(12-18-2017 07:12 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  American "high speed" trains are to trains like Eurostar and Shinkansen as hitchhiking is to space travel.

Initial Plans for the "High Speed Rail" between Dallas and Houston call for Grade Level Crossings in Grimes and Waller Counties.
What could go wrong there?

A lot.

Where they do high speed right, the trains run on separate dedicated tracks that are a different gauge from any other trains. There are no grade crossings. And the entire track is fenced in to prevent anyone or anything getting in from outside.

Looking at the photo, you'd never see anything like that on a Eurostar or Shinkansen or Cisalpino route. If we had something like that instead of the crap we have, I think Americans would ride them. But I rode the "high speed" train from Baltimore to NYC and back, and that's not something I'll do again.

Large scale rail can only be feasible in the US when the distances between numerous large cities are relatively short (e.g. Northeast corridor) or you're in a large metro area where the cost of driving is prohibitively high in terms of commute time and/or price of parking (e.g. New York). Unfortunately the segregated rail issue that Owl describes prevents the first group of cities from reaching their potential, and the explosion of ultra-budget airlines like Allegiant almost makes it unnecessary when going from city to city. The second is harmed because many of the cities with the worst traffic problems in the US have massive urban sprawl since they were designed with the automobile in mind (e.g. LA, Houston) and it's nearly impossible to affordably build commuter rail over such long distances when you factor in land acquisition costs. There are better things we can spend our infrastructure dollars on for them to improve their situations (e.g. bus investments, rebuilding key stretches of interstates in conjunction with other urban planning measures) unless you happen to live in a metro like Chicago where the Metra is a legitimately good option for getting into the city.

At least some good people jumped into action in the immediate aftermath.

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/...-500358744

(12-18-2017 09:07 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Large scale rail can only be feasible in the US when the distances between numerous large cities are relatively short (e.g. Northeast corridor) or you're in a large metro area where the cost of driving is prohibitively high in terms of commute time and/or price of parking (e.g. New York). Unfortunately the segregated rail issue that Owl describes prevents the first group of cities from reaching their potential, and the explosion of ultra-budget airlines like Allegiant almost makes it unnecessary when going from city to city. The second is harmed because many of the cities with the worst traffic problems in the US have massive urban sprawl since they were designed with the automobile in mind (e.g. LA, Houston) and it's nearly impossible to affordably build commuter rail over such long distances when you factor in land acquisition costs. There are better things we can spend our infrastructure dollars on for them to improve their situations (e.g. bus investments, rebuilding key stretches of interstates in conjunction with other urban planning measures) unless you happen to live in a metro like Chicago where the Metra is a legitimately good option for getting into the city.

At least some good people jumped into action in the immediate aftermath.

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/...-500358744

key statement....well done....

infrastructure and redesign in this capacity is there for the taking.....

DJT has to pounce on this one next year.....

(12-18-2017 09:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:07 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Large scale rail can only be feasible in the US when the distances between numerous large cities are relatively short (e.g. Northeast corridor) or you're in a large metro area where the cost of driving is prohibitively high in terms of commute time and/or price of parking (e.g. New York). Unfortunately the segregated rail issue that Owl describes prevents the first group of cities from reaching their potential, and the explosion of ultra-budget airlines like Allegiant almost makes it unnecessary when going from city to city. The second is harmed because many of the cities with the worst traffic problems in the US have massive urban sprawl since they were designed with the automobile in mind (e.g. LA, Houston) and it's nearly impossible to affordably build commuter rail over such long distances when you factor in land acquisition costs. There are better things we can spend our infrastructure dollars on for them to improve their situations (e.g. bus investments, rebuilding key stretches of interstates in conjunction with other urban planning measures) unless you happen to live in a metro like Chicago where the Metra is a legitimately good option for getting into the city.

At least some good people jumped into action in the immediate aftermath.

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/...-500358744

key statement....well done....

infrastructure and redesign in this capacity is there for the taking.....

DJT has to pounce on this one next year.....

It all depends on how you do it however. Often times cities repave and add a lane, yet traffic is just as bad (or worse) after because it's announced to much fanfare and new highway drivers quickly fill up the excess capacity. That may reduce the burden on surrounding roads, but growing populations sometimes cancel out whatever gains you make.

It's all about how you limit the exponential nature of traffic. Each road has a capacity in which you can drive comfortably, but once you hit it every car thereafter builds more and more towards gridlock; hence by reducing that small amount of cars that puts traffic over the top, you can improve conditions. Some of the most effective tools can be ramp stop lights, bus system expansion, planning steps to encourage diversified development instead of a few commercial hubs, and tolls. Overall it's an exceptionally complex issue because every city's transportation system differs so wildly, what works for one city would make no sense for another.

The problem with federal investment in infrastructure spending is that there's only so much cash you can spend at once on key projects before hitting diminishing returns, so inevitably political pressures arise to get things done ASAP in an elected official's district instead of doing things the right way. And when you factor in shady projects that really have no business being funded by the feds (hello US 27 expansion near Oxford, Ohio) you get a lot less bang for your buck in the aggregate. The best system imo would be one that establishes permanent funding sources (e.g. federal tolls) instead of writing a big check at once so you also cover long-term maintenance, though a big part of the problem now is that the feds pay for niche projects like bike trails and light rail that can work in specific instances but should be paid for by locals.

(12-18-2017 09:53 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:07 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Large scale rail can only be feasible in the US when the distances between numerous large cities are relatively short (e.g. Northeast corridor) or you're in a large metro area where the cost of driving is prohibitively high in terms of commute time and/or price of parking (e.g. New York). Unfortunately the segregated rail issue that Owl describes prevents the first group of cities from reaching their potential, and the explosion of ultra-budget airlines like Allegiant almost makes it unnecessary when going from city to city. The second is harmed because many of the cities with the worst traffic problems in the US have massive urban sprawl since they were designed with the automobile in mind (e.g. LA, Houston) and it's nearly impossible to affordably build commuter rail over such long distances when you factor in land acquisition costs. There are better things we can spend our infrastructure dollars on for them to improve their situations (e.g. bus investments, rebuilding key stretches of interstates in conjunction with other urban planning measures) unless you happen to live in a metro like Chicago where the Metra is a legitimately good option for getting into the city.

At least some good people jumped into action in the immediate aftermath.

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/...-500358744

key statement....well done....

infrastructure and redesign in this capacity is there for the taking.....

DJT has to pounce on this one next year.....

It all depends on how you do it however. Often times cities repave and add a lane, yet traffic is just as bad (or worse) after because it's announced to much fanfare and new highway drivers quickly fill up the excess capacity. That may reduce the burden on surrounding roads, but growing populations sometimes cancel out whatever gains you make.

It's all about how you limit the exponential nature of traffic. Each road has a capacity in which you can drive comfortably, but once you hit it every car thereafter builds more and more towards gridlock; hence by reducing that small amount of cars that puts traffic over the top, you can improve conditions. Some of the most effective tools can be ramp stop lights, bus system expansion, planning steps to encourage diversified development instead of a few commercial hubs, and tolls. Overall it's an exceptionally complex issue because every city's transportation system differs so wildly, what works for one city would make no sense for another.

The problem with federal investment in infrastructure spending is that there's only so much cash you can spend at once on key projects before hitting diminishing returns, so inevitably political pressures arise to get things done ASAP in an elected official's district instead of doing things the right way. And when you factor in shady projects that really have no business being funded by the feds (hello US 27 expansion near Oxford, Ohio) you get a lot less bang for your buck in the aggregate. The best system imo would be one that establishes permanent funding sources (e.g. federal tolls) instead of writing a big check at once so you also cover long-term maintenance, though a big part of the problem now is that the feds pay for niche projects like bike trails and light rail that can work in specific instances but should be paid for by locals.

you're proving my point......it cannot be done the way it's been dispensed in the past.....

I'm talking about major redesign (trillions over time) by going vertical in key areas....

it either begins to happen now, or it doesn't happen....

I'm not going to get into the nuts and bolts....that would be more than this board could handle in scope....."vertical" was enough.....

If you think it's antifa, you're retarded.

I recall a few Years ago the state of Indiana wanted an Amtrack to run from Indy to Nashville through Louisville. The existing tracks from Indy to Louisville were so bad the fastest the Amtrack could go in most parts of Indiana was 40 mph. Didn't last long. It was to eventually run to Chicago from Nashille when finished and later towards Florida. We need far better infrastructure.

Looks like going 80mph in a 30 zone did it in.

Yep speed kills

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

I took the Amtrak from Chicago to St. Louis last month. It didn't seem like we were going that fast but there were definitely times we were next to U.S. Highway 55 I think it was and we were going a bit faster than most of the traffic so we must have been going 70-80 at that point. Because of all the stops though and some places where we had to slow down, I'm sure Amtrak prefers its trains to be going near 80 when it can get away with it. The oddest part was when we had to temporarily get off the main track and go on a side track to allow a train to pass that was coming from the other direction. After it passed, we went backwards to get on the main track and kept going.

We took Amtrak out of Columbia when we went on our cruise back in 2000. We went to Orlando and the cruise line had a shuttle bus to bring us to Tampa. If Amtrak went to more of our vacation destinations I would take it. We were so relaxed when we got to Tampa compared to our friends who drove down, and we actually paid less for the train ride than we would have for gas and parking fees.

(12-19-2017 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We took Amtrak out of Columbia when we went on our cruise back in 2000. We went to Orlando and the cruise line had a shuttle bus to bring us to Tampa. If Amtrak went to more of our vacation destinations I would take it. We were so relaxed when we got to Tampa compared to our friends who drove down, and we actually paid less for the train ride than we would have for gas and parking fees.

Same when we went from JAX to Naples. Also only took 45 minutes more

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-19-2017 09:21 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We took Amtrak out of Columbia when we went on our cruise back in 2000. We went to Orlando and the cruise line had a shuttle bus to bring us to Tampa. If Amtrak went to more of our vacation destinations I would take it. We were so relaxed when we got to Tampa compared to our friends who drove down, and we actually paid less for the train ride than we would have for gas and parking fees.

Same when we went from JAX to Naples. Also only took 45 minutes more

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

We've looked into it when planning vacations a few times since and it never seems to workout but I would seriously consider doing it again if it would.

(12-19-2017 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We took Amtrak out of Columbia when we went on our cruise back in 2000. We went to Orlando and the cruise line had a shuttle bus to bring us to Tampa. If Amtrak went to more of our vacation destinations I would take it. We were so relaxed when we got to Tampa compared to our friends who drove down, and we actually paid less for the train ride than we would have for gas and parking fees.

I find it hard to believe it saved you money. It cost $100 just to go to DC. $30 round trip in gas to drive... and that is just for me. Would be $500 to take a family of 5 in the train... or $30 in gas to drive.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-19-2017 09:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We took Amtrak out of Columbia when we went on our cruise back in 2000. We went to Orlando and the cruise line had a shuttle bus to bring us to Tampa. If Amtrak went to more of our vacation destinations I would take it. We were so relaxed when we got to Tampa compared to our friends who drove down, and we actually paid less for the train ride than we would have for gas and parking fees.

I find it hard to believe it saved you money. It cost $100 just to go to DC. $30 round trip in gas to drive... and that is just for me. Would be $500 to take a family of 5 in the train... or $30 in gas to drive.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I found it hard to believe at the time as well but between gas and parking fees for our car for a week we did. And honestly even if it had been a little more expensive it would have been worth it just for being more relaxed when we got there. Our friends who drove were slap worn out after driving all day and all went to bed way earlier than we did.

(12-19-2017 09:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We took Amtrak out of Columbia when we went on our cruise back in 2000. We went to Orlando and the cruise line had a shuttle bus to bring us to Tampa. If Amtrak went to more of our vacation destinations I would take it. We were so relaxed when we got to Tampa compared to our friends who drove down, and we actually paid less for the train ride than we would have for gas and parking fees.

I find it hard to believe it saved you money. It cost $100 just to go to DC. $30 round trip in gas to drive... and that is just for me. Would be $500 to take a family of 5 in the train... or $30 in gas to drive.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I want to say we did it when gas was really high 5-6 years ago and we rode for something like $40 a person

I hope nobody that i know were on that train. My godparents live in Tacoma. I also do have some distant relatives there on my mother side. It is my birth state, so this is hard for us Washingtonians to have these tragedies to happen in the state from the bridge collapsed a few years ago, and the wildfires and flodings that takes place.

Here is my question. The curve and bridge were areas where the train was supposed to slow to 30 mph. Exactly how does a "high speed train" have track section that requires 30 mph? WTF are they thinking. "High speed train" means you have dedicated track on which speeds of 120-150 mph are the norm. And you don't pull off to the side to let another train pass, because there are no other trains on your track. Oh yes, they were supposed to slow from 80 to 30. But 80 ain't "high speed" either.

The problem with American "high speed trains" is that they aren't high speed because the systems are run with a bureaucrat mentality that cuts corners. Get something built and call it a high speed train. The result is that comparing American high speed trains to other countries is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.

American freight rail is run by competing private enterprises and is among the best in the world. Passenger rail is run by a quasi-government monopoly, and is awful.

(12-21-2017 07:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is my question. The curve and bridge were areas where the train was supposed to slow to 30 mph. Exactly how does a "high speed train" have track section that requires 30 mph? WTF are they thinking. "High speed train" means you have dedicated track on which speeds of 120-150 mph are the norm. And oh yes, they were supposed to slow from 80 to 30. Because 80 ain't "high speed" either.

The problem with American "high speed trains" is that they aren't high speed because the systems are run with a bureaucrat mentality that cuts corners. Get something built and call it a high speed train. The result is that comparing American high speed trains to other countries is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.

it's comparable to what will most certainly occur when driver-less vehicles are unleashed....

it's a mistake waiting to happen when technology fails (in this case and to your point, it wasn't functional)

there's simply some things you don't overcook and expect all to be savory.....and the bureaucrats are really good at charring good meat....

(12-21-2017 07:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is my question. The curve and bridge were areas where the train was supposed to slow to 30 mph. Exactly how does a "high speed train" have track section that requires 30 mph? WTF are they thinking. "High speed train" means you have dedicated track on which speeds of 120-150 mph are the norm. And you don't pull off to the side to let another train pass, because there are no other trains on your track. Oh yes, they were supposed to slow from 80 to 30. But 80 ain't "high speed" either.

The problem with American "high speed trains" is that they aren't high speed because the systems are run with a bureaucrat mentality that cuts corners. Get something built and call it a high speed train. The result is that comparing American high speed trains to other countries is like comparing hitchhiking to space travel.

American freight rail is run by competing private enterprises and is among the best in the world. Passenger rail is run by a quasi-government monopoly, and is awful.

I don't agree that it is due to a bureaucrat mentality. It is because true high speed train travel in this country is not feasible due to the infrastructure cost. Passenger trains, here, run either entirely, or partially, on lines shared or outright owned by the freight companies. That sharing saves infrastructure cost.

To build truly high speed trains, you'd need separate rail lines, and likely separate alignments/rights of way due to the different geometry required for high speed rail. Do you think we have the desire to spend that incredible amount of money, or to exert the political will to condemn tremendous amounts of private properties to cause this to happen?

Then throw into the mix how much use there is/will be and what revenues are derived from those buying tickets. It will never be enough.

Our passenger rail system sucks because the economics do not justify the spending to make it good or great.