[Ad_Meyer]

But then of course we get into the question of how much the train costs.  These superfast trains cpbell describes don't run on old-fashioned freight rail, so we'd need to spend untold billions to lay new rail lines.  The new rail would also need to be better protected – because a derailment at 250mph is a very, very bad thing – which means the whole length would require durable, frequently-inspected fencing and every crossing would need to be elevated.  How many roads cross any given rail line over 1000 miles in the U.S.?  Hundreds of elevated road crossings would need to be constructed, at a cost of several million dollars each. 

For your information, the cost of the proposed Maglev (@320mph) tracks between Tokyo and Nagoya (280km or 170 miles) is estimated at 5.1 trillion yen (roughly 50 billion dollars).  This includes LOTS of LONG tunnels (10km plus) and is of course earthquake resistant up to 7.5 Richter (being in Japan), so is on the high side.  Anyway, we are talking about 300 million dollars per mile for a Maglev track, and High speed rail tracks are much cheaper
than this. 

I haven't done the maths yet to calculate how this translates to travel fares, and I don't really have time to do that, as I have to fly off to the US on business on Thursday (New York and Orlando)…

[cpbell0033944]

I've been shown-up by Lingster in many areas in the past, but, on the subject of rail travel, I'm pretty good. 😀 ;D

I certainly didn't say that British commuter trains travelled at 180 mph.  Most in congested areas struggle to hit 70 mph, but the distance travelled is usually less than 80 miles anyway.  Most longer-distance British expresses hit 100-125 mph.

Sleeping trains between Paris and cities in Spain are common now under a scheme called Trenotel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/13/railtravel.transport) and the experience is better than sleeping on a transatlantic flight.  Europe has shown us that, for distances of up to around 500-600 miles, high-speed rail travel is indeed viable.  Now, I admit this means that remote parts of the States would be inaccessible for current train technology due to journey times, but I'm not saying that the whole country should be criss-crossed by high-speed lines.  The UK has only one true, dedicated, purpose-built high-speed line as yet, which is the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) which runs from London St. Pancras to the Northern portal of the Channel Tunnel, joining the French end to Paris Gare du Nord, but others are being proposed. 

Now, as for the cost, the CTRL cost around £5.9 billion, (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ctrl/backgroundinformationonthech341) which is a lot.  However, given that the Bush administration has spent an estimated $513.4 billion on the Iraq war to date, (source: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home), then I can't see why, if the US decides to ditch Mr McCain's "We might stay in Iraq for 100 years, dammit" rhetoric, it might not be able to afford a couple of strategically-placed links some time in the next 20 or so years.

As for specialist routes, yes, the trackbed needs to be concrete.  Yes, the route must not carry normal traffic.  Consider this, though.  Japan is hugely congested, yet they squeeze-in Shinkansen lines and stations because of their inventiveness in terms of civil engineering.  Part of the high cost of the CTRL is the new section to St. Pancras, which runs under London in a tunnel that is deeper than all the London Underground tube lines, a phenominal acheivement.  It also runs through the commuter belt of south-east England, easily the most densely-populated non-metropolitan area of the country.  If little olde England can do it, why shouldn't the mighty US of A do the same given much more physical room?  The only other problem for the politicians is that the line must be fenced to stop wild animals, livestock and vandals from accessing the line.  Historically, all British rail lines (save light railways) must be fenced anyway.  It's not all that hard to make it secure, really. 

All this boils down to a question of public and political will, rather than technical feasibility.  I have no doubt that some sectors of the US will resist this as some "cheese-eating surrender monkey" idea, but, given a decade or two of raising fuel prices and congestion of airline flightpaths and airports, attitudes might change.

P.S.  Apologies to Ad_Meyer on my erroneous reporting of Japanese train speeds. 

P.P.S.  War in Iraq to date (5 years) = $513 billion.
McCain suggests 100 years more = $513 billion x 20 = $10,260 billion = (I think) $120.6 trillion.  I'll say no more.  :-X

[Lingster]

I'll say no more.

Ha!  We don't have the money.  I'll tell you what's going to happen – at some point we'll have machinery that can dig tunnels cheaply and at low risk.  Once that's done, we'll be able to do high speed rail in the U.S. 

Given the clusterf*ck of Boston's Big Dig, no one's seriously looking to do huge transportation engineering projects in the U.S. right now, especially not ones that touch big cities, with all their corruption.

[cpbell0033944]

Ha!  We don't have the money.  I'll tell you what's going to happen – at some point we'll have machinery that can dig tunnels cheaply and at low risk.  Once that's done, we'll be able to do high speed rail in the U.S. 

Given the clusterf*ck of Boston's Big Dig, no one's seriously looking to do huge transportation engineering projects in the U.S. right now, especially not ones that touch big cities, with all their corruption.

After reading the Wikipedia entry for the Big Dig, it sounds to me like a clever and ambitious project that was bedeviled with organisational and administrative failings.  At least here in the UK we usually get the engineering right (except in the new Wembley stadium which will have a short lifespan due to shoddy construction, though our projects do usually come-in over budget and late.

When you say that you can't afford it, do you mean the 100 years' occupation stuff?  I cannot see how a serious Presidential candidate can say such ridiculous things.

[Lingster]

I cannot see how a serious Presidential candidate can say such ridiculous things.

He never said it.

The point is that some large cities in the U.S. are very poorly managed.  Boston is poorly managed.  Typically what happens is that Democrats get absolute control of a city's infrastructure to the point where it becomes a one-party municipality.  With no real competition for elected office, the city slowly falls apart as corruption and laziness become the norm.  At some point desperation sets in, a turnaround mayor manages to take over and he brings the place back from the brink.  New York under Giuliani is a good example of the turnaround effect. 

New Orleans managed to dodge the turnaround effect by being so incompetently managed that it was destroyed.

Anyway, there's a reason so many large infrastructure projects are built outside the cities they benefit.  High speed rail would work great outside the cities, but the need to go into them for connections would be fatal to budgets.

[cpbell0033944]

OK Lingster, so I've not been absolutely accurate.  Let's split hairs.  Here's what he said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

He's advocating staying there for generations if needs be.  He's not even limiting it to 100 years.  Presumably he means that if a President in the year 2150 decides that there is still a need, then they'll stay.  I just cannot comprehend how even the most loyal Republican supporter could envisage an open-ended presence in a perennially unstable part of the world without it necessarily affecting Americans for generations to come (I defy you to prove to me that the spending on Iraq hasn't affected people at home even slightly).  Do you really want to accept reduced public spending at home in exchange for a little sandy empire?  Is this not just the empire-building instinct at work?  Do people not understand that South Korea and Japan are politically stable nations whose people on the whole do not object to US military presence?  Do they not understand that the cost in lives, resources and greenbacks of your presence in Japan, or our presence in Germany is minimal compared to keeping a fragile semi-peace in Iraq?  Do you really believe that pointing a gun, whether literal or figurative, into people's faces is the panacea to every ill?

Now back on-topic.

Please convince me that this problem:

Typically what happens is that Democrats get absolute control of a city's infrastructure to the point where it becomes a one-party municipality.  With no real competition for elected office, the city slowly falls apart as corruption and laziness become the norm.  At some point desperation sets in, a turnaround mayor manages to take over and he brings the place back from the brink.  New York under Giuliani is a good example of the turnaround effect. 

is not likely to arise where the Republican party hold power in a similar manner.  Why should the Republican party be morally/intellectually superior to the Democratic party?

I also do not understand your argument that:

High speed rail would work great outside the cities, but the need to go into them for connections would be fatal to budgets.

as the European model has shown that it is entirely possible.  Again, I turn to my central point: the Bush administration has spent vast sums of money on a war that was supposedly completed ages ago.  If some of that money had been kept with the US, could it not have been used to provide a sufficiently generous budget for public schemes such as this?

As ever, I speak with respect but some degree of incredulity and look forward in expectation of enlightenment and the continuation of a vigorous yet rational debate. 8) 

[cpbell0033944]

However, given that the Bush administration has spent an estimated $513.4 billion on the Iraq war to date… (source: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Apologies for my impertinence, but make that $513.5 billion.  It's gone up a bit. ::)

[demented20]

Man I love it when a thread starts at trains and ends up in Iraq.  😉

About the trains though, I will say that in pockets a intercity rail system would be viable. I live 300 miles(482km) from St. Louis, 250 miles(400km) from Atlanta,  and about 400 miles(650km) from Charlotte, NC. Those are the closest cities of over 1 million people to me that are in another state and have an international airport. Ok now distances like that make sense, but once you get past Memphis, which has about 1.5 million people, you have to go all the way to Texas over 700 miles away before you hit another major city, and its just under 500 miles to Chicago or Indianapolis. Now I'm just talking about distances in one little area of the US.

I think some Europeans, especially Brits don't really have a concept of just how big and how empty the US really is. I mean if you drive an hour north of NYC you'll leave the suburbs and be in the country with orchards and the whole bit.  60 miles outside of Chicago is pretty much corn fields. 60 or 70 miles outside of Los Angeles is a desert.

[Lingster]

I think some Europeans, especially Brits don't really have a concept of just how big and how empty the US really is.

It's important to keep in mind that the distance between London and Baghdad is about 100 miles less than the distance between Los Angeles and Boston.

You're right that Europeans and Brits often seem not to grasp the sheer size of the place.  I suspect that because we have one culture, in their minds they 'shrink' the territory of the U.S. to something more manageable.  The fact is that the island of Great Britain has 1/5th of the population of the U.S. in an area about the same size as Kansas.

I would love it if the U.S. had better passenger trains, but we're heavily invested in highways and airports because that was the best choice 40, 50 and 60 years ago when these decisions were made.  And until there's some revolutionary improvement in transportation technologies, that's what we're gonna be stuck with.

Hell, Robert Heinlein proposed building giant, differential conveyer belt systems, (hundreds of yards wide with portable restaurants and hotels on them) from one end of the country to the other, so that people and freight could get on in one place and then get off at their destination.  Thank God we built the Interstate Highway System before that idea got funding.

[Lingster]

Here's Heinlein on "Rolling Roads": http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=306
And also on "Vacutube" trains: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=371

[Author]

Posts