Obama's high speed train plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
rail_map_blog.jpg


"I'm happy to be here. I’m more happy than you can imagine," said the Vice President, a noted rail enthusiast, before introducing the President for the release of his strategic plan for high speed rail in America. Revolving around the $8 billion in the Recovery Act and the $1 billion per year for five years requested in the President’s budget to get these projects off the ground, the President painted the picture that will become a reality as a result of these investments:

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations. In Spain, a high-speed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined. China, where service began just two years ago, may have more miles of high-speed rail service than any other country just five years from now. And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it's being done; it's just not being done here.

There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit.

The inclusion of high speed rail in the Recovery Act was one of many symbols of the new vision for America and its economy that guided the plan. As the Vice President explained in his introduction, joined by Transportation Secretary LaHood, in addition to putting Americans to work across the country it went towards several the Recovery Act’s key goals:

And we're making a down payment today, a down payment on the economy for tomorrow, the economy that's going to drive us in the 21st century in a way that the other -- the highway system drove us in the mid-20th century. And I'm happy to be here. I'm more happy than you can imagine -- (laughter) -- to talk about a commitment that, with the President's leadership, we're making to achieve the goal through the development of high-speed rail projects that will extend eventually all across this nation. And most of you know that not only means an awful lot to me, but I know a lot of you personally in this audience over the years, I know it means equally as much to you.

With high-speed rail system, we're going to be able to pull people off the road, lowering our dependence on foreign oil, lowering the bill for our gas in our gas tanks. We're going to loosen the congestion that also has great impact on productivity, I might add, the people sitting at stop lights right now in overcrowded streets and cities. We're also going to deal with the suffocation that's taking place in our major metropolitan areas as a consequence of that congestion. And we're going to significantly lessen the damage to our planet. This is a giant environmental down payment.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service:
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it. Obama's vision for a high speed train America.

PST: Hey Valdez, look which TWO Canadian cities get to hang out with the cool kids and which ONE get left out :p
 
Evil Figment said:
PST: Hey Valdez, look which TWO Canadian cities get to hang out with the cool kids and which ONE get left out :p
Click to expand...

Wow, I wasn't expecting you to cross topics like that. I'm more surprised that there are plans to extend into Canada at all. Hope they remember their passports.
 
Wow, I'm actually surprised to see Oklahoma in there, considering our current train situation (i.e., we have ONE passenger train that runs from Oklahoma City to Dallas). Finally gives me a reason to ride a train.
 
That's awesome. If only there could be a high speed train that connected Orlando to Jacksonville, then I'd be set. According to that map, I could travel to NY by high-speed rail from Orlando, and that'd be just wonderful.
 
Well I'm very happy with this proposition as I'd shown in "Bullet Train America" (Shouldn't this go there? XD)

The fact that voters in California approved of Proposition 1A that puts funds to build a San Francisco-Los Angeles Rail system makes me even more happy.

I hope that Mag-lev's will FINALLY make a debut here in the US cuz I really want to see floating trains. XDDD
 
Looks very nice. But I'm still skeptical on how this will work out, given the current situation.

I hope that Mag-lev's will FINALLY make a debut here in the US cuz I really want to see floating trains.
Click to expand...

My only problem with it is the price tag. :(
 
Not sure if having a bullet train in the middle of the US (Most of the population lives on the coasts) would be a cost-effective plan. It would probably more profitable to keep it on the coasts with a bullet train through south Texas
 
The thing about this though, is that it will probably not be maglev, at least not a for a little while. Instead, most of the initial funds are going to improve the current tracks, allowing for trains to maintain higher speeds as they travel. But it is excellent to see that plans are going to include numerous other parts of the country.
 
Odd that they don't go ahead and connect the Pacific Northwest to California.
 
Misty said:
how much would this cost? a trillion dollars?
Click to expand...

That was sarcasm I hope. Let's see,
Revolving around the $8 billion in the Recovery Act and the $1 billion per year for five years requested in the President’s budget to get these projects off the ground, the President painted the picture that will become a reality as a result of these investments:
Click to expand...

8 billion straight from the stimulus + 1 billion a year over 5 years. Carry the one annnnd you're looking at about 13 billion.
(14-15 billion with any kind of budget inflation growth at the end of the project)

By comparison, road improvement projects covered by the stimulus received 27.5 billion dollars. That's about twice what rail is getting here, so you can see, highways are still getting some stimulus love. In past years, US-rail typically received a little less than a third of the operating transportation budget. You can see how much the Obama administration wants this by closing the budget gap to about half here.

I don't think of this as a bad thing. America (in most places) is fine with the road system we have now. Alternatives are only bound to help.


EDIT: These plans have been in the works for a time now, it's only with the current Admin that this dream map is coming to fruition. Check out this .pdf with some of the major cities the rail lines pass through.
 
Last edited:
It puzzles me why the Sacramento, California and Eugene, Oregon stops aren't connected. Same with a line connecting San Diego or LA to maybe Phoenix, Santa Fe, and then to Dallas, Austin, or San Antonio; Orlando to Jacksonville, Kansas City to Tusla, Houston to San Antonio, and Cleveland to Pittsburgh are in the same boat. Making everything interconnected would seem a lot more efficient in the long run, even though it would cost more now.

Other than that, this looks pretty extensive. I'm glad some effort is really getting put into this.
 
Edo-kun said:
It puzzles me why the Sacramento, California and Eugene, Oregon stops aren't connected. Same with a line connecting San Diego or LA to maybe Phoenix, Santa Fe, and then to Dallas, Austin, or San Antonio; Orlando to Jacksonville, Kansas City to Tusla, Houston to San Antonio, and Cleveland to Pittsburgh are in the same boat. Making everything interconnected would seem a lot more efficient in the long run, even though it would cost more now.

Other than that, this looks pretty extensive. I'm glad some effort is really getting put into this.
Click to expand...
The most logical reasoning would be the numerous geographical boundaries. It's not exactly cheap to blaze a high speed rail line through the Appalachians or Rockies in the short period the administration hopes to get the track down/improved. Also, that Jacksonville to Orlando line has to muck it's way though swampy territory; a ton of care needs to go in to the planning there.

The best I can vouch as to why some obvious corridors have been neglected are that these are low priority corridors. Funding will reach these extra connections eventually, but with the way plans worked out, the current connections provide the most efficient means of transportation in the shortest (project) delivery possible where extending these other neglected corridors won't see any immediate boost in transportation so the government wouldn't get it's money's worth. When demand on the other lines is up, there's a better chance these corridors will be a hop-skip and a way from being completed.

Though I do say, that Dallas-Huston line really should be in there. It's a short distance apart from the North-East section and I don't see any major land barriers in the way of that one.

This preliminary sketch should provide some insight as to where certain priorities on the lines hold. (Though not official, it is a good representation of where the current corridors lie and their candidacy for getting built/funded first.)

From Transportpolitic
prpsdhighspeed.png
 
Ah...I'd forgotten about geographical barriers. Silly me...
 
Rayne said:
That was sarcasm I hope. Let's see,


8 billion straight from the stimulus + 1 billion a year over 5 years. Carry the one annnnd you're looking at about 13 billion.
(14-15 billion with any kind of budget inflation growth at the end of the project)
Click to expand...

that's just to get the project off the ground. it will take much, much more to turn it into something viable.
 
Why are you such a naysayer about this? It would help America greatly and be worth the cost.
 
The cost of keeping the rails going MAY be the silver bullet, if it is ineffective in cost and continually runs amok, then no amount of money is worth a high speed rail. High speed rails are mainly for passengers, freight is low.

Consider that Japan has high speed rails, they built a lot during the Lost Decade, and combined with other infrastructure, their debt is now MORE than the GDP. Their rails are efficent due to the small size of Japan, and use of rails to get around mega-cities.
 
i have to admit that its nice to u guys in the States realise that high speed rail is better than air tyravel for long distances
im sure that the people who made Japana Shinkansen France TGV and Britains High Speed One a success are going to be very happy to help u guys get the project moving
on a side not their are now plans for at least another 2 or 3 high speed rail lines in the UK now after the success oh High Speed One between London Saint Pancaras and the Channel Tunnel
p.s never thought id see a rail subject crop on bulbagarden seeing as i also a rail enthusiast
 
Nicoleta01 said:
The cost of keeping the rails going MAY be the silver bullet, if it is ineffective in cost and continually runs amok, then no amount of money is worth a high speed rail. High speed rails are mainly for passengers, freight is low.

Consider that Japan has high speed rails, they built a lot during the Lost Decade, and combined with other infrastructure, their debt is now MORE than the GDP. Their rails are efficent due to the small size of Japan, and use of rails to get around mega-cities.
Click to expand...

The small size of Japan is contributory factor tomthe success of Shinkansen but it certainly isnt the only one.
Also new high speed lines planned for Europe including th UK are being planned for high speed frieght services as well as passenger
i certain wish the planners in the states the best of luck with the project and congratulate for joing the high speed rail club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom