http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/category/rail-and-mass-transit

Warren spends some time on this issue.

I'd like to see a high-speed line connecting Atlanta to Las Vegas. Run it through Jackson, Shreveport and Dallas and it'd make money every weekend.

If I could hop on a train in Shreveport on Friday night, get to Vegas early Saturday and get back on the train on Sunday, I'd go once a month.

The only problem is that they wouldn't need to subsidize it. It would make money.

California has been talking about this for some time too. A broke state that wants new, expensive toys...HA!!!

I'm here in NC, and used to live in Charlotte. The morons in office are always free with taxpayer money, seeming to think it's a well that will never run dry. Good post, but the real reason I'm commenting is just to say that it is good to have you back! You've got a kick-ass website!

NOBODY in this state(FL0RIDA) wanted that damn thing. I suspect the bunch of repulijerks who pushed this through are going to learn this to their sorrow when they come up for re-election - NOT!

I am also willing to bet that the number of daily riders will be in the single digits if it ever is completed.

Wisconsin will be receiving $800+ mill for highspeed to connect Milwaukee to the Madison airport. Problem is, no one ever goes to the Madison airport, in fact relatively few people ever go to Madison.

Our outgoing "pay for play makes Blago look bushleague" governor is wetting his little panties since he needs a legacy other than leaving Wisconsin on the brink of financial ruin.

Meanwhile, the Asian carp is about to invade Lake Michigan through a Chicago canal which could devastate the $7 billion/year fishing industry in the Great Lakes! The largest source of freshwater in the world is about to undergo an ecological catastrophe, but the hell with that, WE WANT TRAINS! Oh did I mention our highspeed train will only get you to the Madison airport a few minutes faster than by car?

Maybe they're mad that MARTA named the train to Chambodia the "yellow line."

I guess the lack of any free market interest in building these techological miracles is no clue to the fascist left that we don't need them built....

Highways are %100 subsidized by the taxpayer. So lets not build them either. The reason Europe,Russia, Japan, and China are building high speed rail systems is because they reduce congestion making cities liveable. If you build 2 high speed tracks then you don't need to constantly build more highway lanes to reduce congestion. Transportation experts say that over the long-term it is %50 cheaper to build a high speed rail network then it is to build endless new highways.

...and how much profit did Amtrak post last year? Take that profit to fund the bullet trains.

Wait, there isn't any.

Ohio is getting 350 mill for the their train scam. Connecting Cleveland to Columbus and Cinncinnatti, not only is it projected to run slower than by car it also is less economical. Burning more fuel and operating at a deficit that must be subsidized.

The money went to states the dims need to hold election-wise in 2012. It's not about trains, folks.

Being an engineer, I think trains are really cool, but only in the historical sense. We pretty much outgrew them around 1950. They work great for hauling freight, but now days people prefer to get places fast and nothing will beat a jet for that. They are proposing a high speed line from the Twin Cities to Chicago. It's projected to take about 5-6 hours travel time and cost a couple hundred bucks for a fare. I can fly to Chicago from MSP in two hours including ground transport for a lot less than that. And you want to talk about a terrorist target? There is no way to protect the a high speed train over a land route that covers hundreds of miles with tunnels and bridges all along the way.

I fully support a high speed rail system that ONLY hauls illegal immigrants OUT of the United States. Faster we can ship them back to Messyco, the better.

Don't need passenger cars. Just put'em on a flat bed at the front of the train and stop suddenly at the border.

Well, if they would have used the economic stimulus money to build high speed rail instead of just giving it to the bankers at least we would have something to show for it. But we were in a hurry to save the economy, so all I have to show for it is a sore butt.

BTW: anyone who ever votes for a Democrat or a Republican ever again is a sap.

High speed Trains.....

Kind of a mixed bag, I know from my travels outside of this country trains are accepted as a viable travel method for people & freight.
I personally liked travel on the Japanese & Swiss Rail system`s.They were both well maintained, comfortable, reasonable in cost & on time.
As for air travel.....I do not like sitting in airports for hours , circling the airport waiting to land while my connecting flight is taking off or being handled like cattle or insulted by some yahoo who feels self important because they work in baggage handling.
The aforementioned being said, International travel will always be primarily air travel as well as travel to major cities of over say 750 miles. I would think that domestic travel via a well designed & maintained high speed rail system would be preferable as people gained experience & appreciation for it.
Yes, I think a modern high speed rail system would be in the best interest of this country particulary as air travel with reliance on fossil fuels will become ever more expensive.
For sure I have found time & again travel between cities of 400 miles or less could be accomplished in the same time or less by car then flying when you consider the time wasted in airports,delays or missed flights let alone the degrading manner you as the customer are treated.
I also am convinced it will never come to pass or be economical if it does happen if the Government has anything to do with its development, installation, staffing or operations.

Nathan - I was just waiting for one of you libs to try the "highways are subsidized" bullshit. The highways are paid for by the federal and state gas taxes. Sorry. Only in the mind of a clueless lib would that be considered a subsidy. Here in Georgia we have a law that says the state gas tax can only be used for roads. It really pisses off the libs 'cause they want to grab it to use it to subsidize mass transit or commuter rail.

Go peddle your uninformed bullshit somewhere else.

When I lived in Tampa, I would've found a (cheap) railway to Orlando useful, although I wouldn't have used it more than 2-3 times a month.

Don't forget the unplanned for cost of public transportation when public sector employees unionize. Most public transit systems tend in that direction.

Anyone who wants to understand the foolish wastefulness of mass transit systems should research the cost vs. subsidy vs. user revenue ratios for BART in the SF Bay area.

Here in Boise there is a proposal by elected officials to install a streetcar. The route would be about 2.5 miles through downtown in a loop. Businesses and residences within 3 blocks of the route would be taxed in a special district to pay for $20 million of it. That's money they don't have. The total project cost is $60 million.

Of course, it will have to share the street with regular traffic so it will add to congestion.

Anyone who wants to ride the thing will have to drive downtown, find a place to park (with a fee attached) and pay a fare to ride it both ways. The combination of the parking fee and fare will be much higher than just going to an existing parking garage or using a parking meter. Plus, you will have to wait for it at each end. The bottom line is it will be inconvenient to use, expensive to build, will not relieve any traffic problems and will never make a profit.

A majority of people would rather see them put the money into some more buses and expand routes on existing roads. But the elected officials don't want to hear that so they don't listen. The mantra we get from them is "They don't want it because we have not educated them enough to the benefits of it". Bullshit. We don't want it because it is an expensive pet project that will not do any good for anyone.

Herein Florida we voted down the high speed rail connections between Miami, Orlando and Tampa.

Why? Because everyone new they would be too expensive and fail in the long run.

This is the kind of bullshit that has people finally getting pissed.

Where does the Federal govermint come off taking YOUR tax money to pay for some bullshit in an other state that not only does not benefit you but the people in that state don't even want it.

Did you know that the feds are giving our money to states whose snow budgets are blown.

I moved to and live in Florida because I hated NY and the cold and I'm paying to plow fucking snow in NY?

You know the failed lib states (eg. Calif) will be getting bailed out by us as well.

They have known failed liberal policies, spend money like the pieces of shit they are, are corrupt, steal from the tax payer and the other states are supposed to bail them out. Other states meaning you and me.

Don't even get me started on a totally bankrupt country giving away billions of $$$$$$ to ungrate muslim contries, etc.

WTF

I'm going Galt!

Gummint Bureacrats have an obvious fondness for Choo-Choos, for some unfathomable reason...I remember they took us for a ride when I was in the 4th grade in 1967...one of the last scheduled passenger trains in NE Tennessee...It was slow, dirty, hot, noisy, & the car smelled suspiciously like vomit & urine...It was 3rd class accomodations for second-class citizens.

As far as I'm concerned, GA can have ours. Don't need it. Can't afford it. Why???

Gonna have to disagree with you here Denny.

Let me first off clarify that I'm in graduate school for Urban Planning. High Speed Rail is a subject that comes up a lot.

I was against this idea of 8 Billion for High speed rail. 8 billion is pissing in the wind. Even if it all went to California, 8 Billion wouldn't cover a line from LA to Vegas. But the pie was split 10 ways or so, and no one is going to get to build anything. Luckily, more money is forthcoming.

Secondly, Rail makes a profit and is the driving force of our economy. That is, freight rail. However, our freight rail infrastructure would make Romania embarrassed.

You see, rail is where privatization has gone horribly, horribly wrong. Most of US railways are owned by some private company or another. CSX is an example. US law used to mandate that in order to operate freight lines, you have to operate passenger lines as well. Companies realized that they made all their profit on freight and sometimes lost money on passenger service. They successfully lobbied the government to remove the requirement to run passenger trains. Government decided train service was an essential service to the people, and voila! Amtrak was born. Privatization here costs the people a service that is needed.

The US government has to PAY the private companies to use their railways to operate passenger service so that they don't have to. Amtrak is destined never to really turn a profit.

The freight rail industry doesn't have to upgrade the railways because coal, lumber, and automobiles are forced to use rail to transport goods.

Upgrading to true high speed rail is just way too expensive for a private company to undertake. Just like the interstates, the federal government needs to do it.

However, if trains went between 200-300 mph (very possible), that would really be a time and cost saver from truck freight (which clogs up roadways) and passengers. It would certainly make trips from 200 to 1000 miles really easy.

The metro in DC barely makes a profit. Should those 798,456 trips per weekday be put back on the roads?

One things for sure: we're not all going to be commuting 50-100 miles per day in our SUVs 30-50 years from now. The sooner we realize that and plan for it, the better.

You guys keep on arguing about physical costs of rail.

What about the hidden costs of oil and an auto based society?
The subsidizing of oil? the money keeping the shipping lanes safe? The money in the transportation budget keeping roads in good condition (it's more than you think)? The money lost in productivity from traffic? The lives lost in accidents?

I could go on, but I've already written a mini novel.

High speed rail will be the future. Whether we're going to be ahead or behind the curve is the question.

Robin - High speed rail will be a boondoggle. And you're mixing apples and oranges here by comparing high speed rail to mass transit i.e. the DC Metro. I'm not against mass transit in the cities but nowhere does it turn a profit. I'm sure DC Metro just like MARTA in Atlanta is subsidized with tax money. My problem with MARTA is that the only time I use it is to go to the airport. Other than that, it doesn't go where I want to go, so I just drive.

Now, on to high speed rail. You said that current passenger trains have to be subsidized. Guess what. So will the bullet trains. And this is after all the billions it will take to build new tracks or update existing tracks. These are billions that we don't have. As Senator Dirkson once said, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

I won't live to see it, but you will see high speed rail with few passengers. As I said in my post, Amtrak on steroids.

Automobiles are currently taxpayer subsidized. Road maintenance/Oil Prices/Government bailouts of GM. Not to mention all the tax breaks to own your own home in the suburbs or what not.

My comparison to Metro to High speed rail is because metro is a subsidized service that barely profits, yet provides a critical service to the DC area. No private company would do what metro does w/o subsidies. And yet its service is essential.

The free market does not solve all problems unfortunately.

What's the difference if we subsidize trains instead of cars? Less traffic, deaths, and less reliance on foreign oil that's going to run out in under 50 years.

If you think we're can continue our current trends in transportation for the next 50 years... I have a bridge to sell you.

Robin Palm.....

Probably the only time I have ever agreed with you.....In the future & maybe sooner then we think, the increasing cost of fossil fuel will drive the usage of personal transportation for all but essentials as well as hauling freight over the road out of business. Air transportation? Forget about it as cost except for the wealthy will be prohibitive.
This leaves public transportation, the most economical in the long run even if subsidized will be high speed rail.
Like it or not it is the future.

dudley1 - Fortunately you and I will be long gone before that happens. They've been predicting the end of fossil fuels for the last 50 years and we keep finding more. We were supposed to peak over 20 years ago. By the time we finally do run out we'll either have quick recharging electric cars (think super capacitors instead of batteries) or some form of hydrogen powered engines.

Robin - Now you're reaching. Home mortgage tax subsidies subsidize cars? GMAFB! Those same tax breaks are available for city dwellers.

What I'm saying is that high speed rail is a Dimocrat wet dream that we cannot afford at this time. Here is a column that explains it better than I can.

The billions will turn into trillions and that is money that we do not have, spent on something that few people will use.

Amtrak on steroids.

Oh well. That is a debt that you and your children will have to pay. I'll be gone.

Denny......

You champion electric powered vehicles powered by super capacitors or powered by hydrogen engines as what the future portends......Maybe if the science to develop either an economical super capacitor or hydrogen motor proves to be commercially successful.
The same applies for my pet favorite which is solar power harvested in space & transferred down to earth via an as yet undiscovered economical method with a still to be developed method of utilization for this limitless power source.
I am confident that all of these science fiction technologies will be developed , maybe even in the forseeable future but certainly not in time for our usage.
When one considers the reality of an ever increasing acceleration for scientific discovery & development to commercial application......It is more then probable development will take place for the technologies we reference. It is also a certainly this process will bring power technologies we cannot even comprehend yet into common usage.
This is why I say drill, drill, drill & use what nature has available to maintain our economic engine & invest heavily into development of viable alternative power or fuel technologies for the future.
Until future technologies replace fossil fuels economically I believe high speed rail is in the immediate future & the new technologies when developed can be applied to power that rail system.

dudley1 - Did you read the linked column? HSR is simply too expensive at this time. The existing tracks won't support real HSR. It will require new track. Just imagine the cost for that. And as the column says why have a bullet train from Tampa to Orlando when you can drive it in 90 minutes? It fails all cost/benefit analysis and is simply to expensive.

Denny.....
In Japan they have two train systems....one High Speed system for long distances between major cities & one conventional for urban travel & adjacent cities. The bullet train does not stop at every large city.

Obviously a whole lot of thought must go into planning just what population & commercial centers would be serviced by High Speed Rail & which would be designated for regional service.

A perfect example is here in Erie which is roughly equal in distance from Buffalo, Cleveland & Pittsburg. Nutcases here are trumpeting the local advantage of a High Speed Rail Corridor linking the three cities which should go through an Erie terminal. At present there is thought for a High Speed Rail System linking Buffalo east across NY State , A High Speed Rail System linking Cleveland to points west & a similar system linking Pittsburg to the Eastern seaboard. Since there are no current plans to link Buffalo,Pittsburg or Cleveland in any fashion ...........The likelihood of connecting Erie to any or all of these cities via a High Speed Rail System is ridiculous for the reasons you cite.

As for the cost of new rail & rail beds....do we not periodically replace the concrete in our interstate road systems & the beds underneath them or at least repave them?

Yes, I recognize the cost associated with the establishment of a High Speed Rail System but I know it will be beneficial & probably cheaper then to constantly upgrade the highway system which today in & around most large population centers is woefully inadequate.

Besides we subsidize the existance & marginal quality of life for millions of deadbeats in this country who sponge off the system without any significant contribution. The sad thing is we have done this for generations & spent far more money then a High Speed Rail System would cost.

Future economics for the cost of transportation & delivery will dictate a change in societal thought as to where & how we spend funding for the greater good of the country. This will mean the welfare class will have to belly up to the bar & begin to provide for themselves if they are to be a part of the society. Will this be well received? No! but necessity is the mother of invention , it will also be the mother for social restructuring whether they like it or not.

Tampa to Orlando is 85 miles, to connect St. Pete (major population center) you would have to bridge Tampa Bay. From St Pete I can hit Orlando in under 2 hours. The trip on HSR would go like this....drive to station 20 min., check in go through security 45 min., train ride for 85 miles with 5 stops 90 min., arrive in Orlando and rent a car 20 min., do my thing and repeat in reverse. In 2002 the ticket price was estimated @ $29.00 each way. Almost three hours and $58.00 for the train and $40.00 for a car.

Dudley- first time for everything. I kinda like the Space based solar panel array idea too. I thought the microwave transmission of power at that distance was already possible? The only hang ups are the efficiency of solar panels, maintenance, and startup costs.

Denny- The creation of the FHA and tax breaks for home mortgages in the 30's and 40's certainly caused the housing boom of the 50's. These new homes of the middle class were built outside of the city and were our first completely auto dependent communities. Millions and millions of homes were built. The government still gives tax breaks to home ownership, encouraging further and further sprawl.

When you complain about the upfront costs of HSR, do you really calculate the total cost of an auto based society? The interstates would cost 425 Billion today, and that's not including maintenance. Over 90% of the federal (18.4 cpg) and state gasoline tax (30cent avg) go into highway maintenance. United States consumes 378 million gallons of gas a day. You can do the math yourself.

Bottom line: an auto based society is more expensive than a transit based one, and it's not even close. We're not really even getting into externalities of time lost in traffic and the economic effect of traffic accidents and fatalities.

Redfish: When's the last time you rode a train?
Did it take you 45 minutes to go through security? A 85 mile trip isn't really where HSR shines. HSR is best at 200-1000 mile trips. It'd probably take 30 minutes and you'd never get stuck in traffic.

And this is all just talking about the effects of high speed passenger rail. High speed freight rail would change the game completely. Reduce shipping times, reduce prices, increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy. You could even see more foreign assembly plants come to the United States b/c it would be a cost/time savings over using cargo ships over the oceans. Our ports are already extremely overcrowded.

It's pretty much a slam dunk if you look at the big picture. I'm just worried the United States wasted its golden age and vast resources on a society structure that cannot be sustainable.