About Us
Tour
FAQ
Signup
Login
  
Home
Forums
Pages
Issues
Laws
Elections
Arguments
Events
Government
U.S.
World
Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.
Issues > Science & Technology > High Speed Rail > Forum > ThreadAdd Political Issue Content
  • High Speed Rail
  • Forum
  • Articles
  • Updates
Displaying all 5 Forum Posts for the Thread:

High Speed Rail...best option?

You must be logged in to reply to a post.
2010-06-07 10:35 PM
Square Photo
LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299
There are several places across the country which are looking, or are building high speed rails. Do you agree with the construction of these rails or should there be other options?
2010-06-13 12:57 PM
Square Main Photo
Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 481
Aside for the really high price, what are some of the other major cons?
2010-06-14 08:46 PM
Square Photo
LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299
Benefits:
1) Being apart of the stimulation package, it will help stimulate jobs across the US.
2) Cleaner Air and Less Sprawl
     "High speed trains in the Midwest would be three times as energy efficient as cars and six times as energy    efficient as planes. Choosing rail travel over driving or flying will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce air pollution that causes global warming and harms public health." See Article.
3) Convenience and mobility
"At distances of less than 400 miles, high-speed trains can deliver you downtown-to-downtown almost as fast as airplanes at a fraction of the cost, and can do so in virtually all weather." See Article.

According to

Benefits to the Environment:

  • High-speed trains will have less impact on the natural and built environment than expanding airports and highways: less potential impact on wetlands and water resources, biology and farmlands; less noise impact and even reductions in areas where the high-speed trains project grade-separates existing roads over adjacent rail lines.
  • Projected to save 12.7 million barrels of oil per year by 2030, even with future improvements in auto fuel efficiency. Comparing the energy required to carry a passenger one kilometer, the high-speed trains needs only one-third that of an airplane and one-fifth of an automobile trip.
  • Avoiding and/or minimizing the potential impacts to cultural, park, recreational and wildlife refuges to the greatest extent possible.
  • Decreasing air pollutants statewide and in all air basins analyzed by reducing pollution generated by automobile internal combustion engines.
  • Electrically-powered high-speed trains reduce pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. The total predicted emissions savings of the California high-speed train system is up to 12 billion pounds of CO2 per year by 2030 and would grow with higher ridership.
  • Maximizing use of existing transportation corridors and railroad rights-of-way in order to minimize the impacts on California’s treasured landscape.

Land Use Planning Benefits:

  • All high-speed train stations will be multi-modal transportation hubs that will stimulate denser infill development and will be linked directly to local and regional transit systems, airports, and highways.
  • In contrast to highway improvements that encourage sprawl, high-speed trains are consistent with the State’s adopted smart growth principles and are highly compatible with local and regional plans that support rail systems and transit-oriented development.
  • Increasing public benefits beyond the benefits of access to the high-speed train system itself, including relief from traffic congestion, improved air quality, promotion of infill development and preservation of natural resources, increased stock of affordable housing, promotion of job opportunities, reduction in energy consumption, and improved cost-effectiveness of public infrastructure.
  • Being a catalyst for wider adoption of smart growth principles in communities near high-speed train stations.

Economic and Social Benefits:

  • Creating more economic growth for California – over 450,000 more permanent jobs expected by 2035.
  • Benefit-cost analysis has shown that direct benefits would be more than twice the costs of the high-speed train system.
  • Economic growth would come from construction and operation of the system, travel time reductions, travel quality advantages, reduced delays to air and auto travelers, reduced air pollution, reduced accidents and fatalities, and location advantages related to proximity to the high-speed train system.
  • Reducing airport delays (by diverting some airline passengers to high-speed trains), thereby reducing aircraft operating costs.
  • Generating 160,000 construction-related jobs to plan, design and build the system.
  • Improving travel options available in the Central Valley and other areas of the state with limited bus, rail and air service.
  • Providing lower passenger costs than travel by automobile or air transportation.
  • Enhancing and strengthening urban centers. In combination with appropriate local land use policies, the increased accessibility afforded by the high-speed train service could encourage more intensive and efficient development and may lead to higher property values around stations.

 

2010-06-14 08:52 PM
Square Photo
LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299
Risks

"Right-of-way risks: Rail aficionados often fantasize that high-speed rail can be built in the median strips of existing freeways, thus eliminating any problems with buy rights of way. But freeways have steeper grades and sharper turns than are feasible for high-speed rail, and they often don’t have room in the medians in any case." See article.

"Safety: The senate report points out that rail safety standards follow very different philosophies in the U.S. than in Europe and Japan. Europe/Japan relies on accident avoidance through precise engineering of tracks and vehicle wheelsets. The U.S. relies on accident survivability through careful design of rail cars. In practice, this means that U.S. rail cars are much heavier than those in Europe/Japan.

Obviously, lighter weight vehicles are less expensive to build and require less energy to move. The Authority assumed it would use such vehicles in its 220-mph trains. This allowed it to project, for example, that despite the high speeds its trains would use less than half as much energy, per passenger mile, than Amtrak’s trains.

For the most part, the European/Japanese philosophy has worked very well as there have been few fatal high-speed rail accidents. But the above photos illustrate the differences in safety standards. The photo above is of a high-speed rail accident, caused by a faulty wheel, in Germany. Several of the cars were smashed to pieces and more than 100 people were killed.

This photo is of the 2005 commuter-rail accident in Glendale, California. Most of the railcars in this accident are intact and only 11 people were killed. Granted that the Glendale train was not going as fast as the German train, the U.S. rail cars were still more survivable." See article.

"Other considerations

Although air travel has higher speeds, more time is needed for taxiing, boarding (fewer doors), security check, luggage drop, ticket check and more. Also rail stations are usually located nearer to urban centers than airports. These factors often offset the speed advantage of air travel for mid-distance trips.

Weather

Rail travel has less weather dependency than air travel. If the rail system is well-designed and well-operated, severe weather conditions such as heavy snow, heavy fog, and storms do not affect the journeys; whereas flights are generally canceled or delayed under these conditions. Nevertheless snow and falling trees because of wind often delay trains.

Comfort

Although comfort over air travel is often believed to be a trait of high speed rail, it is not inherent; it depends on the specific implementation. For example, high speed trains, which are not subject to compulsory reservation, may carry some standing passengers. Airplanes do not allow standing passengers, so excess passengers are denied boarding. Train passengers can have the choice between standing or waiting for a bookable connection.

Larger number of target areas

From the operator's point of view, a single train can call at multiple stations, often far more stops than aircraft, and each stop takes much less down time. One train stopping pattern can allow a multitude of possible journeys, increasing the potential market. This increase in potential market allows the operator to schedule more frequent departures than the aircraft, and hence create another good reason for preference.

Safety

From the point of view of required traffic control systems and infrastructure, high-speed rail has the added advantage of being much simpler to control due to its predictable course, even at very high passenger loads; this issue is becoming more relevant as air traffic reaches its safe limit in busy airspaces over London, New York, and other large centers. However, it must be noted that high speed rail systems eliminate the possibility of traffic collisions with automobiles (adding cost, simplicity, and safety), while other lower speed rail systems that a high speed train uses to reach high speed tracks may have grade crossings." See wikipedia.

 

2011-02-10 05:11 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 854
LLBarry has provided a good summary of benefits and risks of high speed rail.  Obama is proposing a $53 billion plan to expand high speed rail travel.  It is unlikely to get Republican support...that's too bad. Like everything else Obama proposes, they will emphasize the costs and ignore the benefits.  Sure the cost should be debated but with a careful consideration of the benefits...the long term benefits that will accrue when we are well past peak oil.  That cost of "catching up" when we cannot afford travel by car anymore will be much higher. 

The initial $53 billion cost of jump starting high speed rail compares with the $81.5 billion of revenue loss from extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich for just two years. It would seem to me that an investment in high speed rail is a winner compared with throwing more tax cuts at the super rich who don't need them and are unlikely to stimulate our economy by spending here in America. The high speed rail project not only creates American jobs, it is an investment in America's future to help us compete globally...much like Eisenhower's Interstate highway program.

What should be a "no brainer" has been so politicized with misinformation that it will be virtually impossible to get approved.  Back in the late 1940s and 1950s we had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent.  That tax revenue was used to fund private contractors to build our infrastructure.  It was money well spent and it STIMULATED the economy.

Yes we need a "sputnik moment" to change the way we think.  The absence of critical thinking from Republicans is hurting our country.
Displaying all 5 Forum Posts for the Thread:

High Speed Rail...best option?

You must be logged in to reply to a post.


 
About Us
Contact Us
FAQ
Advertise
Links
Login
Sign Up
  


� Copyright 2009-2011 Democratic Hub. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy


OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES