
$11B Later, High-Speed Rail Is Inching Along - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html
======
melling
Welcome to the 21st century, the century of China.

China has built almost 7000 miles of high-speed rail in less than 10 years.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
speed_rail_in_China](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China)

The US still has zero miles.

Shanghai had 0 miles of subway in 1993. Now they have the biggest subway in
the world.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems#List](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems#List)

I believe the first 2 miles of the Second Avenue subway will be done in a few
more years.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#Current_de...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#Current_development)

It quite embarrassing how lame the United States has become.

~~~
nostromo
It's silly to draw overarching conclusions of a country based on their choice
of transportation.

The US flew 846 billion passenger miles last year. Does that make us better or
worse? (Answer: neither.)

[http://apps.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml](http://apps.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml)

Trains aren't an end, they're a means to an end. In the US we use jets and
cars instead of trains.

And before you object based on efficiency -- trains aren't that much more
efficient than flying. Only 20% by Amtrak's measure.

[http://www.amtrak.com/whistle-stop/energy-efficiency-rail-
tr...](http://www.amtrak.com/whistle-stop/energy-efficiency-rail-travel-uses-
less-fuel-than-cars-planes)

With the increased speed of flying, trains don't seem like such a natural fit
for a spread out country like the US.

~~~
papaf
_And before you object based on efficiency -- trains aren 't that much more
efficient than flying._

Below is a link to a PDF with more information about energy efficiency:

[http://adl.stanford.edu/aa260/Lecture_Notes_files/transport_...](http://adl.stanford.edu/aa260/Lecture_Notes_files/transport_fuel_consumption.pdf)

These figures suggest that the train is the most efficient form of travel and
that plane is one of the least efficient forms of travel (although it is
better than hovercraft for long distance travel).

~~~
kosei
And we talk about what a technological advance it is that the Dreamliner is
20% more fuel efficient. Which would still put it trailing behind the Prius in
fuel efficiency.

------
tzs
In 2004, the Republican Party platform said that "Republicans support, where
economically viable, the development of a high-speed passenger railroad system
as an instrument of economic development and enhanced mobility". In 2002, it
was a part of Rick Perry's ambitious massive transportation plan for Texas.
Even Ron Paul signed a letter asking the federal government to give Texas
money for rail studies and to help it build "a truly ambitious and world-class
high-speed rail network".

It sure sounds like Republicans were on board for high-speed rail. What has
changed since then? I hope this is not another one of those things that they
are now against because they don't want to be on the same side as Obama.

~~~
tedks
In 2004 the Tea Party didn't exist.

------
Alex3917
I guess I'm not seeing what's newsworthy about the fact that a 500 billion
dollar, 25-year project isn't finished after 11 billion dollars and 4 years:

[http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html](http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html)

~~~
marze
It will never be finished. That will be newsworthy. Fiber optic will always be
cheaper.

------
Rapzid
Tōkaidō Shinkansen was operational in just 5 years. That's the 320 mile line
between Tokyo and Osaka. The only reason this is fantasy talk is because of
mismanagement of funds and resources. It didn't used to take 3 years to
upgrade a 3 mile stretch of freeway. If it did, our interstate infrastructure
would have never been built.

------
chrishacken
“High-speed rail can be a good idea; I just think it should be left up to the
private sector,”

Ludicrous, the private sector has absolutely no incentive to build something
in which they have to wait 25-30 years to receive a return on their
investment.

~~~
crazy1van
> Ludicrous, the private sector has absolutely no incentive to build something
> in which they have to wait 25-30 years to receive a return on their
> investment.

But they do have an incentive to find transportation solutions that have a
return on investment of a couple of years. I'd argue that a faster cycle is
much better with anything that deals with technology. Let's not spend decades
to build the best horse drawn carriage in history only to have it passed by an
automobile the day it launches.

~~~
chrishacken
I'd agree, but transportation is inherently slower to build than your average
tech gadgets. By that logic, we probably just shouldn't build anything at all.
A 10-15 mile highway expansion project here in Philadelphia has been going on
for almost 2 years now.

------
kosei
Some more info on the first high speed rail project:

[http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/booker_federal_rail...](http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/booker_federal_railroad_chief_tour_trenton_high-
speed_rail_site.html)

 _" It wasn’t long ago in this region that airlines dominated travel to
Washington, D.C.," he said. Now, Szabo said, Amtrak accounts for 80 percent of
travel between New York and Washington.

Critics of high-speed rail, including many Republicans in Congress, say the
benefits are outweighed by the huge costs._

------
jedberg
The problem with the California project, which hopefully isn't indicative of
the other projects, is that they're building the wrong line first.

The plan is to build the Stockton to Bakersfield line first. The one that will
get by far the least traffic!

If you really wanted to show value and increase public support, you'd build
the Stockton to SF line and the Bakersfield to LA lines first. Those lines
would get 1000's of daily riders as people switched to the train from their 2+
hour commutes.

Then use those profits to build the connecting line.

~~~
jeffdavis
"If you really wanted to show value and increase public support, you'd build
the Stockton to SF line and the Bakersfield to LA lines first."

That plan would show results too early. Results are scary, because they might
not live up to the promises by politicians currently in office. Politicians do
much better with hoping, wishing, and grand visions.

~~~
jedberg
Ha! You do have a point. I suppose this is where private enterprise would be
better. :)

------
MisterBastahrd
The problem with high-speed rail is that for decades it will only benefit
large urban population centers. As such, people in rural communities or more
sparsely populated cities have little to no incentive to go along with funding
it. If a person has to drive for an hour in the wrong direction just to get on
the train, then the train has no real benefit to them.

~~~
bluthru
80 percent of Americans live in urban areas.

~~~
crazy1van
Yes, but the census defines an urban area as containing over 50,000 people.
There are going to be an awful lot of urban areas that are not at all
conveniently close to a high speed rail station.

Source: [http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-
rural-2010.html](http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html)

~~~
NotAtWork
25 million Americans live in the 10 biggest cities.

33 million Americans live in the 20 biggest cities.

44 million Americans live in the 50 biggest cities.

I think any of those is a reasonable number to build a rail system for.

~~~
thrownaway2424
If you count by census statistical area, the 10 biggest MSAs contain ~80
million people. There's 180 million people in the top 50 metropolitan areas,
well over half the USA, all living in conurbs of at least a million people.

------
JDDunn9
Before spending tens of billions of dollars on high speed rail, which is only
a baby step forward, why not give NASA $100 million to try out evacuated tube
transportation? I believe ET3 ([http://et3.com/](http://et3.com/)) is planning
to break ground for a proof of concept line in 2015.

------
tylerpachal
I rode high-speed and low(regular?) speed trains around Korea for a summer
they were a nice way to travel. Its too bad they don't seem like a feasible
options for North America.

------
mygrant
Inching along after fighting Palo Alto resident after Palo Alto resident is OK
with me. It's a big project.

------
pstuart
While high speed rail would be great if it could be delivered on time and
under budget that is never going to happen.

Why not nationalize the existing rail lines and invest those dollars into
increasing their capacity (so that passenger lines are not second class to
freight traffic). Remove the passenger monopoly from Amtrak and let market
forces have at it, e.g., Virgin Rail or similar.

~~~
crdoconnor
This was tried in the UK. It resulted in ballooning ticket prices,
underinvestment in infrastructure, ridiculously confusing pricing (this is a
competitive advantage in oligopolies) and lots of attempts to capitalize on
the confusion by issuing fines when the obscure rules caused by the confusing
pricing were broken.

Market forces didn't work as predicted because, oddly enough, the London-
Edinburgh rail operator doesn't feel much competitive pressure from the
London-Bristol route.

It was all an exercise in transferring state assets into private hands at a
knock down price so that they could be milked for profits. In that respect it
was a resounding success.

~~~
pstuart
The article is about providing rail service in California, with billions in
public funds. And where is the land coming from for this new rail line?

[http://cchsra.org/cahsr-eminent-domain/](http://cchsra.org/cahsr-eminent-
domain/)

My proposal was for taking the existing rail lines, which had government
subsidies, and making them a commons and improving them so that _all players_
had better service.

[http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentations...](http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/riseind/railroad/grants.html)

The rails themselves become owned by the public and are improved so that
_more_ freight and _more_ passenger traffic can utilize it.

As it stands now, passenger traffic here takes a back seat to freight and it
makes traveling by rail on the west coast fit only for tourists with plenty of
time on their hands.

