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

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

If this made sense we'd already be doing it.

Stupid idea.

It doesn't make sense in a lot of places but some places it makes perfect sense and would probably end up profitable(or at least break even). I think it's only a matter of time before Texas has high speed rail. The Austin/San Antonio to DFW to Houston triangle has the perfect distances for this. Too long to drive but too short for air travel. It's that 150-250 mile range that fits this perfectly. I'd much prefer a 1 hour (with 15 minutes of what I will call transport overhead ) train ride to a 3 hour car ride (with 0 minutes of overhead) or a 45 minute trip by air (with an hour of overhead and limited luggage and TSA finger probes ... wait, that's normal right? You guys get full body cavity searches too right?... RIGHT? maybe I should stop requesting them)

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Inmem58

Millions of people are scared to fly, I'm sure they will be willing to pay an extra $20 to ride the rail. Although, I would assume it would cost less to ride the rail.

I wouldn't assume that at all. In Europe it's a toss up on cost. Same will probably apply here.

Of course it depends entirely on the distance. Long distances will always be cheaper and more convenient by plane.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Inmem58

Millions of people are scared to fly, I'm sure they will be willing to pay an extra $20 to ride the rail. Although, I would assume it would cost less to ride the rail.

It cost more to take the train from Florida to Boston. It was 4x the price when I last looked.

[BucEyedPea]

What needs to be done, is to see who is going to get the contract to build this. That'll tell you who will benefit most.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

What needs to be done, is to see who is going to get the contract to build this. That'll tell you who will benefit most.

I don;t think this is supposed to be one giant federal project but a map showing various projects and how they may someday connect.

For example, in Texas an entirely private company using private funds (with some Federal grants) is hoping to have an HSR between Dallas and Houston finished by 2020. I'd say it's 50/50 right now that they'll get it done. They're doing the environmental impact studies now.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I don;t think this is supposed to be one giant federal project but a map showing various projects and how they may someday connect.

For example, in Texas an entirely private company using private funds (with some Federal grants) is hoping to have an HSR between Dallas and Houston finished by 2020. I'd say it's 50/50 right now that they'll get it done. They're doing the environmental impact studies now.

This is what I am referring to whether by state or nationally or not. Reminds of me the canal projects that were such boondoggles done state by state. Not to mention the Big Dig in Boston.

[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.

[BucEyedPea]

Infrastructure's Forgotton Failures

New York, Penn, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri — had sinkholes that failed to cover their operating costs.

From deposit insurance to synfuels, from superconducting supercolliders to information highways, these projects impoverish the taxpayer and enrich well-connected corporations. They are, as the Jeffersonians first told us centuries ago, entirely illegitimate.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This is what I am referring to whether by state or nationally or not. Reminds of me the canal projects that were such boondoggles done state by state. Not to mention the Big Dig in Boston.

Well the Federal grant money is peanuts, it's $15 million for the environmental impact study. The rest ($10 billion+) is private money.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Well the Federal grant money is peanuts, it's $15 million for the environmental impact study. The rest ($10 billion+) is private money.

Doesn't matter to me how much it is.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Doesn't matter to me how much it is.

Well then you're an idiot.

If the Federal government is going to REQUIRE this private venture to conduct an environmental impact study then I have no problem with them providing the funding for it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Well then you're an idiot.

I know you are but what am I.

You act like an 8 year old sometimes.

Oh, and if'n you noticed the Federal govt is broke—for good reason.

If the Federal government is going to REQUIRE this private venture to conduct an environmental impact study then I have no problem with them providing the funding for it.

I don't care what the Federal govt is going to require. Environmental study by a govt? !

[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."

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I know you are but what am I.

You act like an 8 year old sometimes.

Oh, and if'n you noticed the Federal govt is broke—for good reason.



I don't care what the Federal govt is going to require. Environmental study by a govt? !

You do know what an environmental impact study is right?

And it's funny you would accuse me of being juvenile when you are basically throwing a tantrum over what is a minuscule amount of Federal money for something that could have seriously positive financial impact. People like you are why no one takes Libertarians seriously.