High-Speed Rail Proponents Make Another Push For Pacific Northwest Project (geekwire.com) 179
Three of every five voters in Oregon and Washington support a regional, high-speed rail line, according to a poll released by proponents of a proposed high-speed rail system to carry passengers from Eugene, Ore., to Vancouver, B.C. GeekWire reports: The survey, conducted by California-based FM3 and released by rail-advocacy coalition Fast Forward Cascadia, shows that 43% of voters surveyed from the two states strongly support high-speed rail and another 19% somewhat support it. Conversely, a total of 27% either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose a new high-speed rail project. Rachel Smith, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce president and CEO, said the polling indicates the necessary political support for additional modes of mass transportation in the Pacific Northwest. Broady, Northwest voters appear highly concerned about traffic, transportation infrastructure, and climate. And they see high-speed rail as a partial solution to those issues, the data indicates.
In 2019, Microsoft gave $223,667 to study the possibility of building a high-speed rail line connecting Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Portland, bringing the company's total donation to study the feasibility of the idea to $573,667. If completed, trains would hit speeds of 250 mph and carry up to 3.3 million passengers annually in the Pacific Northwest, according to one initial study. A study completed in 2018 estimated the project cost would range from $24 billion to $42 billion.
Rachel Smith said with the federal government currently willing to pour billions of dollars into Washington's infrastructure with the new legislation approved by the U.S. Senate, the time to push a project along is now. "There are significant resources becoming available," she said. "The (decisions) we make now we wish we could have made 20 years ago." Smith said the backers of the Cascadia line have closely analyzed mistakes made by the other projects and have a good accounting of the potential pitfalls. "We have confidence we can deliver on this project," she said.
In 2019, Microsoft gave $223,667 to study the possibility of building a high-speed rail line connecting Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Portland, bringing the company's total donation to study the feasibility of the idea to $573,667. If completed, trains would hit speeds of 250 mph and carry up to 3.3 million passengers annually in the Pacific Northwest, according to one initial study. A study completed in 2018 estimated the project cost would range from $24 billion to $42 billion.
Rachel Smith said with the federal government currently willing to pour billions of dollars into Washington's infrastructure with the new legislation approved by the U.S. Senate, the time to push a project along is now. "There are significant resources becoming available," she said. "The (decisions) we make now we wish we could have made 20 years ago." Smith said the backers of the Cascadia line have closely analyzed mistakes made by the other projects and have a good accounting of the potential pitfalls. "We have confidence we can deliver on this project," she said.
Border Speed Limitations (Score:2)
Re:Border Speed Limitations (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a European who apparently didn't take the Eurostar. There's Belgian and then UK border control at Brussels Midi. There's French border control at London St. Pancras. These include passport control/immigration, security and customs.
As a resident of Canada, you'll also know that you pre-clear US immigration at airports in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, etc. Is the NEXUS programme still in operation? When I joined that, going between the US and Canada was a breeze. Even today arriving in New York fr
Re: (Score:2)
US immigration is exceptionally inefficient. Even going through the iron curtain (way back) was often faster.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall this is what happened at the border crossing train scene in the final episode of "The Americans".
Re: (Score:2)
That does work pretty well. Requires treaties but with that you can do the same as on a regular border. It is really a solved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-clearance would be best. The US and Canada already offer that in several Canadian airports for flights to the US, and the Amtrak website indicates that trains from Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal already have you go through US customs, so I can't see any reason the concept couldn't be extended to high speed rail.
Also I imagine a lot of the folks who will ride this will end up springing for a Nexus card which will greatly expedite their customs interactions in either direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a silly concern because we're already running trains on this route. The full route is LA to Vancouver, BC. But there are extra regional trains north starting in Eugene.
In fact, it is faster to clear the border on a train than on a road, because on a train they know how many people will arrive, and when, and on a road the people show up in unscheduled bunches.
Cost of building over Cascadia Mountain (Score:3)
I don't see this thing getting built under $80 billions, unless
1. 240km/hr
2. hydrogen-powered trains and skip the overhead electrification. Better yet, reuse some of the existing rail right of way for extended straight stretches
2. Pre-fab overhead viaducts whenever possible.
3. Follow the I-5 right of way for the entire route.
4. Build the Portland-Seattle stretch first.
Re:Cost of building over Cascadia Mountain (Score:5, Insightful)
4. Build the Portland-Seattle stretch first.
Nope. The first rule of public projects is the build the least useful part first.
That way, when you run out of money, you can justify more funding by saying you haven't built the important part yet.
This is what California HSR is doing. They could have built the Sacramento-SF corridor first. Or San Diego to LA. But those would be useful.
So instead, they build the "train to nowhere" from Merced to Fresno. Now they can use the sunk-cost fallacy to demand more money since what they built is worthless without the rest of the network.
Re: (Score:3)
They wanted a nice straight test track and room for maintenance yards, and the Central Valley was the best and cheapest place to put them.
And every segment that wants federal
Re: (Score:3)
This is what California HSR is doing. They could have built the Sacramento-SF corridor first. Or San Diego to LA. But those would be useful.
So instead, they build the "train to nowhere" from Merced to Fresno. Now they can use the sunk-cost fallacy to demand more money since what they built is worthless without the rest of the network.
They built that part because it's cheaper and easier to build there so they can actually do something other than argue about land rights.
Re: (Score:2)
2. hydrogen-powered trains and skip the overhead electrification. Better yet, reuse some of the existing rail right of way for extended straight stretches
Why? Overhead lines are the best solution for trains.
4. Build the Portland-Seattle stretch first.
Vancouver, BC to Seattle is realistically better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overhead electric line would be the most logical choice, but high speed rail projects have enough trouble just to get off the ground. Simplifying the construction to the bare minimal, while leaving things for future upgrades, is necessary to get this approved.
>Vancouver to Seattle
I live in Vancouver (hence the km/hr) and 1 of my pals live in Seattle. I visit him every other months before COVID. I work in tech so I can afford the ticket. I am right in the middle of the target audience for the train. I am
Re: (Score:2)
Overhead electric line would be the most logical choice, but high speed rail projects have enough trouble just to get off the ground. Simplifying the construction to the bare minimal, while leaving things for future upgrades, is necessary to get this approved.
The fastest diesels are slower than even the California's planned HSR. Hydrogen trains are going to be even worse, given that they basically don't exist. And overhead power lines don't add that much to the cost.
As an example, Russia carries more than 90% of cargo on electrified lines. Because it's cheaper, not because it's green.
The area north of Seattle just doesn't have enough population to make high speed rail work, I feel. In 50 years, when Greater Vancouver doubles its population? Maybe yes, but until then...
Uhh... There's an uninterrupted string of towns up until Marysville (about 30 miles from Seattle downtown). HSR will provide a convenient transportation for them as well (likely v
Re: (Score:2)
Brightline Florida, with its diesel hybrid locomotives, averages around 200km/hr. Since 1 of the points of trains is to lessen emission, it's not out of question that some kind of hybrid battery-hydrogen locomotives would work (heck, Britian and France are already testing them.)
As for serving Marysville...they are nice towns, except that's what they are, towns. If the goal is solely to serve these small communities, a heavy rail commuter train running at 120km/hr would be more than sufficient. The line woul
Re: (Score:2)
Brightline Florida, with its diesel hybrid locomotives, averages around 200km/hr.
I checked and the world record for diesels is 248 km/hr. This is just below the planned California's HSR top speed and WAY below what electric trains routinely do in Germany or France.
As for serving Marysville...they are nice towns, except that's what they are, towns. If the goal is solely to serve these small communities, a heavy rail commuter train running at 120km/hr would be more than sufficient. The line would be much cheaper (although with the rate Seattle's light rail system is costing, I might have to take this back.)
Well, if you're building tracks for an HSR then why not use them for slower commuter trains? Train lines can easily physically fit a train every 15 minutes, so there's no harm in using empty slots for commuter trains. TGV in France does this, for example. Heck, HSR and CalTrain are going to do that in California.
There's also
Re: (Score:2)
Vancouver, BC to Seattle is realistically better.
Why? That's primarily for tourism. Just try crossing the US-Canadian border and telling Canadian customs that it's for business or a job and watch them throw a hissy-fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? That's primarily for tourism. Just try crossing the US-Canadian border and telling Canadian customs that it's for business or a job and watch them throw a hissy-fit.
I did that many times. It was perfectly fine all times. If you care, then provide documentation that you're going for a meeting as a representative of a company in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say it's pretty hilarious there's no equivalent of the Schengen zone between the US and Canada, considering how close they are culturally, economically and politically. It was quite amazing that I got through the border with my Eastern-European passport faster than some Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to do it then go all in. Use the Japanese maglev technology and hit speeds of 600 kph.
Re: (Score:2)
Maglev has basically failed economically and technologically. Conventional high-speed is what works.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing anything else but overhead electrification is stupid.
Boondoggle (Score:2)
Right now, this corridor would struggle to attract 1800 passengers in each direction per day [using pre-pandemic numbers], representing about 2 full Eurostar class trains per day -- and that's assuming that the air routes between SEA-PDX-YVR are discontinued. That's not really enough demand for something that would cost $10B at China HSR prices, or something well over $100B at the probable US HSR pricing.
Would make a lot more sense to add dedicated bus lanes along the entire I-5 corridor to serve this marke
Re: (Score:2)
Would make a lot more sense to add dedicated bus lanes along the entire I-5 corridor to serve this market.
There is no way that 1800 people/day justifies a dedicated lane.
A dedicated Bus+HOV+SDC lane makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a great way to waste money on an underutilized lane. If you put buses into the same lane that you want people to pay to carpool in, they slow those people down and make it less worth it to pay, so it fucks up the whole system.
Re: (Score:2)
How did you come up with the 1800 number?
If it's actually built and works properly, you could expect to syphon plane as well as car traffic, and generate new demand for travel.
The poll asked the wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, a bunch of people in highly liberal states answered yes to the popular green solution of high speed rail. A better polling question would have been: "If built, would you use a high speed rail train?" Followed up with: "How many times a year would you use it?" I'm guessing the numbers of those thinking it should be built is far greater than the numbers for people actually using it. High speed rail has been way over-hyped by those with economic interest.
If the actual usage numbers exist, it could be practical to build it. Chances are, however, that it would never make sense economically. And, as such, likely not cut emissions in any significant way as is the main argument for building it. It would be more viable to find ways to increase the efficiency of the turbo prop planes that already fly that route a few times a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually know what questions they asked? My guess is that there were like 20 questions, the first 19 of which were about traffic congestion, and the last of which was a vaguely worded "Would high speed rail help?"
There was a similar question here (Maryland) about MagLev between Baltimore and DC, with a single stop in between at the BWI airport. A survey commissioned by the MagLev people showed support, whereas most people seem to think it's a boondoggle (as do I). The projected ticket price (which
I think people would travel a lot more (Score:2)
So the question I think isn't how much would people use it but rather how much additional travel with all the economic activity that comes with it would we see if
Re: (Score:2)
This makes people also think about how to get to/from these specific destinations rather than assuming a station would be conveniently located near their home.
NB: Guessing these are suitable, I live in a different hemisphere...
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of short sighted thinking that holds back progress.
Would you use it today? Maybe not, but would you use it if as well as the high speed rail there were new amenities build around the station? What if other public transport linked up and it became a hub, making access to other things much easier too? What if new towns with good quality, affordable housing were build with access to the stations, would you be interested in living there?
When building new infrastructure you need a holistic appro
Re: (Score:2)
The question "would you use it today" when it won't be built today is frankly senseless.
Re: (Score:2)
A better polling question would have been: "If built, would you use a high speed rail train?" Followed up with: "How many times a year would you use it?" I'm guessing the numbers of those thinking it should be built is far greater than the numbers for people actually using it. High speed rail has been way over-hyped by those with economic interest.
How would that question be better? If somone asked me I would take the HSR from my city to the next largest city, I'd say no (if I weren't lying) because I have no reason to go there. I never drive or fly there now either.
But it absolutely should be built. It's the most popular route in the country, the highway is always a jammed disaster, and better connectivity would help level-out the economics and encourage travel for leisure and business.
Belt and Road (Score:2)
It's only a small portion of the railroad linking the San Francisco bay area to the factories in industrialized China.
In a distant future, iPhones will be 'shipped' directly by rail across the Bering Strait.
Although perhaps not in the current climate with Vlad and Jinping at an impasse with D.C.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you won't be using it, you're on the list now.
Still waiting.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm still waiting for even one successful high speed rail project in the US. We all know about that boondoggle in California but there are other projects in Ohio and Wisconsin that failed to get off the ground. There was another one in Florida - designed to link Tampa and Orlando - that was cancelled after preliminary studies showed it was not viable.
Amtrack is slated to be brought back to life again but has failed to turn a profit in its entire 50 years of existence. Maybe this will be the year but I'll be
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still waiting for even one successful high speed rail project in the US.
The NYC to DC section of Amtrack is moderately successful.
The requirements for success:
1. Dense cities on each end that don't require car ownership.
2. Too far to drive but not quite far enough to fly.
3. Other biggish cities along the way to feed in riders (Trenton, Philly, Wilmington, Baltimore).
None of these apply to the PNW.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that it's moderately successful, but I've taken it several times, and it's definitely not high-speed rail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Major taxpayer $$$ that benefits a few people (Score:2)
Paul Allen got the state of Washington to pay for a stadium. Now some construction conglomerate is trying to do the same with a rail system.
It would be similar to why the Concorde wasn't a success but the 747 was. Some how or some way the numbers have to make sense. Even using the unrealistically low estimate of $24B it's still way too high a price for a project that too few would use.
Re: (Score:2)
Even using the unrealistically low estimate of $24B
We are talking about $6 to $8 billion annual budget shortfalls for our light rail system. That just runs between a few adjacent cities. Imagine the overruns on a Eugene, Ore., to Vancouver, B.C. system.
On the other hand, if 3 out of 5 voters want it built, then those 3 out of 5 people can get busy building it. The way we used to build railroads [ncry.org].
What existing logistics problem does this solve? (Score:3)
What existing systems are already at max capacity?
What commuting problem does this solve?
The tallest hurdle:
How do the proponents expect to acquire rights of way?
People outside the industry who aren't diehard railfans know jack and shit about rail let alone HSR. Much love for urban, suburban and interurban light rail (which built the burbs before cars were a thing and freed many Americans from the misery of living in cities) on my part but most of that uses legacy rights of way in the Northeast whose geography and settlement patterns suited it long before it was built.
The non-techie public know nothing and their opinions are worthless except for figuring out how they might vote. They lack the humility to know this so a mere survey is worth jack and shit and should not be news.
Re: (Score:2)
What existing systems are already at max capacity?
What commuting problem does this solve?
Interstate 5
The tallest hurdle:
How do the proponents expect to acquire rights of way?
This route already exists, this is about upgrades. Right now, not only does the track not support high speed, but there is too much congestion and the trains have to park and wait for freight to go past. Because of that, it is slightly slower than driving, and approximately the same time as the bus. Though obviously, much nicer than the bus.
You can build elevated rails for the passenger trails without a lot of infrastructure compared to freight.
Oh, oh, oh, and in the US the government can acquir
Re: (Score:2)
in the US the government can acquire whatever land is needed for the project, they just have to take it and pay the market rate! So "acquire the rights of way" is not actually any serious challenge.
That's not as true as it used to be. Eminent domain can be tied up in court long enough to make it stupidly expensive. And when we ran the railroads the first time lots of the land was taken away from the natives, and much of the rest (which had already been granted to whites) was acquired by nefarious means.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of amazing that in America, one of the most hardcore capitalist countries in the world, people think like this.
Instead of just looking at existing demand, why not look at creating more demand? Build some stuff that people want to visit, and then they will use the train. You are going to build a big station anyway, why not make it a combined station and shopping mall? As long as you have some unique attractions to bring people there they will come.
Look at Japan as an example. All year round they of
4.5 out of 5 voters are idiots (Score:2)
3 out of 5 voters support the project, but 4.5 out of 5 voters are morons.
Re: (Score:3)
A high speed rail system has to carry a lot more passengers to cost-justify itself. But of course that's apples-to-oranges. The Mars Colony will be as small as practical, because it will get financially less viable the more settlers it lands.
Re: You could build (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are they going to mine on Mars that is that profitable? They'll be lucky to be able to mine the materials needed for the base in a cost effective way. Mars is big, as much dry land area as the Earth and any interesting minerals are going to be spread out in a similar way to the Earth and it's not like they have a highway system, little well ocean shipping. Even flying is going to be a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a high speed rail line, even from Boise, Idaho to Missoula, Montana would still be far more useful to humanity than a Mars station.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if by "colony" you mean "graveyard," yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed. Many people seem to have no idea how difficult such an undertaking would be. It is not "go there, kill the natives, start farming". It is "go into the dessert, have no water, no air, no anything and no way to leave, try to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it is impossible to build a Mars colony at this time (and will remain so for a century or longer), that statement is nonsense.
Re:Look how well that is going in California. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Already referenced in the article.
"Smith said the backers of the Cascadia line have closely analyzed mistakes made by the other projects and have a good accounting of the potential pitfalls. "
Re: (Score:3)
Actually when Prop 1A was passed in 2008, the cost estimate was $33.6 billion in 2008$, which is equivalent to $40.4 billion in 2020$.
That's the worst-case scenario, in year-of-expenditure dollars. The current baseline estimate from 2020 is $82.4
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has a similar project called HS2, which is massively over-budget and over-time. Interestingly the Chinese offered to build it for us at about 1/20th the price UK contractors are offering. They would use local labour and some of their own engineering talent. Oh and they would do it in a few years, where as we are looking at decades to do it ourselves.
The Chinese can probably do it as well, given the amount they have built in China at incredible speed.
Of course the offer was rejected out of hand. Globa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are incompetent and did not get outside expertise. There is tons of experience with high-speed rail, for example in Europe. You just need to realize you are behind and need help. "We are the greatest nation on earth and can do that all by ourselves" does not work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
are any of these voters shown the economic benefit of such a system?
No, because the only "economic benefit" will be for the companies who build this albatross.
Once it is built, it will be an endless money pit that never generates anywhere near enough revenue to cover construction and operating costs. Requiring taxpayers to shell out more and more money so that a few people can get somewhere a little faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would taxpayers be 'required' to bail out a private enterprise? I keep on seeing this excuse but no one can convincingly show me why the government will for sure step in when a railroad company fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would taxpayers be 'required' to bail out a private enterprise?
CAHSR [wikipedia.org] is not a private enterprise.
The "bailout" will be for the bondholders who funded the project. The taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay them, with interest.
There is no way that anyone will agree to fund the PNW HSR project without similar guarantees, especially after the failure of CAHSR.
CAHSR may eventually run, but it is already more than three times over budget and has no hope of ever paying back the bondholders without additional taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay them, with interest.
Not actually true.
Federally speaking, it is true.
State-wise, it is not.
Though it's rare. The last time it happened was Arkansas in the Great Depression. I think Reconstruction era after that.
Re:Look how well that is going in California. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Look how well that is going in California. (Score:4, Informative)
Japan's and France's make money.
No they don't.
France's SNCF receives 13 billion euros per year [wikipedia.org] in subsidies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, & Spain's, & the Netherland's & Germany's, & Belgium's, etc..
BTW, Spain has the world's 2nd biggest high speed rail infrastructure in the world (after China). RENFE, the Spanish national train company, is run as a non-profit & so rail fares are relatively cheap & it's a fantastic, well-run, convenient, integrated service - Waaay better than flying. Working for RENFE is also a secure, well-paid, sought-after job.
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't.
France's SNCF receives 13 billion euros per year [wikipedia.org] in subsidies.
Wikipedia seems to say freight is doing badly. I wonder how the balance is between TGV, TER and freight. And the future Bordeau line.
Re:Look how well that is going in California. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes they do: [railpac.org]
"The basis for this can be traced to a study by the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank largely funded by Oil interests). The original Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansan line and the Paris-Lyon TGV line are the only 2 so far that have paid off all of their capital costs. That is because it takes time to pay off an investment, these are the oldest HSR lines, and most High Speed Rail services are new. If we used the criteria that a business need pay off all capital costs before being considered 'profitable' then we would have few profitable businesses."
Even the USA's nearly-HSR Acela Express makes a profit. [businessinsider.com] So why would California's be any different?
Re:Look how well that is going in California. (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, this is a misunderstanding of what is happening in France and in Japan.
In France the subsidies are because the government wants the high speed rail to be more affordable, not because it needs them to survive.
In Japan they take a very long term view. Loans for stuff like high speed rail are paid off over many decades and it's not a problem, it's just the normal way things are. 50 year loans are not uncommon if the bank thinks that they are safe investments, and that allows companies to build very expensive infrastructure and keep it relatively affordable for users.
In other countries the government might step in to back these kinds of loans, because government can borrow money long term at very low interest rates and have an interest in developing infrastructure. It just works a bit differently in Japan.
Re: (Score:3)
I've ridden both of those "oldest" paid-for lines and they are absolutely brilliant. I would welcome a true high-speed rail line between Eugene and Vancouver, B.C. - I would literally never drive between Portland and Seattle again. And depending on how good the muppets in Eugene connect at the terminal there, you would see far less traffic on I-5 on weekends in the fall as tens of thousands of cars drive from Portland to Eugene for football games, because instead of 3+ hours in the car round trip before c
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, EU countries subsidise their infrastructure. They know that for every euro they spend on it, they make 10-20% return on investment from taxes from the economic activity it generates. As long as it fulfills a public need, infrastructure is almost always a good investment.
I think the USA's problem is that it's forgotten how to manage large infrastructure projects like building efficient, coordinated, integrated rail systems.
Re: (Score:3)
How much in subsidies does the road system receive? It doesn't make a profit either.
Re: (Score:2)
They do. But take into account that roads are subsidized as well. This just requires shifting that money to some degree. Infrastructure should never be operated for profit. That does not work and you end up with really bad infrastructure. On the other hand, good infrastructure is a major economic success factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan has America's population in land the size of California. We don't have the population density for this to make money or make sense. The only people pushing for it are clueless leftists that think it'll solve some problem and rich Democrat donors who will get contracts to build it. They've probably already bought land to sell to the government for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Look how well that is going in California. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Public transport isn't about turning a profit.
Re: Look how well that is going in California. (Score:2)
No, but that's not an excuse for wasting money either. If there's a way of running an operation cleanly and prudently without adopting the language of costs and revenues, no one has discovered it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Public transport isn't about turning a profit.
And that's exactly why public transport in the US is so bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Another option - the Texas high speed rail (Score:5, Insightful)
> an endless money pit that never generates anywhere near enough revenue to cover construction and operating costs. Requiring taxpayers to shell out more and more money
That seems to describe the California project so far.
Another way to do it is that my whole family is looking forward to being able to get from Dallas to Houston and back in an hour and half (instead of four hours driving or flying). When we want to go to Houston or College Station at 200 MPH, we *pay the ticket price*. We'll pay for it WHEN WE USE IT. We aren't forcing other people, who won't use it, to pay for it.
The Texas high speed rail project is being done by a private company, on THEIR dime. If they waste a bunch of money, they'll be wasting their own money.
Currently the options for traveling between the cities are driving or flying, both of which suck. Flying sucks because dealing with airports suck. The actual flight is short. The bullet train will be faster than either flying or driving, and the cost will be in-between those options.
No need for anyone to worry about taxpayers being milked for $100 billion like in California. It costs the taxpayers $0.
It's paid for by people who use it - you buy a ticket. If the company that's building it screws it up, that's their problem.
So, that's one way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
are any of these voters shown the economic benefit of such a system?
No, because the only "economic benefit" will be for the companies who build this albatross. Once it is built, it will be an endless money pit that never generates anywhere near enough revenue to cover construction and operating costs. Requiring taxpayers to shell out more and more money so that a few people can get somewhere a little faster.
I think you've just proven WeaselCom's point. It seems that many people really don't understand the value of infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, yer right, just like the interstate highway system. What was Eisenhower thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
Once it is built, it will be an endless money pit that never generates anywhere near enough revenue to cover construction and operating costs.
So, just like a freeway?
Requiring taxpayers to shell out more and more money so that a few people can get somewhere a little faster.
So, just like a freeway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can already go anywhere in the U.S. at a speed of 250-300 miles per hours (or faster). It's called airplanes and people have been doing it on a regular daily basis for 70+ years now.
On average, train travel has about 1/2 the carbon cost of air travel, even though you have to build rails and stuff. As it turns out, it's not very efficient to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: New York State is also sparsely populated. And yet, there are local areas with high population density! Wow.
You thought there are no traffic problems on I-5? Derp!
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people are making the trip all the time. Not Eugene to Vancouver; Eugene to Portland, Eugene to Seattle, Portland to Seattle, Portland to Vancouver, Seattle to Vancouver.
(Eugene isn't very big, so doesn't have the sort of regional business centers that would cause Eugene to Vancouver to be more common. That's a tourist route.)
There are daily commuter flights out of Eugene to Portland and Seattle. And lots of vehicle traffic.
It isn't about living and working in different places, it is about having to
Re: (Score:2)
They want to do that non-electric? Are these people stupid? Nobody sane on this planet runs high-speed rail without electrification. And there are a lot of high-speed rail systems. If you do lower-speeds, hybrid solutions are an option (they will still have an all-electric drive system and just come with a power-plant), but these are limited in what they can do.