U.S. Makes Play to Catch Up on High-Speed Rail

Reader Comments
Back to article

The cost of the track will be paid off by the high volume of traffic running on the train. Less fuel will be needed than using an airplane,,more safety and less hassles going through security checks and less attitudes from stewardesses in the sky because of the competition..No baggage limitations either

alpha of FL 11:05AM September 10, 2010

Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how expensive it is to install high speed rail track? Through the mountains, no less? To connect two of the smallest towns no one has ever heard of? Maybe if you donate the first billion dollars to the state of Colorado, you'll get the ball rolling.
If you read through the rest of the responses, you'll see why the Tampa - Orlando line is virtually doomed to be a complete failure. I doubt that Trinidad and Fort Collins have one tenth the populations of Tampa and Orlando. You'd be lucky to have a handful of passengers a day. It would be cheaper for Colorado to run a limosine service between the two towns. A lot cheaper.
As far as speed limits, you can write your Congressman to see if he can get them changed. Or you can take a bus to get where you are going.

ChemE of FL 7:30PM February 12, 2010

It would be helpful if a train, high speed or otherwise, could run from Trinidad, Colorado as far as Fort Collins, or into Wyoming. The road traffic along the Interstate 25 corridor is so full of passenger cars, trucks and 14-wheelers to make it often dangerous, especially through downtown Colorado Springs where the speed limit recently went up from 55 mph to 65 mph; this is just barely a safe speed. Otherwise it is 75 mph in the open road. During the Colorado State Fair of 2008 there was a special train that ran from Denver to Pueblo and back. I asked Rod Slyhoff, the head of the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, wouldn't this be a great way to get to Denver and avoid the traffic in I-25? He replied that it wouldn't happen in his lifetime. That was a big disappointment to me.

Bettina Lubke of CO 1:48PM February 12, 2010

If America were still the Nation as intended by the Founding Fathers, and not as now, the most abusive and brutal Empire the world has ever known, for sure America would by now have the best and most efficient railroad system the world has ever had heretofore. Need I say more? America now spends its brains in building weapons that only create more problems for America and the world.Typical of all Empires.

H. D. Schmidt of CA 11:35PM February 10, 2010

How about responsibility before wastefulness?
Hey, I'm glad you enjoyed your ride on Germany's rail systems. I enjoyed my rides on Taiwan's HSR systems, too. But it's a lot easier to enjoy something that someone else is paying for. And from what I've seen, I do not want to pay for a rail system that will run nearly empty most of the time.
And, yes, there are two rail lines that break even financially, so it can be done. And I do believe that the D.C. to N.Y. line would break even, if they reduced the flights between those cities and effectively forced people to use the train. If D.C. to N.Y. works, then try S.F. to San Diego.
Highways and low speed rail pay for themselves because they can share the tracks with freight. Freight subsidizes a lot of the human traffic.

ChemE of FL 6:48PM February 10, 2010

All I know is that having traveled in europe a great deal by train, I have found no better way to go from one city to the other. There is no raiway in the world that pays for itself. If that were necessary, we would have to dismantle every mass transit in the U.S. including the New York city subway. Oh yes we would also have to stop funding the construction and maintenace of all the highways. I find that riddled through all these negtive coments is the kind of anti Obama rhetoric that puts politics before country.

Richard Lopez of FL 1:23PM February 10, 2010

I think they should spend this HSR funding, but spend it very conservatively, intelligently.
Which US regions would seem to benefit from HSR modeled after Europe or Japan. These would be crowded High density regions with a lot of tourism and business and populations that are already used to crowded trains. I think I would spend 90% of that 8+ billion on San Francisco/ California and New York/ Northeast routes. Then afterwards I would evaluate the performance, ridership and economics of these two major routes of the US.
If they performed slightly above average, then we could expand to other regions of the country. In the meantime, the rest of us should drive high gas mileage cars.
I think Obama is being too optimistic with these progressive ideas and going for broke. Has he considered how he will look if billions spent in the midwest, Florida, on high speed rail goes bust? Spend the money where there is at least some "evidence" of train ridership and some similarities with other urbaninzed countries. These will decrease chances of a major failure, that can cause more political damage to his progressive causes in the long run

bob of MO 11:18PM February 09, 2010

I hope the original author of the article has been taking notes. There are a lot of facts in this discussion that would be useful for a followup article on the need to kill high speed rail. I know you're embarassed that you didn't take the time to look up any of these facts when you wrote your article. But you can make good by writing a retraction piece. Otherwise, it looks like you're just a mouthpiece for Obama and the democrats. You can look up most of the facts on Wikipedia, and get the rest through web search engines.
And you need to get your head around the idea of the U.S. "lagging behind" just because we haven't invested in HSR. If it's a bad investment (which it clearly is), then we aren't lagging behind, we're leading the pack by NOT investing in it. When Enron stock was going down the toilet after the scandals, did you tell your family and friends that they were lagging behind by not investing in Enron? I realize that reporters aren't taught much about business, and the idea of looking at the return on investment may be foriegn to you, but think of it in terms of getting a car for a teenager going to college. You can invest in some maintenance on the family Ford, or buy a Ferrari. (HSR is the Ferrari, and the road system is the Ford.) Your son tells you that the Ferrari is fast and therefore efficient. Your wife tells you that the Ford is practical. Which do you choose?

ChemE of FL 7:32PM February 09, 2010

All I'm saying is that high speed rail has failed in Europe. Why are you anti-reality, Krissy?
O.k., I'll play your game. Let's talk about high speed rail in Asia, the other continent that has extensive HSR service. And no, Asia and Europe do not make up "most continents". China has 83 HSR segments, Japan has 27, Korea has 7, and Taiwan has 3, for a total of 120. Only one route (consisting of 7 segments) from Tokyo to Osaka breaks even financially. That's 6% of the number of segments. The total distance in Asia is 4,100 miles, of which 250 miles (Tokyo - Osaka) breaks even. Again, 6% success rate. All the other segments throughout Asia lose money and are heavily subsidized by their governments.
If you want to look at the population between Tokyo and Osaka, it is clear why this line is successful. Including the suburbs of these two cities, there are well over 50 million people available to travel on these trains. It's close to half of Japan's population. By comparison, there is no 250-mile length of track in the U.S. that you could run and have access to 50 million potential customers, much less half the nation's population. (You should have stuck to the European comparisons, they were much less embarassing for HSR supporters like yourself.) There are a hundred times as many potential customers in the Tokyo - Osaka route as Orlando - Tampa.
If you are concerned with airline security measures, what do you think the U.S. will do when a section of HSR (like N.Y. to D.C.) becomes successful, and large numbers of people depend on it daily for transportation? Guess what? It will then be a terrorist target. And if Homeland Security didn't have airport-like security before, they'll have it then. Al Qaeda wouldn't likely attack HSR between Tampa and Orlando because it isn't vital to transportation and there will be very few riders. So get used to body cavity searches (or whatever is in store), or stay home. And the HSR line can charge you for your check-in baggage if they want to.
The problem with most routes for HSR isn't that it isn't cheaper than flying, the problem is that it's more expensive than driving AND it's less convenient, especially if there is no light rail at either end to get you to your destination. That's why it will be such a huge failure in Tampa and Orlando.
As far as Crist goes, he is more of a typical politician (can't say no to federal money) than a principled republican. In other words, he wants the jobs that $8 billion would bring, and could care less that those jobs will produce nothing of value. And Miami could not be considered as part of the initial route because of the monorail debacle in Miami several years ago (it was a huge failure and embarassment). It would look like Obama was building one failure on top of another. Tallahassee was never an option because the population is really tiny (100,000 plus change). Don't worry--we'll vote out Crist soon enough

ChemE of FL 7:09PM February 09, 2010

I'm not 100% sure why some of you are so anti Europe, but stop being Euro-centric and look around the world. There is HSR projects on most continents because rail is efficient and more affordable than flying. It will be great between commuter zones, ie. New York to Washington DC, but it will also do well with transcontinental travel once the airlines start body cavity searches and charging me $300 to bring a bag with me or if they make their seats any smaller. With that being said, I'm not sure why the Orlando-Tampa corridor was chosen because its very short. I would have thought either Tallahassee-Orlando or Orlando-Miami.
And just an FYI to the person that blamed the Democrats for this HSR project. Crist is Republican, he asked for the grant money and received it. Obama and Biden were there for a photo op and nothing more. So, if you are unhappy blame both parties and vote a third party in upcoming elections.

Krissy of IL 6:42AM February 09, 2010