High speed rail

[Dinner]

So the recent stimulus package included $1.3 billion for general Amtrak infrasture upgrades and maintenance and $8 billion for high speed rail.

That's a lot of money, but it won't go too far if it's spread out over all of the different high-speed corridors. Naturally, everybody wants a piece of the action.

$8 billion won't do much of anything for anyone. Sure, it is better then nothing but I can't think of a single project which will cost such a small amount of money. For Example even with the $10 billion California voters came up with we'll need another $30 billion to finish the one north-south line. The sucky thing is Republicans got the gas tax increase removed from the recent state budget compromise because the gas tax increase money was supposed to go 100% for mass transit with the high speed rail system being the biggest beneficiary. Now we're once again left without a dedicated funding source for the high speed rail network.

The increase in the gas tax was also part of the state's anti green house gas measures designed to lower ghg pollution in the state.

[Kuciwalker]

Missouri River Corridor (Bismarck --> Pierre -- > Omaha --> Kansas City --> Jefferson City --> St. Louis)

There's maybe 1 city worth anything on that list.

[Dinner]

Some nice articles:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/map-of-potential-high-spe_n_167804.html

[Victor Galis]

Missouri River Corridor (Bismarck --> Pierre -- > Omaha --> Kansas City --> Jefferson City --> St. Louis)

How about the, useful to me corridor: Chicago --> Indianapolis --> Louisville --> Nashville --> Chattanooga --> Atlanta

[Naked Gents Rut]

There's maybe 1 city worth anything on that list.

You figured out the joke.

[Kuciwalker]

You're one of those Nebraska boys, you might've had delusions about what a real city is.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Nah. I just want my piece of the high-speed rail pie.

[Victor Galis]

You're one of those Nebraska boys, you might've had delusions about what a real city is.

After you spend a day driving down I-80 from Salt Lake City, Omaha does start to seem mighty big.

[Zkribbler]

When I was going up to visit Lancer & Dolores in Oregon, I priced what an Amtrak ticket would cost [for a compartment; I don't want to sleep sitting up]. It cost the equivalent of a luxury ocean cruise. Only it had no luxury and no ocean.

[Lancer]

When I was going up to visit Lancer & Dolores in Oregon, I priced what an Amtrak ticket would cost [for a compartment; I don't want to sleep sitting up]. It cost the equivalent of a luxury ocean cruise. Only it had no luxury and no ocean.

I want to talk to your agent about booking a luxury ocean cruise for the cost of an amtrak ticket.

[Zkribbler]

Hmm. It's only about $250. I remember it being much higher.

[DanS]

Most of the routes that people imagine seem too long for all but bullet trains. The only city pairs that I would fund for high speed rail with the $8 billion are LA-Vegas, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Milwaukee, and Washington-NYC-Boston. Some of these city pairs already have fairly good service, so it would be a matter of upgrading the lines where possible and economical.

Of course, the politics of this are going to screw it up.

[Dis]

The problem with the LA/Vegas one is most people use cars. There is no incentive to use a train (you just have to rent a car at your destination). Both our cities are automobile dominant cities with little public transportation. The thing will lose massive money. Look at our monorail, almost a complete disaster. No one wants to use public transportation unless they have to.

The only reason to build this thing is to provide jobs. But that's silly to me at least. As you will have to pay massive operating costs for a thing no one uses. Offsetting any job benefit created.

P.S. there also happen to be two mountain ranges between us and L.A. as well. And with the recession and the fact that California has casinos now, our traffic from them is way down.

[Victor Galis]

Yeah, even I don't see the utility of high-speed rail between two cities where you need a car

You will note the LA-Vegas line isn't on the map of proposed lines, despite continued claims to the contrary by the GOP.

[DanS]

(1) Most people who stay on the strip do not use their own cars or rental cars to get to another place on the strip. They use cabs.

(2) The new airport for Vegas will need rail into the city. The new airport will be way the hell far out of the city. 30 miles or a $75 cab ride. Something like High speed rail could provide that link because it is on the way.

(3) The traffic on the freeway between LA and Vegas is unbearable. I suspect that flights from LA to Vegas are reasonably heavily. The stated goal -- which seems sensible -- is to replace air traffic on short hops, where possible.

Note that I'm not talking about bullet trains. Just high speed rail. Much less expensive.