By Here is one of the infrastructure projects that appear to be on the chopping block due to the budget fights around the country:
President Barack Obama’s plan for a national high-speed rail network suffered a serious setback as a result of the fight over budget cuts. No money will be allocated for high-speed rail projects for the remainder of 2011.
Supporters have pointed to the plan as a job creator and economy booster, while critics have expressed doubts about whether spending billions of dollars on high-speed rail is the best use of federal funds.
The news came as a blow to high-speed rail advocates such as Petra Todorovich of the Regional Plan Association in New York. “Obviously, it’s a disappointment for many of the states that were seeking funding from the high-speed rail program,” Todorovich said, “and it’s a loss of momentum as we scale up for the president’s ambitious proposal.”
As details of the budget compromise on Capitol Hill were made available to the public there was confusion over just how much money was being cut from the high-speed rail program. Some published reports put the figure at $2.9 billion, and at least one said it was as much as $4.4 billion. [CNN]
Having rode trains all around Korea and Japan I am supportive of high-speed rail in general, I’m just skeptical that high-speed rail will work in the US. First of all, if the high-speed rail system has to share tracks like the current Amtrak Acela line in the US Northeast than its average top-speed is going to make the trains to slow to compete with air travel. The Acela averages 70mph, this hardly high-speed. Here is a comparison chart of the average speeds of high-speed rail lines around the world:
Secondly, it is one thing to fund the cost of building the lines, but the trains will have to subsidized to keep ticket prices down to encourage people to ride the trains. Has any money been allocated to subsidize the ticket prices? Also is there even a demand for the service on the proposed routes? Thirdly, what makes train travel so successful in Korea and Japan is the fact that they are part of a greater mass transit system. These rail lines need to end at stations that are easily connected to a subway system or at least a clean and efficient bus system to take travelers to where they need to go.
If all of this isn’t thought out and the effort is just simply to build trains as a make work project than sadly what the US will end up with is a bunch of tax payer funded empty trains. Just ask the people of New Mexico.
8:25 pm on April 19th, 2011 1
If Japan and Korea can make high-speed rail and mass transit work but we can't, then Tom's right.
10:08 pm on April 19th, 2011 2
Japan and Korea are very different countries from America. I would rather drive across the country than ride a train across it. I'm not alone in this. So psychologically, we are a different people.
To build a train system that is not needed, just because THEY did it, is short sighted. Add that it will need to be subsidised, during a time of financial troubles, makes it not only short sighted but stupid as well.
If someone wants to bring up the price of gas these days, the answer will be that we are an oil producing country that needs to start producing rather than using tax money to subsidise a train that few will use.
If you're a Greeny, well, put up a string of "plug ins" for the electric cars across the Nation. China will me making and importing them to us. Get the plug-in system up and I might buy one. Makes more sense than the train.
10:09 pm on April 19th, 2011 3
LOL. It's useless for you guys to build this thing because of your mindset. I can see it now, fat Americans on steady diet of Big Mac's, who've never walked two blocks in their lives… taking the train.. instead of driving their big SUV's. Right.
Until the gas hits $10 per gallon in a very short period of time, in matter of months, I am pretty sure Americans will never take the train. But by the time the gas does hit that much in short time, it would be too late for America as they'll be walking since there's no other forms of transportation.
And I wouldn't trust the American rail, considering how horrible AM Track has been, with their extremely poor safety record.
Leave the trains to the Koreans and the Japanese, you guys take the car, it's the best bet for fat lazy white poeple.
10:23 pm on April 19th, 2011 4
See! Tom agrees with me. Mitsubishi Eclipse. The Japs sure make a fine machine.
11:14 pm on April 19th, 2011 5
Tom is talking outside his understanding again. Trains–in any country–are only popular for going to places with no parking. Koreans have a great rail/subway system; but there are probably more cars in Seoul on any given day than there are in Chicago or NYC…
11:54 pm on April 19th, 2011 6
The problem with transportation like this is the local transportation when people arrive.
Design it so people can easily transport their cars with them and the nation will be crisscrossed with high-speed rail networks in a decade.
1:25 am on April 20th, 2011 7
"Design it so people can easily transport their cars with them—" Now THAT would work!
And that is way it would never be done.
1:53 am on April 20th, 2011 8
Tom says…
"And I wouldn’t trust the American rail, considering how horrible AM Track has been, with their extremely poor safety record.
Leave the trains to the Koreans and the Japanese, you guys take the car, it’s the best bet for fat lazy white poeple."
I hope God shall forbid the U.S. from doing what you suggest above…
If left to Koreans(as you suggest) then this is what WILL probably follow(happen in America thanks to Korean Management)…
Here is how Koreans employee(or try) American workers in America…
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/117075/20110228/u…
2:11 am on April 20th, 2011 9
#8, blacks and hispanics complaining that they have to actually work for what they're being paid to do… how shocking is that?
Even more damning is this paragraph:
According to the article, Jeong attributed a large part of the production problems at the plant to the lack of skilled workers.
"It is not so easy to find them around here," Jeong said. "We hired unskilled laborers and trained them. It was not so quick. We are bringing in more workers from Korea to work on bottlenecks, where we need higher skills, so we can have a smoother process,"
—
LOL, can't find any skilled workers so they ended up hiring cheap labor American workers, but still ended up bringing over Korean workers to cover.
Look, stupid, when I said "leave the trains to Koreans and Japanese", I meant forget building trains in the US because you guys are not ready for them. It's like giving books to illiterates. LOL.
7:49 am on April 20th, 2011 10
It's also like giving Tom a computer and internet access.
9:00 am on April 20th, 2011 11
this wont catch on in the US
9:27 am on April 20th, 2011 12
I don't know if a national "network" is feasible, but there are plenty of routes where a high-speed rail option would work out quite well for a lot of people.
In California, an OC-to-Vegas track would be a good example. People want to get there fast and the train would get them faster than driving (and possibly about as fast as a plane, depending on how long it takes to check in).
Moreover, the two-lane I-15 is now so jampacked with cars traveling that route that hundreds of miles of Interstate will eventually have to be widened anyway, and that could be costly, though not as much as building the rail. It just makes it an alternative that should be considered.
There is a little less impetus for the San Diego-to-San Francisco route, but it is one of those things that could attract more people once it's in operation. During the winter, especially, a high-speed train would be very appealing when snow closes down the Grapevine (I-5 going through Tejon Pass).
10:01 am on April 20th, 2011 13
The only area that this idea would be benificial to the U.S., would be the corridor from Washington D.C. to Boston. Other than this corridor, the other major U.S. cities are spaced too far apart.
Corridor = D.C. – Baltimore – Philly – NYC – Hartford – Boston.
11:19 am on April 21st, 2011 14
#6
But airports/airliners operate just fine without people coming with their own local transportation. but yes allowing people to transport their own vehicle is not a bad idea. kinda like hawaii's superferry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Superferry
too bad it's gone now.
11:21 am on April 21st, 2011 15
btw, the average speed of the trains have gone up since 2003. i hear korea's high speed train purposely goes above 300km briefly to show passengers it can go that fast. korea's train used not do that for whatever reason.
12:12 pm on April 21st, 2011 16
John, I am pissed off as hell that the Superferry was killed (by short-sighted environmentalists), and I hope that they somehow do bring it back. I don't know if Abercrombie's in favor of it or not. I think the search for Obama's birth certificate in the secret vault has distracted him.
As for the KTX, yeah, they do show the speed, and it tops off at around 305, a speed at which it hovers for a bit, but it is still going 250 kph or so for quite a while.
I love the KTX. It's way cool that it's so close to my apartment (walking distance) so that (in theory) I can walk down to the station and in ten or fifteen minutes be flying off to the other end of the country.
1:01 pm on April 21st, 2011 17
If it requires the Government to operate it, it means it's not a good economic choice (else some business would be doing it).
Throwing more borrowed money into trains when the economy needs lower taxes, less spending, less bureaucracy, and more space for private business.
But if you feel like _your_ taxes should go up, send the IRS a check. They'll accept it. Just don't try to get all warm and fuzzy about giving away other people's money. That's just lame…
1:04 pm on April 21st, 2011 18
"But airports/airliners operate just fine without people coming with their own local transportation."
That is correct… but a high speed train might serve a slightly different purpose.
Even though lots of people fly, lots of people still drive. The train would help them reduce costs, reduce fatigue, increase highway safety… and make stops in cities along the way to allow them a chance to see the local sights in their own vehicle.
I have frequently flown and rented a car because there was no other option. If I had been able to take my car with me, I'd have taken a train.
But it doesn't matter. It will never happen. We will be building bloated projects in Libya long before a high speed train is ever considered for America.
1:10 pm on April 21st, 2011 19
That's not necessarily true. There are many things that should be done and would be done, but require an economy of scale or a massive infrastructure that few if any companies can muster.
I don't mean that the government should be doing everything — they should be selective and very picky — but there are some things that we're better off having that only a government can effectively do.
1:14 pm on April 21st, 2011 20
ChickenHead, I do like the idea of a railroad-bound car ferry, and I think you should keep writing this again and again. In fact, go and write Amtrak and tell them that idea. It's a good one, if it can be done affordably.
One of the things that appealed to me about the SuperFerry was precisely that: we would be able to take our own cars to the neighboring islands for about $60 each way. Depending on how long you're there, it beats getting a rental, and my car (a Honda Passport) is better equipped for the rough roads of, say, the Big Island than the Pontiac econobox we ended up getting.
1:40 pm on April 21st, 2011 21
>I don’t mean that the government should be doing everything — they should be selective and very picky — but there are some things that we’re better off having that only a government can effectively do.<
This is a scary and slippery slope, though… most companies don't make money out of the chute, but after a time, pick up– or die. I love the idea of high speed rail in the US, but we really have to look at it in terms of competition with other surface and air transportation. And I mean that– look at it HARD, to include taking a look at what the other transportation industry lobbyists are going to toss at us.
Hell- I wish we could still go across the ocean by ship, but it costs far more to do so than it does to fly!
1:42 pm on April 21st, 2011 22
Oh yeah– my point on the whole slippery slope of fed gov running rail: At what point can we say it's good to go or an Edsel? If it continues to NOT make money and suck in tax revenue, then it's a fail– BUT by that time, we'll have tied up LOTS of federal jobs and built lots of infrastructure. AMTRAK continues to suck (I still like to use it from time to time) but CSX, formerly ConRail, makes $$$.