- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can high speed rail work in the United States?
Posted on 4/15/24 at 9:05 pm to poochie
Posted on 4/15/24 at 9:05 pm to poochie
quote:
I’ve traveled from Houma to Hammond a bunch recently.
Small town mentality isn’t the application of rail systems in the US that would be beneficial. Your independence comment, while accurate on a relative basis, is not going to be justifiable rational for people willing to take the train or not.
0
Posted on 4/15/24 at 9:12 pm to NOLALGD
Generic high speed rail across the US doesn’t make any sense. However, the Texas Triangle, CA coast, and NE covers massive population centers.
The idea of HSR connecting Dallas-Houston-Austin and even San Antonio where I could jump on in early afternoon and do a day trip or dinner and jump back on that night would be amazing. Much better than interstate systems and flying with the right stations in each city.
The idea of HSR connecting Dallas-Houston-Austin and even San Antonio where I could jump on in early afternoon and do a day trip or dinner and jump back on that night would be amazing. Much better than interstate systems and flying with the right stations in each city.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 6:26 am to Tarps99
quote:
The latest trend is to build transit systems with dedicated buses on managed or dedicated lanes for travel. Ironically Rob the Road Guy did a video on it on YouTube.
I saw in the Advocate that MSY is looking for a light rail project to connect the 2 airports and eventually connect to a rail station on the main railroads south of the airport. Instead of a train, why not build a busway instead, that way if a train is broken the whole system is not down, you just run a replacement bus on the line.
I wonder how much it would cost to build a busway for express bus service to downtown New Orleans.
I could imagine a network of bus rail only lanes from the MSY terminal to downtown and continuing to the Westbank using the HOV lanes on the bridge to one of transfer stations under the Westbank expressway. The East Jefferson Route would need to follow the Earhart Expressway to the Orleans parish line and be an elevated bridge for the length of the Earhart or move over to Airline at this point to and follow I10.
The way the state could finance the new bus lanes would be to allow motorists to use the bus lanes as an express toll lane like other areas. The lanes could use congestion pricing to keep the lanes semi open to bus use.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 6:37 am to bad93ex
Anything can work, with the proper investment. IMO, that ain't high speed rail. California has proven that whatever the estimates are for HSR, the actual costs are much higher. We have other fish to fry.
Was involved w local town politics in a small town here in Virginia and 15 years ago this was all the local progressives talked about. UNTIL further study showed it would split our railroad town in half as they'd have to put up a fence all along the tracks which go through the center of town.
Then everyone went all NIMBY and shut it down.
It's always funny how progressives are all about change until it impacts them.
Was involved w local town politics in a small town here in Virginia and 15 years ago this was all the local progressives talked about. UNTIL further study showed it would split our railroad town in half as they'd have to put up a fence all along the tracks which go through the center of town.
Then everyone went all NIMBY and shut it down.
It's always funny how progressives are all about change until it impacts them.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:47 am to lynxcat
Good point. These threads always go a little crazy but there are many areas of the country should have regional fast rail service, between 80-120 mph service. The goal is to connect metro areas, not get you from CA to NY in 12 hours.
The cross country train market will always be a niche market, but will always be funded by the federal government, in the same way we fund roads and other infrastructure. Amtrak is still around, in part because there are many legislators in rural areas of the country, especially the more sparsely populated Midwest and western states who have communities that consider Amtrak a primary transportation option/business driver for small communities.
The cross country train market will always be a niche market, but will always be funded by the federal government, in the same way we fund roads and other infrastructure. Amtrak is still around, in part because there are many legislators in rural areas of the country, especially the more sparsely populated Midwest and western states who have communities that consider Amtrak a primary transportation option/business driver for small communities.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:02 am to bad93ex
quote:
What does the O-T think of high speed rail being implemented stateside?
Airlines are one of the most subsidized industries in the world, and despite all the public money and in-kind services, the experience of taking even a short flight is fricking horrible. So I'm all for it.
Ironically, you'd still need to rent a car after arriving at most destinations. But that's not different from flying.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 10:03 am
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:04 am to chrome_daddy
quote:
California has proven that whatever the estimates are for HSR, the actual costs are much higher.
That's just California red tape. They can't get out of their own way when it comes to building new stuff.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:07 am to bad93ex
No.
We don’t have the population density to where it will work outside of the eastern seaboard.
We have one of the largest countries in the world by area and we have a few densely packed cities and a lot of more sparsely populated areas across a wide area.
This isn’t like Germany which is a relatively compact country smaller than the state of Texas.
We don’t have the population density to where it will work outside of the eastern seaboard.
We have one of the largest countries in the world by area and we have a few densely packed cities and a lot of more sparsely populated areas across a wide area.
This isn’t like Germany which is a relatively compact country smaller than the state of Texas.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:10 am to kingbob
The problem with high speed rail in larger cities is that density makes eminent domain too expensive to get to city center. So lets say you can take a rail from Dallas to Houston but it only gets you to, say IAH. Then what? You have to add the cost of an Uber/Rental on top of the train ticket and you're still sitting in traffic on the freeway. It becomes much less enticing to a day traveler than just driving all the way from Dallas to your final destination inside Houston
Cities in Europe built underground mass transit, in many cases at the same time as automobiles came within reach of the masses, making high speed/underground connections a lot easier.
Cities in Europe built underground mass transit, in many cases at the same time as automobiles came within reach of the masses, making high speed/underground connections a lot easier.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 10:12 am
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:21 am to TigerBaitOohHaHa
All true, but what you describe is not different from flying. Renting a car at the airport vs renting a car at major train hub — same difference.
The most pertinent questions are (a) whether trains are faster, more affordable, and less hassle than domestic flights and (b) whether those improvements are worth public investment in new infrastructure.
The answer to the first question is almost certainly “yes.” The answer to the second one is unknown.
The most pertinent questions are (a) whether trains are faster, more affordable, and less hassle than domestic flights and (b) whether those improvements are worth public investment in new infrastructure.
The answer to the first question is almost certainly “yes.” The answer to the second one is unknown.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 10:23 am
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:47 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Airlines are one of the most subsidized industries in the world, and despite all the public money and in-kind services, the experience of taking even a short flight is fricking horrible. So I'm all for it.
So, to deal with our inefficient and heavily subsidized existing infrastructure, we should spend trillions on creating a totally new large scale train infrastructure that will also need to be subsidized and maintained? Great plan
It likely can work in a few corridors, and by “work” I mean be convenient and relatively hassle free. Even in those corridors, the expense will be astronomical.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 10:50 am
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News