![]() |
Originally Posted by Artpen100
(Post 21812501)
Politics is not the problem for the NY-DC-Boston Acela corridor. It is the cost of urban real estate in the area (and the difficulty in forcing the sale of it if you could afford it) to provide the straight lines required for high speed travel. The TGV is largely crossing farmland between the big cities. Politics may have more of an impact in other areas, but, frankly, a lot of the proposed routes don't make much sense to me. Only DC-Chicago-NY, Houston-Dallas-Austin and maybe SF-LA. Otherwise, the traffic just isn't there. If between two given cities there are only one or two flights a day, how can they be expected to fill a train every hour?
As for density, I don't think anyone is suggesting they just build high speed lines randomly across the States. |
Originally Posted by Wilbur
(Post 21812522)
Politics aside, the economic equation for high speed rail never ends in a positive number.
The population density is too thin, and the distances are too great. America is not Japan. That is why no private company will make the effort to create a high speed train with current technology. The federal investment for the Eisenhower interstates made good economic and political sense, as the repayment to positive value was accomplished early, and the benefits were spread across the country in a more-or-less even fashion. The immense tax dollar transfer from Americans who will never any benefit from a high speed rail line from DC to NYC to the politicos and bankers who would benefit from such a line will never receive support from any state senator or representative outside of Connecticut, New York or Maryland. I love riding trains, but even so I am enough of a rational economic consumer that I would never support such a project in the US based on current technology and costs. When Elon Musk's Amaz-O-Train (or some other analog) proves out to be economically viable and technologically achievable, then I will be happy to support it. There is wider economic benefits than the immediate cost (or profit to the contractors). Shorten travel time can generate positive externalities. The World Bank has a made a report on the postive impact high speed rail has made on China: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pre...nomic-benefits The same could conceivably apply to portions of the US with a high speed rail. |
Originally Posted by Artpen100
(Post 21812501)
Only DC-Chicago-NY, Houston-Dallas-Austin and maybe SF-LA. Otherwise, the traffic just isn't there. If between two given cities there are only one or two flights a day, how can they be expected to fill a train every hour?
The Shinkansen has my vote for best in the world. TGV and AVE not far behind. Have ridden plenty of trains in China, but not the high speed lines yet. |
As for the Northeast Corridor, there really isn't enough NEED for true high speed rail. The trains already run fast enough, they carry heavy loads, and the stations are too close to really benefit from any greater speed. Right now they are dealing with the bottle necks - the bridges in New York, and the congestion in Southern Connecticut and New York. The next thing they need to work on is station access - the stations may be convenient for those in the city itself, but is terribly inconvenient for suburban dwellers because getting to the stations is so difficult. Once they fix that, THEN they will need to build a new route, because there just isn't more capacity with what they have now.
|
Originally Posted by Wilbur
(Post 21812522)
Politics aside, the economic equation for high speed rail never ends in a positive number.
The population density is too thin, and the distances are too great. America is not Japan. All you have to do is look at CA. In 1980s there was a proposal to build HSR here back then. it was scrapped because of the "the distances are too great, population density is too thin" remark. Flash forward to 2013, CA is now more populous as ever with airports full to capacity, traffic jams being a total mess, with nary a solution to increasing population density. Now urban land prices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are extremely high that the real estate crash from the rest of the nation doesn't affect us - it's a red hot market here with cash buyers. Now we have the urban density to warrant HSR in CA between SF-LA-SD. We even have the federal grants to start building it. We even got additional federal grants from the ones that FL and WI rejected. Unfortunately no one wants to sell their land for a dedicated HSR line because urban land prices is scarce and high. So that adds up to additional time and money lost to build this, if ever. If you want to build HSR, it has to be built when there is land available for cheap which is before higher density population centers take shape. You need to analyze "ok which cities has the most potential to becoming a great, which city corridors would do well with a HSR project today?" That's the way to plan out things, not wait until density is there that now urban land prices become the problem. As for Japan, we'll they got a fresh re-start: we bombed their cities down to ashes during WW2 - they got to rebuild their cities around mass transit. They didn't have to worry about NIMBYs or frivolous "won't someone pleeeease think of the children" type BS lawsuits about HSR going through their homes or cities. Majority of Japanese right after WW2 were too poor to afford cars and yet they needed a way to get to work to rebuild their country. NIMBYism and anti-high density development took a back seat to rebuild their nation and the people worked together with their government to plan out their cities with mass transit. And it worked great for them under the Japanese system of government lead projects - in less than 20 years after the end of WW2 where everything was burnt to ashes, Japan was able to rebuild itself to become an economic superpower where Tokyo successfully did the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and built the world's first bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka. As for China, they are an authoritarian communist country. They want a HSR, they draw a line through a map and bulldoze anything in its path. Oh there are homes and businesses there? Sucks to be them, they have no rights to question government projects. Oh there was a four year baby inside the home? Too bad. Oh there's a mountain in the way? Dynamite it. Tree-huggers? Kill 'em. Toxic industrial waste? Meh, bury them. How do you think China is able to build HSR in a matter of years? Because in China, the government has absolute power and the citizens don't. The US on the other hand is neither Japan or China, you are right. But it's not land size or population density. It's Japan got a fresh re-start from WW2 - they got a hard reset to do urban planning. It's China being under an authoritarian regime where the citizen has no right to question government projects. That's the biggest difference. |
"The [US] population density is too thin, and the distances are too great. America is not Japan."
That may hold true for Wyoming or Montana, but 35 million people or so live along the I-95 corridor. I think a triangle from Miami to Chicago to New York is practical. Even Spain and Turkey have high speed rail these days; this is getting embarrassing. |
Originally Posted by yandosan
(Post 21814937)
"The [US] population density is too thin, and the distances are too great. America is not Japan."
That may hold true for Wyoming or Montana, but 35 million people or so live along the I-95 corridor. I think a triangle from Miami to Chicago to New York is practical. Even Spain and Turkey have high speed rail these days; this is getting embarrassing. |
@kebosabi
Whom do you mean with "we"? FT is largely an international forum. As for Japan, we'll they got a fresh re-start: we bombed their cities down to ashes during WW2 - As for China, they are an authoritarian communist country. They want a HSR, they draw a line through a map and bulldoze anything in its path. Oh there are homes and businesses there? Sucks to be them, they have no rights to question government projects. Oh there was a four year baby inside the home? Too bad. Oh there's a mountain in the way? Dynamite it. Tree-huggers? Kill 'em. Toxic industrial waste? Meh, bury them. How do you think China is able to build HSR in a matter of years? Because in China, the government has absolute power and the citizens don't. Just look at the protests against the Beijing - Shenyang High-Speed Rail and Maglev extension projects. City Governments will listen to its citizens. Its not black and white as portrayed by Fox News, Sen. Cruz and the Heritage Foundation? Moreover, why are most High-Speed lines built on more expensive pylons. Right, so that the farmers could still keep their land. |
Originally Posted by warakorn
(Post 21818318)
Maybe you should not forget that China has move forward quite a bit in the last decade.
Furthermore, let's not forget how China handled the Wenzhou incident two years ago. Covering up the HSR train collision like it never happened and trying to bury the damage along with dead in a ditch? Sorry, China still has a long way to go.
Originally Posted by warakorn
(Post 21818318)
Moreover, why are most High-Speed lines built on more expensive pylons. Right, so that the farmers could still keep their land.
If you want to see the nasty effects of Baby Boomer NIMBYism ruining American transit infrastructure projects, all you need to do is take a close watch at what is happening to the CAHSR project. There is the money. We even have the extra money that FL and WI rejected. Majority of CAnians are for the idea. Yet, it gets stalled because of NIMBYism at its finest (worst). Heck there's even an article on The Fresno Bee today stating that it's costing taxpayers $600 million in consulting costs to get through all the litigation, environmental, and engineering plans before even a single shovel is put to ground. http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/11/19/...ant-costs.html And remember, this is what used to be the country that made the transcontinental railroad in 4 years back in the 19th century. |
Originally Posted by kebosabi
(Post 21820719)
And remember, this is what used to be the country that made the transcontinental railroad in 4 years back in the 19th century.
|
And that is the strategy. If you lack the votes to block a project, drive up the costs and time frame to the point the project fails. it doesn't matter how much it costs everyone in the end, because you can always blame the cost on the other side. And even if you loose this battle, if you have driven the costs up high enough, you can use it as a example of why future projects are going to be too expensive (see Las Vegas Monorail)
|
To get us back on topic a bit...
I've been on the French TGV, German ICE, Japanese Shinkansen (just returned from a three week trip in Japan, all by train), Italian Frecciarossa, Eurostar and the Austrian RailJet. I think the RailJet is definitely my favorite. Not as fast as the others but the scenery between Zurich and Innsbruck just can't be beat. Even more fun if you stop off at the Aqua Dome on the way. :D |
Originally Posted by Sant
(Post 21820948)
That's during pre-NIMBY era.
That holds very true on why the US were able to build the transcontinental railroad so quickly back then but has a hard time doing anything today. Materials? Meh, chop the trees in the forest! Environmentalists? We don't need no environmentalists! Labor? Oh we have the Chinese and the Irish to do the job for us, and they'll do it no matter how dangerous it is. And the best part, they do it for dirt cheap, and if they die, they can be easily replaced! Permits or land? Just rob and steal the land from the Native Americans! Yeehaw! Try to do that today will be an impossible feat to do.
Originally Posted by Cloudship
(Post 21821428)
And that is the strategy. If you lack the votes to block a project, drive up the costs and time frame to the point the project fails. it doesn't matter how much it costs everyone in the end, because you can always blame the cost on the other side. And even if you loose this battle, if you have driven the costs up high enough, you can use it as a example of why future projects are going to be too expensive (see Las Vegas Monorail)
|
Originally Posted by txflyer77
(Post 21822248)
To get us back on topic a bit...
I've been on the French TGV, German ICE, Japanese Shinkansen (just returned from a three week trip in Japan, all by train), Italian Frecciarossa, Eurostar and the Austrian RailJet. I think the RailJet is definitely my favorite. Not as fast as the others but the scenery between Zurich and Innsbruck just can't be beat. Even more fun if you stop off at the Aqua Dome on the way. :D |
Originally Posted by txflyer77
(Post 21822248)
To get us back on topic a bit...
I've been on the French TGV, German ICE, Japanese Shinkansen (just returned from a three week trip in Japan, all by train), Italian Frecciarossa, Eurostar and the Austrian RailJet. RailJet is ok but it feels more like a regular train and is perhaps comparable to the Pendolino train in Czech Republic. Out of ICE and TGV I would prefer TGV (EuroStar actually) because it feels like a proper super-train! ICE has a better design though. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:35 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.