<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on The Morning Briefing: High-speed rail ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T10:13:28-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Please read what I have been saying here and on other HSR posts.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75248]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My point is and always has been, everything has its place.For regional rail service up to 200 miles between stops, often running on rails shared with freight and local transit, rapid rail is more a cost effective option than HSR.The speed advantages of HSR over short distances on traffic congested rails does not justify the added expense.  Acela is a great example of the waste of a perfectly good train capable of doing 150 mph running on rails with slower traffic and doing multiple short range stops.   The Northeast Regional, a conventional diesel electric train that runs the same route as Acela, does it in just 18 minutes slower Boston to NYC.  It cost a third the price tag of Acela to buy and is 75 percent less expensive to operate.The only reason Amtrak makes money on the northeast corridor is because the Northeast Regional makes the over all numbers look better.  Acela on its own is a money sucking waste.As I have said before, HSR running on dedicated rails is great for distances over 200 miles between stops where its speed is used to full advantage.Not a single currently proposed HSR plan in the US uses dedicated rails.  That is the essential root of my opposition to HSR as currently proposed in the US.  Running HSR on a patchwork of upgrades, as the California plan does, is doomed to fail.  Like Acela.Bottom line.  If you are not going to do it right, do not bother.  It will be a huge waste of money like Acela.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75248]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:19:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Back to the Future]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75167]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[So HI, you try extremely hard to convince yourself that a 1970s option (when European InterCity trains reached 120 mph) is the sensible thing to build in the 21st century. On the basis of almost certainly illusory cost savings. For infrastructure that last 50 years or more. The kind of thinking that you believe might be &quot;economically responsible&quot; and &quot;prudent&quot; or &quot;pragmatic&quot; is really just a contribution to what other observers label &quot;American Declinism&quot;. Clearly no one is arguing against the blindingly obvious physical fact that dedicated tracks are required for anything that pretends to be HSR. The longer you avoid facing up to that--despite the cost of doing it--the more expensive and difficult it becomes. Like the oh-so-slow and fantastically expensive rebuilding of the LA Metro rail system. And of course you can focus narrowly on a few upgrades here and there to marginally improve service to Philly but someone needs to be planning an integrated network for the whole NE system. Do you know that the NYC-WashDC route at 236 km is almost exactly half the (first) TGV line Paris-Lyon (460 km) which takes 1h55m and has carried &gt;2bn passengers in the 30 years it has been running (with about one third the population catchment). A TGV (HST) could do NYC to DC in 1h15m. Who would be so stupid as to fly if you could go city centre to city centre in such a time, in great comfort etc.? Meantime you wring your hands over a capital cost which represents an investment, of maybe $1tn to build a series of nationwide HSR (about what your oil imports each year are) and who knows what vast sums are put into merely (inadequately) repairing your crumbling road network. You really believe a bit of patchwork upgrades--that do not achieve what the rest of the world considers the minimum for HSR but merely &quot;catching up&quot; to their 1970s status--represents a vision of the future? Or is it mere declinism in action?Then there is the politics (or the &quot;optics&quot;). In the poisonous US political cesspit, a mediocre plan like yours still faces all the same anti-progress foes (road &amp; oil lobbies; freight rail owners, NIMBYism) and actually has more weaknesses they can defeat. At least the big vision will inspire some people including politicians who might see it is worth fighting for--like the Californian HSR which even its foes might hesitate about nay-saying its benefits (versus their short-sighted budgetary arguments); and that is why the Californian plan has a reasonable chance of getting up. Imagine if they were trying to upgrade to a .... 1970s plan for 120 mph trains (from our position in the 21st century that is like looking at steam trains as an advance).It is vision that built almost anything worthwhile, not the Cassandra's narrow focus on costs. Nor marginal improvements.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75167]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rhodez]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:04:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It's always with OPM.  (Other People's Money)]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75133]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[So San Francisco will gets much of it's expansion paid for by people elsewhere in the state.  Also remember that the LA-SF HSR isn't, nor will it ever be fully funded by the citizens of California.  They fully expect the rest of us to pay for that.  There is absolutely no way the already bankrupt state can even borrow the better part of a trillion dollars it will take to actually build and operate this boondoggle.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75133]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:21:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The hidden costs of local rail]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75091]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The article didn't fully make the connection between points 3 and 4 as to the costs of local rail improvements in the San Francisco region. The HSR bill signed by Gov. Brown included $900 million in funding for local San Francisco area rail programs unrelated to the HSR. It's more than the $650 million local residents will have to chip in on top of that. The article didn't mention that the state's taxpayers will pay more than local San Francisco residents for their local rail improvements because of crass deal-making by state legislators from the San Francisco area. The HSR bill could not have passed without these legislators being bought off. California taxpayers will have to suffer as a result.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75091]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:25:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It is all about what is a cost effective solution.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75079]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[HSR on a short route is a waste of money.  The slower speeds being quoted are because they are not using dedicated express rails.  A major problem in all proposed US HSR plans.Phase one of what I propose would improve the tracks to allow the underutilized Acela to run closer to its maximum speed.  Creating at least a few large sections of dedicated express rails is a must.  Currently Acela runs at about 60 percent of its top speed because of rail restrictions and traffic congestions with freight and local transit rail using the same rails.The upside of this plan is that the track upgrade would be more cost effective than one to support HSR because the rail requirements to handle a train running up to 150 mph are lower than they are for HSR in excess of 200 mph.  Besides, why buy a train capable of in excess of 200 mph if rail traffic limitations will prevent it from ever running at those speeds?  It is like buying a $200,000 race horse to pull a kids wagon on a dirt trail.  That is what they did with Acela.  It was a foolish waste of money then and doing it again would be ignoring mistakes of the past.Once the route has been established and a customer base solidified, maybe a year or 2, phase 2 of the plan would be to replace Acela with a modern rapid rail train like the one being planned for the Gautrain in South Africa.  Running at about 120 mph it would be the perfect regional rail solution for the 95 mile run.  It would be more cost effective to purchase and operate than Acela ever was or HSR could hope to be on that route.  Which means the upgrade to replace Acela should be planned from the start and not pushed off with excuses.The reason you wait a year or 2 is to help establish the specifications required for size and configuration of the rapid rail trains.  I say trains because you would be buying more than just 1 train to support the schedule required to draw customers away from airports.Which adds fuel to the rail fight.  You need dedicated rails to better handle TWO WAY traffic of the faster trains.  The logistics of train operations boggle most HSR proponents.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75079]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:20:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[But they chose to feature it.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75055]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[How many articles to we get that are less than glowing endorsements of HSR here?  I think I recall 1.  SmartPlanet went almost completely dark on the topic of HSR after the Chinese debacle following years of articles about how we needed to emulate them or else.  But the public memory is relatively short, and now that the politicians need to justify their decision in California, the puff pieces/sales pitches are back.In California, the citizens are livid about this.  No articles about that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75055]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 04:26:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[TGV on HSR versus Acela on HSR]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75047]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Unclear thinking.Why would you put old technology trains like Acela if you built new fast track? There would be little if any difference in building the track for a fast Acela versus a true TGV (or HST). That indeed would be a dumb use of money.And the calculations are a bit off too (even if some are from the article). These days TGVs travel at 320 kmph (new ones are capable of 360 kmph but do not always do it, for various reasons). That means the 153 km (95 mi in prehistoric units) could be traversed in a theoretical 28 minutes but ok let's say a tad more than 30 minutes. So, the real comparison is this 30 minutes versus the current Acela of 70 minutes. That is a huge difference for any daily commuter. It is also less than the 35 minutes the average NY commuter spends each day.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75047]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rhodez]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:00:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[bnbv]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75022]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[http://iol.io/av56z]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-75022]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[linggg]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:55:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It's from the cited article]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-74995]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That quote is from the article at philly.com.  SmartPlanet didn't write it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-74995]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:15:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Where do I start?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-74992]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[95 miles for HSR between NYC and Philadelphia is a joke.  Look at the math.HSR at an average 154 MPH = 37 minutes.  (The articles numbers, not mine)Standard train at an average 100 MPH = 58 minutes.Are 21 minutes worth the extra billions that would be paid for HSR?The billion dollar Acela now does the trip in 70 minutes running on unimproved track shared with slower trains.  $100 says if you put Acela on dedicated rails you would get the trip down to 45 minutes at a substantial savings compared to new HSR.The Bay area is just now finding out how they lowered the prcie tag on Californias HSR project.  They shifted the burden to the local cities and towns.  Have fun playing with your trains.The California HSR plan is far from the RIGHT PLAN AT THE RIGHT TIME.  They ignorantly trumpet - The blended approach to building the system, which leverages existing track on the Peninsula and in the Los Angeles Basin. - -That is the same trap they fell into in the northeast corridor when they setup Acela.  That plan has turned out to be a costly failure of an experiment.  The conventional train between Boston and NYC does it in just 18 minutes less than Acela.  Without dedicated tracks HSR is doomed to be a joke in the US.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-74992]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:12:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[No editorializing here.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-74982]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;One of our political parties has decided that investment in infrastructure is a dangerous, socialistic experiment, and the other one cant manage to persuade the country otherwise.&quot;Typical SmartPlanet, champion of crony capitalism.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11178-74982]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:33:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

