1-week trip though, if the car's paying $400 r/t like it does on the AutoTrain today, most people are going to be a lot better off renting a car. Maybe if it's a family of 8 that needs to rent a full sized van on the other side, sure...

If you were going to SEA from 1/9-1/16, Hertz has a full sized car for $196/wk ($299 including all the touristjack fees and taxes). Even if you really love your car (like I love mine), an extra $100 to drive it while you're there doesn't appeal to a lot of folks.

Oh yes we must be politically correct. :)

At this point it is cheaper to fly than to take a train, if you want a compartment it cost about 3 times what it would cost to fly. Id love to take a train from Houston to LA but its cheaper to fly....go figure.

All in where you go Steve, it was far cheaper for me to fly to Japan than was for me to visit my brother in N. Dakota.

The train was cheaper than the plane.

I've found that around here (Virginia) the break point (for me) is about 200 miles. If I'm going to, say, Philadelphia or New York, I'll take the train; if I'm going further, I'll fly. Although the train is certainly slower - I've found that parking at the airport, going through security, getting bags, and getting a rental car eats up as much time as is saved by the faster airplane flight. Nowdays there isn't any food offered on flights - so I appreciate the ability to get up whenever I want to and get a snack or something to drink at the dining car. For trips less than 200 miles the train is actually competing with my driving - not flying.

Finally, it's as ohiogal says - it depends ... Flying between hubs can be cheap, but flying into local airports really raises the price.

Steve,

At this point it is cheaper to fly than to take a train,

you are so right, given any competition (high speed rail), I'm sure airfares would go down!

Thanks :)

For the RV'ers there could be round table type loading and unloading areas that could implement drive on/drive off terminals. Again, that would not be very hard to modify what's already in place. It would certainly save a ton on fuel costs for the traveler and they could probably even ride in the RV from point to point if they wanted to.

It certainly would make it more cost effective for those who were trying to get from coast to coast via RV. There could be off-loading terminals in cities along the way.

I think that could actually be a doable project that would be cost worthy and actually functional.

I think that could actually be a doable project that would be cost worthy and actually functional.

Better patent it!

Actually, a single railroad car costs $2.5 million dollars.

Whether building a high speed rail link between Washington and Boston is worth it or not is probably a complicated question. The cities it will connect are all fairly important: Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington. There's an awful lot of business trips each day between those cities. People fly now. They would take the train if it was traveling 200 mph.

A relevant question is whether the investment will ever pay off. Will the dollars turn themselves around and will the investment reduce our consumption of carbon fuels?

The Acela actually does make money and the Northeast Regional comes close to it. Not to mention this should not be completely looked at as payoff in terms of money.

Even if it is looked at in terms of money - the B/C ratio exceeds 1 in the report for which a link is given in Comment #1.1. If there is a question about the payoff - then folks should look to that B/C analysis and direct their questions to those assumptions and data.

Then maybe there are better things to spend money on, like the electric grid.

Maybe there are better things - but what are they that are not getting funded because of the HSR funding? Are you saying that you know that the HSR will be built at the expense of not funding improvements to the electric grid? Can't they both be done if they are high-priority, B/C>1 projects? Perhaps the Mars launcher funds were (or will be) cut, perhaps there will be no more grants to investigate the social mores of mountain gorillas. There must be some projects less important that we can get funding from.

Actually, I misread your line about the B/C ration exceeding one. I thought you meant exactly the opposite.

I personally like trains, and if the benefits exceed the cost, then maybe it's a good idea. One concern I have is that we have a huge deficit. Is it an example of spending that will help keep the economy chugging along? Then maybe its money well spent for that reason. Another concern I have is that maybe the money would be better spent on upgrading subways and bridges. Will the benefits of a high speed train link be widely shared? It sounds like a plaything for elites, while the rest of us ride slower trains. What else could we do with that money?

I know some people will say "cut taxes." There's certainly a time for looking at spending with a critical eye toward reducing costs. But we have a crumbling aging infrastructure and it is one of the ways we are falling behind China.

rls8r,

Understand what you are getting at and I agree. I never expected this program to succeed without adjustments made to other forms of infrastructure. The countries entire infrastructure needs an overhaul and HSR should be a part of this.

Gulliver's Island,

One concern I have is that we have a huge deficit. Is it an example of spending that will help keep the economy chugging along?

I really can not answer this out of certainty, but one of our main concerns is infrastructure that overall benefits the health of the country and a foundation for any economic growth to occur; whether it is HSR, power grid, sewer systems, etc; they all need investment.

Another concern I have is that maybe the money would be better spent on upgrading subways and bridges. Will the benefits of a high speed train link be widely shared?

Subways really only solve the urban problem. Yes, it needs work and I would agree that the urban systems should get some critical work done first, but it really can not reach it's full potential till they are able to collaborate with other systems.

Bridges and Highways are just as important as any other kind of infrastructure, but the plan for high speed rail is to help divert some of the traffic off of those particular pieces of infrastructure. We need to relieve the constant strain off of those road bridges which would intern extend the life of the structures, but can only happen if the traveling public is given an alternative option.

It sounds like a plaything for elites, while the rest of us ride slower trains. What else could we do with that money?

Honestly, more of the business will probably down better with trains like the Northeast Regional than the Acela. The Acela seems to cater more to the elite business men and women. However, the "slower" trains would also benefit from these improvements.

What it illustrates is that public works involve mind boggling numbers and you can't just dismiss a project out of hand because it has a big price tag. New York city would have no fresh water or public transportation if nobody spent the big bucks to build reservoirs, aqueducts and subway tunnels. We still need the courage to think big and we need people who can crunch the numbers honestly for us.

Therein lies the problem, public trust is at an all time low, and rightly so. Until we see some accountability for the people who just wrecked our economy, as opposed to underwriting their annual bonuses, why should we trust our government to spend large sums of money like this?

You just stated the (in my opinion) the biggest problem. It is difficult to trust anyone public or private sector.