Obama's transportation agenda: high-speed rail

[bascule]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701794.html?hpid%3Dtopnews⊂=AR

 

Obama is investing in intercity high-speed rail projects, with the goal of eventually having a cross-country high speed rail system. I'm really glad to see this as thus far our government has seemed content with the Eisenhower Interstate highway system, and air travel as being the two most practical ways of traveling long distance. Buses and trains are nearly as expensive as flying in most cases and take many days longer.

 

Maybe one day soon America will be one of those modern countries with newfangled conveniences like not having to drive everywhere.

[Pangloss]

How's that working out so far?

[ecoli]

A3xGtjhZ_Yg

Edited March 8, 2009 by Pangloss
fixed link

[Dudde]

nice. I hope we can get that running and influence the rest of the country to take hold of the idea, that would be totally sweet. Even if he does decide to concentrate in a few areas first, e.g. the Chicago or Washington area, I think it'll be a good start to providing a much better alternative to traveling.

[CaptainPanic]

High speed trains in Europe are actually faster than flying for distances of 300-600 km (stops at a number of stations included), simply because you have no check-in and stations are in the city center, while airports are bloody far away from everything.

[Sisyphus]

How's that working out so far?

 

How's what working out so far?

 

ecoli, I can't see what you posted because I'm behind a filter and/or because IE is terrible, but I'm assuming it's a certain persuasive musical number, yes?

[Mokele]

They seem nice, but how feasible are high-speed rails, especially in a country where so many people are so attached to their cars, and where the distances are so vast.

 

I know rail works fine here in New England, but that's because Boston is only an hour away from me, and New York only 3 hours. NYC to Chicago presents much greater feasability problems.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Mokele
removing doublepost

[ecoli]

ecoli, I can't see what you posted because I'm behind a filter and/or because IE is terrible, but I'm assuming it's a certain persuasive musical number, yes?

tehe... yes indeed. It works on my end.

 

Hopefully, Obama didn't become president to swindle american into 'purchasing' some trains.

[bascule]

Hopefully, Obama didn't become president to swindle american into 'purchasing' some trains.

 

Something tells me Obama's motives are a little bit different than Lyle Lanley's

[ecoli]

Something tells me Obama's motives are a little bit different than Lyle Lanley's

idk... didn't you see that South Park episode about the election?

[waitforufo]

I just can't imagine living without an automobile. The liberty that this machine provides me greatly improves my happiness. It's the American way and I hope it never changes.

 

Dean was happy again. All he needed was a wheel in his hand and four on the road. - Jack Kerouac, On the Road

 

One advantage of buses is that they use an infrastructure created for other purposes. These purposes are personal travel and trucking. Since trains don't go everywhere, we would, at a minimum, still need highways for shipping goods. If there are highways, there will still be lots of Dean Moriarty's driving them.

 

The problem with high speed trains is that they need an infrastructure more sophisticated than that needed for the transportation of goods by rail. Okay there would be some overnight shipping but that is just a small fraction of shipping transportation. These two items would have to justify building a new iinfrastructure.

 

High speed rail may be economical in a few high population areas of the US. A Northwest example would be Bellingham Washington to Eugene Oregon. This area however currently has commuter rail at conventional speed. Would a high speed rail system actually be economically viable? Economic viability does not seem to be high on the list for people promoting such government funded systems. I can't imagine private companies building such a system hoping for profit.

 

In most densely populated areas of the US today, many companies would love to be able to build toll roads. Where they are allowed to build them they make money.

[doG]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701794.html?hpid%3Dtopnews⊂=AR

 

Obama is investing in intercity high-speed rail projects, with the goal of eventually having a cross-country high speed rail system. I'm really glad to see this as thus far our government has seemed content with the Eisenhower Interstate highway system, and air travel as being the two most practical ways of traveling long distance.

 

And just who do you think should pay for it? Don't you think our kids, grand kids, great grand kids, great great grand kids, etc. are deep enough in debt already?

[bascule]

And just who do you think should pay for it? Don't you think our kids, grand kids, great grand kids, great great grand kids, etc. are deep enough in debt already?

 

I agree the deficit is completely out of control, but at this point I don't have a better alternative that deficit spending to get the economy stimulated again.

 

I hope our kids, grand kids, great grand kids, etc enjoy their high-speed rail. I expect more of them will enjoy high speed rail than will enjoy a vacation in democratic Iraq.

[doG]

I hope our kids, grand kids, great grand kids, etc enjoy their high-speed rail. I expect more of them will enjoy high speed rail than will enjoy a vacation in democratic Iraq.

 

Even if deposing a vicious dictator was wrong, two wrongs would not make a right. Our debt is out of order and should be paid down before we buy expensive conveniences we really can't afford. At some point we need to sort out our needs from our wants and let the wants wait until we've paid for our needs. Sometimes it hurts to be responsible but it is the right thing to do.

[Pangloss]

I see a lot of ideological preference creeping into this thread, which always seems to happen when this subject comes up. There's great power in the mobility and flexibility created by personal transportation. We're managing our space very effectively, in my opinion. Why do some people feel a compulsion to throw away one of the very things that have made us so effective at marshaling our resources and building this incredible economy? The answer seems far more ideological than scientific.

 

In my opinion we're going to work out the energy and environmental issues WITHOUT giving up our mobility or even our SUVs. Why shouldn't we? It's not "greed" or "attachment", it's flexibility, freedom, and POWER. There's no reason to give that up if we don't have to, and we don't have to.

 

Here's a crazy thought (which, by the way, happens to be Obama's plan): What if we just used the best technology in the most suitable places? In places where high speed rail actually makes sense (like the I-70 corridor in Colorado), let's build high speed rail. In other places where it's not suitable, we won't build it.

[bascule]

In places where high speed rail actually makes sense (like the I-70 corridor in Colorado), let's build high speed rail

 

Sadly the current plan is to expand I-70 between Denver and Silverthorne from 4 lanes to 6. This stretch of highway is already plagued with persistent traffic jams as it includes a several thousand foot ascent to one of the highest vehicular tunnels in the world (the Eisenhower tunnel at ~11,000 feet) which carries with it not only the complete trucking traffic of one of the main east/west corridors of the Interstate highway system, but massive amounts of ski traffic. Now we can expect a decade of excessive traffic density, poor road conditions, and construction.

 

A rail system (at least between Denver and the ski towns on the western slope of the Rockies) has been proposed as the solution many, many times, however it was rejected because it was more expensive than simply expanding the highway to 6 lanes.

 

It'd be interesting to see what federal subsidies were offered for a 6 lane highway expansion versus a rail system.

 

Note that there's already a rail system (operated by Union-Pacific) between Denver and some of the ski towns (Winter Park and Steamboat) operated by Union-Pacific. There is presently no rail system which provides service between Denver and any of the ski towns directly along the I-70 corridor (e.g. Loveland, Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper Mountain, Vail). On the western slope a rail system exists farther west, connecting several ski areas including Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk, Snowmass, Sunlight and Avon and almost reaching Vail, but not quite, and the only route to Denver requires you travel much farther south to Colorado Springs, then take a train from there. The rest of the ski towns are only accessible via highways.

 

Here's a repost from an earlier thread about my opinions of the Ski Train, the only rail service between Denver and Colorado ski areas (Winter Park and Steamboat):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=327042#post327042

 

There already is, in the form of the "Ski Train" which runs from Denver to Winter Park (through the Moffat Tunnel):

 

http://www.skitrain.com/

 

Winter Park is on the Western Slope, not the Front Range. Most of the good ski areas (Vail, Breckenridge, Aspen, Copper Mountain, Arapahoe, Keystone) are on the Western Slope. The best ski area on the Eastern Slope, Loveland, lies on the Great Continental Divide just miles from the Western Slope.

 

However, this train is indicative of the poor financial planning which generally dogs privately owned mass transportation systems around here:

 

1. Tickets are $49 each round-trip, which is rather steep.

 

2. The train departs and returns once a day. It boards at 6:30 AM, departs at 7:15 AM, and arrives in Winter Park at 9:30 AM. The return departure is at 4:15 PM, arriving in Denver at 6:30PM.

 

3. All tickets are round-trip for the same day only. If you wish to ride to Winter Park one day, spend the night, and return the next, it costs a prohibitively expensive $98.

 

4. The train is direct from Denver to Winter Park. While the train cruises by many former stations, which are still standing, it stops at none of them. For someone living in Boulder to ride the Ski Train, they have to drive or ride the bus 23.5 miles to reach Union Station in Denver: (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=boulder,+co+to+union+station,+denver,+co&sll=39.87075,-105.505829&sspn=0.725144,1.223602&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=11&om=1)

 

5. Even if the train stopped by nearby Rollinsville, the RTD bus system doesn't go that far. It only goes as far as Nederland, which is approximately 5 miles from Rollinsville.

 

I believe there's MASSIVE potential for interconnecting public transportation systems to provide service for the many skiers in Colorado. I live in Boulder, which is a city nearby yet rather disconnected from Denver. People here are rather "European" in their political views. We have an excellent local bus system which is funded by city taxes and interoperates with the larger Regional Transportation District (RTD) bus system. We also have an excellent system of bike trails. Boulderites are fairly committed to finding non-automobile based means of getting around.

 

If I had the power to change both the public (RTD) and private (Ski Train) transportation systems around here, I'd extend RTD service to Rollinsville during the ski season, make the Ski Train stop in Rollinsville, and have discount tickets between Rollinsville and Winter Park.

 

Here's Google Maps showing the distance. It's approximately 20 miles by train:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=rollinsville,+co&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=12&ll=39.917636,-105.674744&spn=0.188798,0.41851&om=1

 

Here's a map showing the Boulder Canyon highway between Boulder and Nederland (which RTD covers) and the short distance from Nederland to Rollinsville (which RTD doesn't cover):

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=rollinsville,+co&layer=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=12&ll=39.983697,-105.365067&spn=0.188616,0.41851

 

And finally, here's a map showing the circuitous 77 mile distance that must be traveled by automobile to accomplish the same trip:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=boulder,+co+to+winter+park,+co&sll=39.888929,-105.594749&sspn=0.188877,0.41851&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=10&om=1

 

The train route, which provides an environmentally-friendly mass transit system between the two cities, is unfortunately controlled by a private entity who seeks to maximize profit on it while minimizing risk. Rather than running a multiple-train, multi-stop service multiple times per day, and allowing people to opt for multiple day trips on round-trip tickets, they run what they consider to be a low-risk, once a day, use-it-or-lose-it-on-the-same-day service.

 

This is retarded.

 

Sometimes capitalistic ideals don't work out. Sometimes individual companies, who can monopolize a resource like the Moffat Tunnel, make retarded decisions that hurt everyone.

 

When you have multiple forms of transportation like busses (RTD) and trains (Union Pacific), they can interoperate in a single, cohesive transportation network. But when there are private players, systems don't always get along. This is definitely the case with the Ski Train. Rollinsville provides the optimal boarding point for Boulderites to access not only Winter Park, but other skiing destinations such as Steamboat. However the train doesn't run to Steamboat. Even if it ran to Steamboat, it'd take a day, and then you wouldn't have time to ski. You couldn't ride the train there, spend the night in their hot springs pool, then ski the next day and board the train at 4PM for the return ride home.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible for private transportation systems to work this way, but Union Pacific doesn't care to try.

 

What's the result? I-70, the Interstate which provides the only transportation corridor between Denver and all the ski areas I listed above, is slated to undergo 10 years of construction to upgrade it from 2 lanes to three in each direction. The plan involves elevating the Interstate the entire distance from Denver to the Eisenhower and Johnson tunnels which run under the Continental Divide (approximately 30 miles).

 

Various rail solutions have been proposed to compliment I-70, but they're all enormously expensive and would run along the existing I-70 corridor.

 

What's really been neglected are the existing transportation systems in the form of the RTD bus system and the Union Pacific ski train. If RTD could go 10 miles farther and Union Pacific have their train stop in Rollinsville and allow passengers to ride the train for approximately 20 miles for, say, less that $49 round trip for trips spanning multiple days, and let Boulderites take a 20 mile bus ride to Rollinsville and a 20 mile train ride to Winter Park instead, I think they'd manage to divert a hell of a lot of traffic from I-70.

 

As is, RTD does provide direct bus service from Boulder to the nearest (Front Range) ski area, Eldora / Indian Peaks, for approximately $5. However, I've got to say: Eldora sucks. It's small. It's cold. It's windy. It's a shadow of the awesomeness that is Winter Park.

 

(And people wonder why I own a car...)

 

EDIT: Ski Train tickets are now $59 for a day trip (arriving 9:30AM and departing 4:15PM). If you wish to stay overnight, the fare is $118. [source] A lift ticket to Winter Park is $92 [source], meaning a trip to Winter Park on the Ski Train will run you a minimum of $151, or $210 if you plan on staying overnight (not including lodging).

 

Some unbiased info in the Ski Train if you don't want to read my long tirade:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/getaways/01/07/ski.train/

Edited March 10, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

A rail system (at least between Denver and the ski towns on the western slope of the Rockies) has been proposed as the solution many, many times, however it was rejected because it was more expensive than simply expanding the highway to 6 lanes.

 

Damn, I'm sorry to hear that. This sounds to me like a good example of where some degree of federal dollars would help, because the Rockies are clearly a national resource, not just a Coloradoan one (though you all are kind enough to do most of the preservation work for us).

 

Yah we're completely on the same page with ski transportation. It's a very limiting set of circumstances -- carrying specialized equipment, going mainly to a few specific locations, and so forth -- absolutely ideal for rail service. I could also see tourists connecting to maybe Grand Junction and then picking up a green-bus-based sightseeing service to see those amazing national parks in the summer time. Utah would spit a brick.

 

I hope they work that out.

[bascule]

Yah we're completely on the same page with ski transportation. It's a very limiting set of circumstances -- carrying specialized equipment, going mainly to a few specific locations, and so forth -- absolutely ideal for rail service.

 

Not to mention the limited surface area of roadway available through the mountains, a problem I hope this image makes abundantly clear:

 

[CaptainPanic]

A rail system (at least between Denver and the ski towns on the western slope of the Rockies) has been proposed as the solution many, many times, however it was rejected because it was more expensive than simply expanding the highway to 6 lanes.

 

I checked google maps, and the area seems quite tough for rail construction... so my reply will be a more general remark.

 

Very often rail investment is compared to road investment. But rail offers some additional benefits:

-Available for everybody, not just car owners

-Possible use of clean energy

-Less pollution even in the case of use of fossil energy

-Maximum speed can be 350 km/h (though not in mountainous areas)

-Lower risk: less casualties per traveled kilometer (source - check 3rd row in table)

 

This means that investments can be higher, because you get more for the money.

[Mr Skeptic]

How about a system of green buses? This would be green but not require new infrastructure.

[Dudde]

Unfortunately it wouldn't be too feasible to build an intra-city rail system at the current point in time, personally I would be MUCH happier if I had to walk/bike everywhere in reasonable distance (10 miles), and take a train or bus everywhere else.

 

Living in Phoenix, Arizona or Seattle, Washington, I used to take the bus quite extensively, and walk everywhere else, my gas expenditures were an absolute minimum and I was in great shape!

 

I like the idea of the green bus system, that would be pretty sweet.

[SH3RL0CK]

personally I would be MUCH happier if I could walk/bike everywhere in reasonable distance (10 miles), and take a train or bus everywhere else.

 

Fixed...I'm sure you meant "could" and not "had to"

[bascule]

I checked google maps, and the area seems quite tough for rail construction...

 

It's quite rough for construction in general. They're proposing elevating huge sections of the highway onto large concrete platforms sitting on towers to be able to get that many lanes through. Think of an elevated freeway off ramp... for 30 miles... going up the side of a mountain. And not just any mountain but the Great Continental Divide.

[Pangloss]

Not to mention the limited surface area of roadway available through the mountains, a problem I hope this image makes abundantly clear:

 

 

Where that fits into the American scheme of things:

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Dudde]

Fixed...I'm sure you meant "could" and not "had to"

 

Oh yeah.. Necessity is never actually the most fun of options, good point,

Thanks:D