The new high speed rail map that's been floating around recently

[SNR]

High speed rail is moving forward in California, but progress is pretty stagnant around the rest of the country. Still, there are a lot of proposals out there, and when placed on one map, they form an impressive rail network. This map was put together by California Rail Map, led by Alfred Twu, which combined existing proposals from high speed rail advocacy groups around the US. Twu described his process for the Guardian:

Instead of detailing construction phases and service speeds, I took a little artistic license and chose colors and linked lines to celebrate America's many distinct but interwoven regional cultures.

The US High Speed Rail Association, a nonprofit trade association, predicts a network similar to this one could be in place by 2030.

Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood has called for a large HSR network, saying it could link 80 percent of Americans within 25 years, for $500 billion.
Based on this map, starting in Los Angeles, a high speed train could get to New York, with stops in Denver and Chicago, in well under 18 hours.

Considering the significant funding and political will any large rail project needs, it's hard to imagine all this will be built. But Robert Cruickshank at the California High Speed Rail Blog argues just visualizing the network is a good thing:

But before the Interstate Highway System was authorized, it had to first be conceptualized on a map. This map gets us closer to the goal of an interstate high speed rail system by showing us what it looks like. And envisioning such a system is the first step toward building it.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/map-o...#ixzz2KSS4Sw1Q

[BucEyedPea]

I see this as another attempt to make us like Europe when Amtrak is a failure.

[Direckshun]

Just on a visceral level, I really love that idea. I really do.

Zilla has made a very good case for HSR in the past on this forum.

[SNR]

Cheyenne, WY gets a route but some places like Sioux Falls and Billings don't? Why build a rail to Cheyenne at all then?

I'm not a big boner for the rail system. I just think it's neat to look at some of the ideas out there. Which cities get a stop on the rail and which ones don't, etc.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by SNR

Cheyenne, WY gets a route but some places like Sioux Falls and Billings don't? Why build a rail to Cheyenne at all then?

I'm not a big boner for the rail system. I just think it's neat to look at some of the ideas out there. Which cities get a stop on the rail and which ones don't, etc.

If it ever did come to fruition, those stops would be determined by politicking at the federal level—just as they were during the previous RR era. That's why they wound up be so inefficient compared to the private RR line Hill built. And the left has a never to cry about gerrymandering.

[HonestChieffan]

If it won't turn a profit it bullshit.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

If it won't turn a profit it bullshit.

The idea that every project should be measured on revenue vs. cost is just ridiculous.

You're a business guy. You should know better than this.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The idea that every project should be measured on revenue vs. cost is just ridiculous.

You're a business guy. You should know better than this.

OMG. Don't ever run a business.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

OMG. Don't ever run a business.

I have run my own P&L in the private sector
I have built business cases to secure funding on projects

So I don't understand what your implication is, as if I don't have experience in the private sector. Revenue vs. Cost is an unbelievably outdated practice. Any business that obsesses about Revenues vs. cost are the same declining stupid businesses that don't advertise, don't invest in R&D, and don't invest in employee training or wellness programs because they "don't make profit."

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I have run my own P&L in the private sector
I have built business cases to secure funding on projects

So I don't understand what your implication is, as if I don't have experience in the private sector. Revenue vs. Cost is an unbelievably outdated practice. Any business that obsesses about Revenues vs. cost are the same declining stupid businesses that don't advertise, don't invest in R&D, and don't invest in employee training or wellness programs because they "don't make profit."

I noticed you used the past tense and omitted profit.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I have run my own P&L in the private sector
I have built business cases to secure funding on projects

So I don't understand what your implication is, as if I don't have experience in the private sector. Revenue vs. Cost is an unbelievably outdated practice. Any business that obsesses about Revenues vs. cost are the same declining stupid businesses that don't advertise, don't invest in R&D, and don't invest in employee training or wellness programs because they "don't make profit."

This is all true except that in the end, it better make SOME profit(or at least come close to break even) or it isn't sustainable. I think the idea that it needs to make a profit is less about the profit itself and more a PROOF that it is a project that the market wants and needs.

I'm a huge fan of HSR but I think it needs to be done with private funds so that we don't end up with countless "trains to nowhere." I have no problem with government subsidies for massive infrastructure ventures like this done primarily with private funds.

[Bewbies]

A train that goes 220mph will surely compete with that $79 ticket you pay for on an airplane that flies 500mph.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

A train that goes 220mph will surely compete with that $79 ticket you pay for on an airplane that flies 500mph.

Well theoretically it's good for like KC-STL or STL-CHI. Maybe even KC-CHI depending on the inconveniences of flying (security/baggage check/boarding an hr prior/length of drive to KCI out in BFE) compared to the 2.5hr train ride alone.

That's about it though.

Overall is it cost effective? Absolutely not.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Well theoretically it's good for like KC-STL or STL-CHI. Maybe even KC-CHI depending on the inconveniences of flying (security/baggage check/boarding an hr prior/length of drive to KCI out in BFE) compared to the 2.5hr train ride alone.

That's about it though.

Overall is it cost effective? Absolutely not.

So they won't have security and checks on a train? Any ol terrorist can come and blow it up.

Drive to KCI? That's if you live far from KCI. What about if you live far from the train station?

I don't see how this will really be anything other than a slow version of an airplane.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by loochy

So they won't have security and checks on a train? Any ol terrorist can come and blow it up.

Drive to KCI? That's if you live far from KCI. What about if you live far from the train station?

I don't see how this will really be anything other than a slow version of an airplane.

Yep. I like the idea of high speed rail but in order for myself to use it other than a novelty it will have to save me time and money.

I did some checking on popular routes and the mid-range trip would be the best for me.

1. KC - St. Louis - 250 miles. For high speed rail that would take 1 hr 15 minutes. To fly that takes 30 minutes. For me to take the rail it would take me 1 hour to get up to KC and probably 30 minutes to board\security so the total trip time would be 2:45. To fly it takes me almost 2 hours to get to KCI plus you have to be there at least 1 hour prior to departure. I can drive that in that time frame for either option.
Cost to fly: $250 round trip

2. KC - Chicago - 510 miles. High speed rail = 2:30 Flight: :50 minutes
Cost to fly: $215 round trip

3. KC - Dallas - 555 miles. High Speed rail = 2:45 Flight: 1 hour
Cost to fly: $190 round trip

If rail could compete at those prices or better than I think it would be a viable option for many.