RIP, American High Speed Rail

OK, so leaving your local politics out of this issue for the moment, I understand what you are saying, and some of your objections are valid - some are silly.

I really wanted rail (which I have used and loved) until I examined the question and realized what I loved most about train travel was both being able to stretch my legs but mostly not being under the TSA. AMTRAK has some fundamental problems with rail out west that ensure my wife will not use it; like the high cost of buying privacy/security, suites cost too damned much and are booked years in advance. The TSA will be all over rail as soon as it gets used more.

Pull up an AMTRAK map for the western states before you ask if we use rail out here; except in California the question makes no sense since there is no rail to use. Historic routes they were legally bound to in the 1800s don't reflect population centers now. Routes were laid to be cheap, not efficient as the entire initial effort was a government subsidized race to the coast.

All this could be fixed, but it actually does require the power of government.

More fundamentally and more to your question, there is an implication that government doesn't belong in any service (re the cash to keep it running).

Some things are simply a public good that will never turn a profit. It is up to the elected members to decide what those are and what level of service to provide. The incredibly stupid fight over whether or not the postal system turns a profit is just that - stupid.

The largely accepted perception that our entire election system and the people it puts in charge of these decisions is broken I endorse. That means the decision process is skewed. That doesn't mean these services should be capable of supporting themselves or that should be the basis for making the decision. Fix the root cause.

There is not a public transportation system in the world probably capable of running at a profit. That doesn't mean it needs to turn into a black hole of waste, nor does it mean that balanced against pollution, freeways, and autos it isn't a better decision to subsidize public transportation.

What kind of subsidy to which transportation system should be a balancing act of need/demand, cost benefit, efficiency, etc. These should be long-term engineering and financial decisions, just the kind two year congressmen are really bad at. And enough money on the table when you talk about redesigning nationwide transport to make it worth any kind of corruption to get your piece.

But as a data point - the northeast corridor cannot exist without passenger rail on a daily basis. But getting there is only part of the problem.

The rail system is very enjoyable and I have used it.

I agree, and some are downright silly, ^{if we are on the right thoughts or explain.}

It was actually the government that put rail in its condition, as the link below shows, by taxing rail to subsidize other forms of transportation. And if you want to salvage rail for passenger use, its going to take government to put it back. But is that a good idea.

Is it worth adding to government spending so you can stretch your legs once in a while.

Heck, I like to fly first class too, but I never did, why, because Its coming directly out of my pocket. So I fly coach or economy so far.

Wanting it, and needing/using it are two very different things, and with the condition of our economy, the rebuilding or expansion has to have the larger overall impact. And not a one day front page news and then left to rot by running close to empty.

With that being you have to use it as a viable mode of transportation and not treat it as a convenience.

With this link actually stating that the U.S. Rail is actually a third world country.

Again customs or I should say culture has to change, with that being changing from convenience of having rail to needing/using rail.

IMO, high speed rail was a special interest program, nothing more. And whether you agree with it our not, local politics has all to do with it. It just didn't go the way of special interests.

All agreed

Any rail expansion needs to be made on engineering terms:

Passenger per gallon per mile maybe some factor for infrastructure...hmmm

There is bound to be a break-even point between airline and rail that tells us how far makes sense, so then you get appropriate usage

But to compare apples to apples we gotta roll in the entire infrastructure cost, the FAA, ATC, airports, etc.

I'm seeing a pivot table with about 200 layers

But then High Speed is a whole 'nuther topic, cost per mile for infrastructure is staggering for really high speed.

[Up-Front Disclosure: I also live in Wisconsin, but my disagreements start with how to spell Walker's first name - his website and his signature use "Scott"].

I would like to TRY using public transit. No one around me uses it for the simple reason that there isn't any. The nearest places to board a passenger train are more than an hour's drive away, and the single bus line that comes within 15-minutes' drive from my house doesn't go to the station at either place. To go to, say, Chicago, I'd have to either drive to the bus and later take a cab, or drive directly to the railroad station [which has NO associated parking structure or system!]. A cab at this end would cost double, because I'd have to pay for the cabbie's deadhead drive back into town. Add a cab or local bus once in Chicago, to go anywhere worth the trip, and the cost and time each far outweigh driving direct. Driving to the railroad station adds a severe parking problem, especially if any luggage needs to go along.

The only way that I can see public transportation working around here is to have it be part of a larger overall system, with good connections between the parts, and with sufficient speed on the runs to balance the various waiting times ("overhead") that cannot be avoided. On a national scale, much the same applies: if the vehicles travel barely faster than a private automobile, but fares cost several times the direct expenditures for driving, only transit speed can justify switching. On a larger scale, the improvements in passenger-miles-per-gallon, reduced total pollution, etc. won't be included in any balance sheet I've ever seen - though I think that is changing, and indeed MUST change. With multiple governors rejecting anything that could be perceived as cooperating with the federal government, no system can ever be built. No private enterprise can afford the up-front costs. Unless they could bribe . . . convince local government, they couldn't even purchase the needed right-of-way.

A government which planned ahead, and which had some cooperation from regional and local entities that could avoid putting politics ahead of support for the national public interest, would be able to pull it off. That will not happen in today's political climate. I saw the high-speed rail proposal as the bare-bones starting point for such a plan; it would have needed to be fleshed out over a decade or two, most likely, but begun paying benefits prior to completion, just as it did in other countries where high-speed rail exists. That possibility has been forfeited.

Our experience on higher speed intra-city railways here (+- 80km journey @ 160km/h) has been quite interesting. The take-up was quite good. This, and my observations in Europe a decade or so ago, led me to the following: 1. High-speed rail seems to compete with cars and short-haul flights. In Europe, that equated with relatively high population densities. I suspect the same goes for Japan. 2. Cost and convenience are important, but security en-route and getting to your departure station and moving from your disembarking station is important. Again, in Europe/UK there is very good public transport. If I have to get in my car, I may be tempted to do the whole journey by car. 3. Traffic jams and toll fees also is important considerations. Some of my colleagues find that they are more productive, as they can either spend more time at work due to shorter travelling times, or can do some light work whilst travelling. 4. Governments are there to look at the bigger picture. Remember that a railway has to maintain the right-of-way, the vehicles, stations, everything. Road users typically do not, unless the tolling is adequate to recoup all costs (construction & maintenance). Non-tolled roads usually ends up favouring the road user. I suspect that air travel is not usually subsidised. But the USA setup may be different, and the politics there boggles the mind. Personally, I agree with one of the other respondents in that governments sometimes have to look at the greater good. Tricky to define that though! It is really amazing how the Chinese are progressing, despite some issues there. But I suspect that they have a nation used to public transport, and are doing the high-speed routes the higher-density population areas. (If they can just sort out the safety thing...)

Agree with all with the exception about air travel which requires heavy infrastructure and constant service i.e. traffic controllers, control upgrades etc both in the US as well as Europe.

More about integrated solutions over on the Last Mile thread