We need a new transcontinental railroad to put people back to work. A 300mph

[CK_John]

from Boston to LA using the center divide of the interstate system where possible and replace all the bridges along the way that are past their prime.

Express stops every 300 or so miles east of the Miss. and 1200 miles stops west of the Miss. with local slower service in between express stops on a adjacent track or a shared track.

Time to start rebuilding.

[LSK]

1. I will just take an Amtrak route from Chicago to Florida

Because there is no direct lines right now.

[Belial]

2. KA CHING!!!! Lets spend that money!

[But....]

3. Definately...

deserves to be high on the List:bounce:

[anonymous171]

4. Let's waste money on something that nobody will use and that would take half a century to build

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. Right because no one uses the rails now.

If it's done right, a high-speed rail could be viable especially if it locks in with the green movement. I'm no scientist, but I imagine that one could demonstrate that using a high-speed electric rail leaves a smaller carbon foot print than travel by airplane.

[anonymous171]

8. Depends on how the electricity is generated.

[hootinholler]

21. It's not just the size of the footprint

The airline footprint is deposited at altitudes where the air is thinner and the effects are enhanced.

-Hoot

[texastoast]

7. Why wouldn't it be used? n/t

[hedgehog]

14. Last Sunday, my daughter took the trrain back to Albany from Syracuse.

All it took to handle the holiday crowd was to add some cars to the train. I doubt very much more fuel was expended. An ice storm that covered half the state at the time meant that people traveling by car or plane faced massive delays.

[jpak]

16. When fuel prices make airline and auto travel too costly for the average American

They will use it.

That's what happened this year with AMTRAK and urban light rail ridership.

[anonymous171]

17. I agree. But this would take decades to complete.

Who knows what could happen in that time?

[izquierdista]

25. The world will continue to turn

And the rest of the world will continue to develop, save for the United States, filled with people who just sit on their ass because building a better country would "take decades to complete".

When one finds oneself in a deep hole (a personal car based economy relying on imported oil to fuel those cars), the first thing to do is to quit digging.

[walldude]

28. Ooh whole decades?

Not thinking ahead is part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with.

[WolverineDG]

77. How long did it take to build the first transcontinental railroad?

Authorized by Congress in 1862 & completed in 1869, with people working at both ends towards the middle. So much for "decades."

wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad

If they could do it then, why can't we now??

:eyes:

dg

[LSK]

24. right because Rail has a long history of not being used in other countries

NOT

[JDPriestly]

40. Americans don't use rail because they don't know how great it is.

I used rail a lot in Europe and absolutely loved it. And that was before high speed rail.

It is especially for family travel. Small children like trains, and its much easier to keep them busy and happy on a train than in a plane. On a train they can look around and sit up on their seat so that they can see other passengers. That is hard to do on a plane. Also, it's easier to manage your luggage on a train, and for long rides you can have a choice of food in a dining car.

I may be wrong, but I think that Californians voted for high speed rail from the south to the north of the state in this last election. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[Nederland]

43. Nonsense

They don't use rail because it doesn't make sense in areas with low population densities.

[JDPriestly]

87. Rail does not compete with cars on local routes.

Rail competes with planes on long distance routes. That is why we need fast rail. Buses can compete with cars on local routes but are not nearly as comfortable as cars. Whereas trains are far more comfortable than either cars or planes. I have not ridden in the new, super fast trains. They are for distances like the one between Los Angeles and San Francisco or Los Angeles and Portland, two routes that I travel from time to time. Chicago to New York or to D.C. would be a good fast train route. So would New York to Miami. Those are routes that are heavily traveled. Air travel is becoming very expensive and more an more uncomfortable every time I fly.

[Nederland]

41. The difference is population density

Rail only works in high density areas, it doesn't in low density areas. That's the real reason it works in Europe.

[LSK]

47. why can it not work going between high density areas?

I believe the train going from DC to NYC is pretty popular.

[Nederland]

59. It can and does

And your example is a good one. I was more responding to the idea in the OP that suggested a coast to coast route. I think the population density spanning that area makes that a bad idea.

[anigbrowl]

57. Geography's different

I'm European and i really enjoy trains. But I wouldn't use a train to across the USA unless I wanted a train holiday. I'm sort of in favor of high speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles (I'm in cA) but over that distance it's still competitive with flying, time wise. Boston to LA? good luck building a train line and train that consistently goes at 350mp/h.

Trains are good for long-haul freight and short-haul passenger travel, but air travel is well-established for a good reason. Even if fuel prices go up it will still be the optimal choice for many journeys. Trying to replace it is a waste of time and money. That's like saying bicycles are great at what they do, so we should build family-sized bicycles in order to replace cars.

[anigbrowl]

67. Just to add, I think it's quite a good idea for coastal regions.

Sorry, Midwest. But there just aren't enough people in a lot of the interior to make it cost-effective.

[Dora]

34. Pfffffft.

History does not agree with you.

[tjwash]

92. How the fuck do you amass over 10000 posts in just 10 months?

:crazy:

[lpbk2713]

103. A GOP Hall of Fame?

:rofl: :rofl:

[wryter2000]

5. I'd love it

But make it go to Oakland with a connection to Seattle in the north and San Diego in the south.

After all, Oakland was the real terminus of the transcontinental railroad.

[LeftyMom]

86. Sacramento.

People bound for the bay area took to the water for the rest of the trip.

[wryter2000]

88. Here's a map

http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Maps/_crofutt_1870_map.html

I love Sacramento :), but in this case, it's my hometown, Oakland. The station was near what's now Jack London Square. After that, the train cars were loaded onto a ferry to San Francisco as there were no bridges and certainly no tunnel back then.

To go by water from Sacramento they would have had to go down the Sacramento river to the bay.

[LeftyMom]

90. The original transcontinental railroad's western terminus was in Sacramento.

The line opened in May of 1869 with Sacramento as its' westernmost stop. The connection to Alameda was not completed until November.

[proud patriot]

89. It makes Alot of sense for a stop on the east side of the Bay

:thumbsup: :hi:

[hunter]

9. Exactly, although 300 miles is probably a good measure everywhere.

There are many good routes to think about first, a few out west are:

Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Phoenix

Los Angeles - San Francisco - Portland - Seattle

The big political problem is that everyone will want to be first in line, everyone will want stops, and the airlines and aircraft industry will not be happy unless they get a share of the money and work.

[TlalocW]

10. We gonna carry some wheat on them there trains?

Sorry... Born and raised in a small farming community in Kansas. Only trains I've known were the ones that went by the grain elevators.

TlalocW

[glowing]

11. I loved hearing Biden talk about the train issue.. He's correct.

I think the trains he was speaking of were 200mph.. but they would let more of the masses actually travel. Airline a bit too expensive, cars a pain in the ass.. If we could travel like the Europeans.. oh, man it would be sooo freaking awesome. It would create jobs and a great way to travel. Our family would only have 1 car.. and I think that may be the lobbyists problem when they work for car manufacurers...

[texastoast]

19. Why do the Europeans always have to lead the way?

They have big mountains. At one time they had NO railbeds.

What I think they don't have is a "can't-do" attitude.

[tridim]

12. I like the idea, but getting high speed rail over the Rockies will be very difficult

[DonEBrook]

20. The French and Italians get over the Alps (higher than the Rockies) without much difficulty.

:shrug:

[tridim]

76. I'm sure it can be done..

But Colorado has been trying to get a high speed train up to the ski areas forever, and they just can't get it done. It's too expensive (by a lot), and too environmentally taxing. Maybe Federal dollars will help.

[DonEBrook]

83. Oh, well that's a horse of another color...there are dozens of ski areas...

one train couldn't service them all anyway. :shrug:

[Thothmes]

94. But at what speed

[JDPriestly]

44. Easier than getting trains on the sides of the Alps. The Swiss

and Austrians know how that is done. The Alps are narrower and steeper than the Rockies. I've traveled in trains across Europe. Sometimes the trains go through tunnels in the mountains. I vaguely remember that there was an extremely long tunnel in Italy, maybe near Milan. No problem getting trains across mountains.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. China's Plan is an interesting model

It has plans for long distance and intercity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

[Greyhound]

15. Massive amount of work, the whole route would have to be rebuilt since our rail-beds

are not thick enough to facilitate high speed rail technology. I think we would be better off using newer technology like maglev.

Giving people an alternative to the disaster that "private" air travel has become would be a welcomed change.

[CK_John]

18. I was thinking of a hanging train, monorail, small foot print and using the center divide of

interstate system since we already own it to save land dispute delays.

[Greyhound]

74. That sounds like the best solution to the location problem.

I'm trying, and failing, to imagine a suspended system that can deliver the speed. Do you have any ideas or proposals you could share?

[DonEBrook]

33. How does the thickness factor into it? Are maglev trains that much lighter?

??

[awoke_in_2003]

46. faster trains...

put more stress on the roadbed.

[DonEBrook]

54. Oh, you mean in curves. Yes, I see.

...

[awoke_in_2003]

60. Even on straightaways...

faster speed will bring a faster forward load. Thicker roadbeds also lead to longer times between repairs. This is why the Autobahn is in much better shape than our interstates. The Germans use 36 inch roadways, we use 18.

[DonEBrook]

63. You mean due to increased aerodynamic drag? I can't imagine it would be that great.

Oh, wait...forward loads would be due to braking. Hmm.

[awoke_in_2003]

66. No. When an object is moving on a surface

it will put a load on the surface opposite the direction it is moving. The whole "equal but opposite reaction" thing.

[DonEBrook]

69. No, that's Newton's 3rd law. It has nothing to do with movement per se...

the only force exerted on the track/roadbed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the train is either 'backward' (equal to the tractive force needed to overcome friction) or 'forward' (braking...converting kinetic energy to heat.) :D

[awoke_in_2003]

73. Alright...

you have beaten me down with physics :)

[DonEBrook]

81. LOL...I like you...most people get all pissed off when I do that.

:D :D

[awoke_in_2003]

93. Not me....

I don't mind being corrected when I am screwing up (especially when I should have known better)

[Greyhound]

51. The trains are somewhat lighter, but the difference is te lack of physical contact.

The mag-lev "rail" is very like a thick, heated, sidewalk with guides for lateral control. The rail beds we have are thick enough to bear the weight, but are prone to small shifts. It doesn't matter much at 55mph, but it is catastrophic at 300mph, so we would have to lay all new rail and foundation, which makes the mag-lev cheaper to build.

Another good idea would be a parallel development system, construct the high-speed passenger system while simultaneously beefing up the freight transport lines and making better use of them.

There are numerous alternatives to these as well, so I guess the main point is that we need to look at the new ways we can do things right now. Build for efficacy and efficiency, instead of how to make a few people rich, which is all we have and hear about today.

[TheFarseer]

97. can you explain maglev a little?

Is it propelled by magnets? I've tried to look this up on wickipedia and I still couldn't see where it said. Or is there some other power source like electricity? Thanks for any info you can give me.

[Greyhound]

98. It is a train that both rides on, and is propelled by, a magnetic field.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maglev">Here's a page with 3 existing systems and a drawing that should help.

It is still being developed (not in America, of course, we don't like all that fancified science stuff) and there are several ways to implement it, but the principles are sound. Basically, because there is no physical contact between the vehicle and the road, friction is reduced to the point where the wind resistance is far greater.

Since our infrastructure is so much worse than other developed nations, it puts us in a better position to implement it than most. If you have to rebuild anyway, why not build for the next generation?

Another proposed system that has been kicked around for years is to bury the track and create a vacuum for the long stretches. This would make it theoretically possible to travel much faster than any airplane.

[A HERETIC I AM]

104. The vacuum tube concept using Maglev could allow transonic speeds.

Imagine a train able to travel 5000 MPH!

There was a show on Discovery about this idea and they featured a proposed "floating underwater tunnel" concept for a trans-Atlantic line connecting North America and Europe. Perhaps you saw it too.

Fascinating idea.

[Ezlivin]

22. How about a high-speed transit that allows you to use YOUR car?

The Big Three would go back to work developing the new transport for the 21st century: A car that can drive on all our roads, but then can be connected to other standardized cars to form a "train" for use on high-speed transits.

We cannot ignore how much Americans love their personal transportation. But by making it possible to basically drive your personal car onto a high-speed "rail" and cross the country we'd remove an obstacle in the use of mass transit.

[ContinentalOp]

23. Should go like this:

Seattle -> San Francisco -> Los Angeles -> Vegas -> Denver -> Chicago -> New York

[But....]

75. And a southern loop!

D.C.->Atlanda->Dallas->Phoenix (sure I missed a couple of good possibles:P )

[ContinentalOp]

78. Yeah, after I posted I realized that you can tell where I live based on my bias :)

[But....]

79. np...

I want the northern loop first too:evilgrin: but I would settle for just getting started:bounce:

[Odin2005]

100. And a northern loop: Seattle, Boise, Helena, Fargo, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago

We don't like getting ignored up here!!!

[DavidDvorkin]

26. Less than 1200 miles in many places in the West

Consider the Kansas City-Denver leg, and the Denver-Salt Lake City leg.

But that's just a quibble. I love the idea itself.

[walldude]

27. Believe it or not one of the only things Bush has mamaged to

get semi-right was to approve funding for a MagLev train from Ca to Nev. If it works the rest of the nation shouldn't be far behind.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25265682/


Putting people back to work producing things and fixing our infrastructure are the only way we are going to get out of this mess.

[Greyhound]

53. Except $45M is immediately sucked up in salaries and eternal studies.

We have this 19th century mindset that all the good stuff will "happen someday in the future", so for now we can just talk about it, forever. The result being that nothing is ever done.

[anigbrowl]

65. Bear in mind that we on the left are partly responsible for that

After all, the pressure for environmental impact studies and proper accountability often comes from the left. The (economic, not wingnut) right glorifies enterprise but when taken too far results in greed and corruption. The left equivalent glorifies accessibility (ie equality of opportunity) but when taken too far ends up in paralytic bureaucracy.

I'm rather surprised at your argument above since you're very left (more so than me) so you're not who I've have expected to see saying 'quit waffling, let's break some ground'. I agree, but I also know it's not as simple as putting up a 'help wanted, good pay' sign and handing out hardhats and shovels. I'd like to see a more standardized approach to the funding and development of infrastructure projects but it's a tricky issue.

Financially, civil engineering projects have a bad record of going waaaaay over budget (cue right right-wing grumbling about tax and spend liberalism), while many solely private ventures have a bad record of corner-cutting (cue left-wing grumbling about worker and environmental hazard).

Consider the Hoover Dam, regarded worldwide as a great civil engineering project. It cost about $750 million in today's money (adjusted for inflation), but I seriously doubt you could build it for that now - even if you upped the price of design and materials to contemporary standards, no union would settle for the implied labor budget. Also, 112 people were killed in preparation for or during its construction over 13 years. Again, imagine that today - the lawsuits would be going on longer than the construction.I'm not even going to think about the environmental and property headaches.

This isn't an argument that we should sit around on our hands debating a future that never actually arrives, nor that we should abandon accumulated wisdom and just build whatever we like wherever we like whenever we like. But we do need to work out what the happy medium is in terms of risk tolerance and cost/benefit, and then stick to that judgment even when it hurts. So do I want to see things like long-haul maglev trains (or whatever) ASAP? Hell yeah. Am I prepared to live with the deaths of 5 people and one species endangerment for every 100 miles of track built (randomly selected numbers)? Well, that's a lot tougher...but those are the kind of decisions you have to make at some point, in hope that the long term benefits (fewer deaths from road use, less pollution from equivalent journeys by car and truck) make up for the costs.

[Greyhound]

70. The whole left-right thing is, in itself, nothing but a distraction.

Message:
You are right, we have more than a couple of differing viewpoints, but I'd bet we could find areas where I'm more to the "right" than you and vice versa.

I think it was TimeforChange that put up a post about the, uniquely American binary view of the world and all that is in it. Just about everybody on both sides of the isle has colluded for decades to stifle all change in this country, for them it is all about the powerful keeping their power and passing it on to those they choose.

Your reply points out a couple of examples of this very thing. It is ludicrous to say that Hoover Dam could not have been built more safely than it was, and just as bad to halt a major project to see what is living between the interstate highways where the high speed transportation system would, presumably, go.

[harun]

29. Do the population centers first, NE corridor, CA coast.

[Nederland]

38. Agreed

Don't waste money on something people won't use. Trains only work in high population density areas--that's the real reason they work in Europe.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

30. I'd like to see a high speed loop running from Milwaukee - Ohare - Midway - Gary airports.

Maybe Rockford, too.

[zorahopkins]

31. Couldn't *e Just Invade Canada?

Couldn't *e just invade Canada instead?

Don't they have a pretty good trans-continental railroad?

note: In protest of the continuing occupation of OUR *hite House by the illegal and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies, I REFUSE to use the letter bet*een "V" and "X".

[karynnj]

32. There is a landmark bill for high speed rail that Kerry indroduced in the lame duck session

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/95822/061

He will have to re-introduce it in the new Congress and he is reportedly getting more co-sponsors. One co-sponsor he has is lautenberg, the Chair of the transportation subcommittee of the Commerce committee, which has jurisdiction.

[globalvillage]

91. Video of Sen Kerry talking about high speed rail

at a town hall in Cambridge on Monday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x247029

He's been talking about this for a long time.

[karynnj]

99. Thanks for the video link

He really answers manyt things people are speaking of in this thread.

[ColbertWatcher]

35. Maglev! Maglev! Rah rah rah! Maglev! Maglev! Rah rah rah! n/t

[JDPriestly]

36. Great idea!

I'm so sick of cramped airplane seating. I get cramps in my legs and have a horrible fear that I will suddenly have to jump out of my seat while I am flying. Sitting or lying down for long periods can set off the cramps. You have no idea how painful that is. I sometimes literally scream from the pain. Airplanes are horribly uncomfortable. They may be fast, but they use a lot of fuel and don't make much economic sense to me.

[wryter2000]

62. Not only that

You can get a vein thrombosis for sitting without moving for hours and hours.

[mainer]

37. Warren Buffett belives in rail -- he bought Burlington Northern

And Buffett thinks that's the future.

[Thothmes]

95. Bet he was thinking about the freight capacity

of the BN, not the passenge business.

[Odin2005]

101. He bought BN-SF?!?

I didn't know that! :wow:

[specimenfred1984]

39. Don't do any actual research into it, you'll find a name you don't like...

Lyndon LaRouche has been writing about them for years. Hurry now, everyone scream "Crackpot" in unison and dismiss the whole idea then pretend someone with "credibility" came up with it. LOL.

[dysfunctional press]

42. if high-speed rail were to be done, it would be better to do regional hubs than one transcontinental

mimic the wheel and spoke system of the airlines in some respects- using chicago as an example, start with lines to milwaukee/green bay; madison/minneapolis; kansas city/denver; st.louis/dallas; indianapolis/cincinatti; detroit/toronto...etc...
and the lines could fork off and/or continue to other cities past those points- connecting with other regional hubs to form a transcontinental system.

personally, i'd prefer to see more done to develop fully electric cars, and improve the existing highway system first.

[CK_John]

45. I like the internet model with a high speed backbone feeding local connectors across the

country. But let's get the concept to Congress and Obama's transition team first work out the engineering next.

Please pass this along to any contacts that you thing will help.

[dysfunctional press]

48. that type of system would be easier to disrupt along the main 'backbone'...

with interconnecting hubs and spokes, it easier to re-route around trouble spots.

[remember2000forever]

49. Once Upon A Time.......

The airlines were subsidized and regulated. We had a 3 tear degree of transportation in this country. Planes, Trains and Buses.
With de-regulation of the major airlines, start-up airline companies blossomed. No Frills, cheap fares and NON-UNION workers. The majors had to now compete. The train systems couldn't compete.

Flash Forward.....We now have the No-Frills Majors merging into 3 basic airlines in this country, with a few exceptions. Our railway systems are old and broken with very few frills.

I'm sure that you will all agree that deregulation was the pathway to our now abysmal US transportation system. Oh, and how about those cheap airline fares everybody wanted? Just a major cluster-F**k to the traveling public and a once proud, solid, middle class Airline employee.

[silverweb]

50. I'd love it -- and use it!

I had looked into making the annual pilgrimage between SoCal and NJ by train, but: (1) there's absolutely no direct coast-to-coast route; (2) it takes just as long as going by bus; (3) and it's just as expensive as going by air.

No wonder people don't use the trains in this country for any long-distance travel!

I agree. Time to start rebuilding!

[Sanctified]

52. Might Make sense to use it to go between Major Cities on the coasts.

But I don't think anyone would want to travel a crossed the country by rail, would take way too long compared to just flying.

[wryter2000]

64. I'd travel across country in a heartbeat

At 300/hour, it'd take a bit more than 10 hours to go across country, and I'd be comfortable the whole time.

[Sanctified]

102. That 10 hours would not be including stops.

Nor does it include times where the train has to slow down due to safety like going through mountain ranges and populated areas. It would take a lot longer than 10 hours, it takes almost 6 to go from one end of Japan to the other on their bullet train and that is a country just the size of California. And I don't know how comfortable it would be considering they would probably pack people in just as tight as they do on airlines.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. That would be terrific.

It's a shame we don't have enough good rail service.

[deaniac21]

56. Why not a conestoga?

[texastoast]

61. Oh, you are getting closer to what is going to really happen

Decades from now. Decades I tell ya!

We will go back to villages and mobility will go pfft, simply because there won't be enough energy to support it for all us billions and billions and billions. We probably won't be nearly as fat a nation when this happens. And we will have a lot of extra concrete with which to do something. Maybe build a pyramid?

[madmom]

58. A couple years ago my daughter did a round about train trip across country. She

went from Chicago to Flagstaff to LA to Portland back to Chicago in the course of about 9 months to a year. She absolutely loved traveling by train.She said she got to see things and meet people she other wise wouldn't have.

[Bucky]

68. What? And have a multitude of Celestials imported for labor with their opium dens & savage cuisine?

Thank you, but no, I say! A rail-road can never hope to physically circumsport the Great Divide! 'Tis an abomination to travel so high! Or so fast! Why, mankind weren't meant by th'Almighty to traverse at go great a velocity--a professional scientist-haberdasher friend of mine assures me that at such great speeds as 50 miles an hour, a man would have the living air sucked forth from his lungs and die of the consumption! (Never-thee-mind the more delicate constitutions of our supposed lady-passengers!)

[FarCenter]

71. Extend the Boston-Washington service down to Atlanta and infiltrate Georgia

with Democrats.

It would be a practical route along 95 and 85 through Richmond, St Petersburg, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Greenville, and Atlanta. Once you get past the St. Petersburg to Raleigh gap, this is a heavily populated corridor through the Piedmont.

[FarCenter]

72. And extend through Portsmouth, NH to Portland ME on the other end.

It would go through parts of 14 states. Over 1/4 of the nation.

[ecstatic]

80. 300mph in this text messaging era sounds dangerous

:shrug:

[DonEBrook]

85. Anyone who text messages while driving deserves to get mashed by a 300mph train.

:grr:
I will even contribute to a bounty fund!

[lib2DaBone]

82. $700 billion would have already built and paid for a High Speed Rail...

We could have had thousands of new jobs in a package express system like UPS/Fed-Ex.

Nothing beats high-speed rail for moving more tons at a cheaper price.

[Thothmes]

96. Forever to be subsidized by the American tax dollar.

[LeftyMom]

84. There's a whole lot of nothing on that whole southwest route.

In terms of actually serving population, a route that followed I-80 (New York to San Francisco via Chicago) would make a lot more sense.

Or east and west coast lines, from say DC-Boston and San Diego-Seattle.

[Phred42]

105. Beautiful to look at though - even at 300 mph

[K Gardner]

106. In Tennessee, we don't even have Amtrak. This should have been started 20 years ago.. K&R

[XemaSab]

107. That would give ME a job

Lotta wetlands and other sensitive resources between here and the east coast.