The 150-mile-per-hour Acela averages only 80 m.p.h. on the New York to Washington corridor

[liberal N proud]

$11 Billion Later, High-Speed Rail Is Inching Along

WASHINGTON — High-speed rail was supposed to be President Obama’s signature transportation project, but despite the administration spending nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China.

While Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also place blame for the failures on missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed initiatives.

Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into those projects, critics say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 miles per hour. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast Corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

A conceptual view of a train that would take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 hours 40 minutes, compared with six hours by car.

High-Speed Train in California Is Caught in a Political StormJAN. 6, 2014


The high-speed rail station in Changsha, China, opened less than four years ago.

Speedy Trains Transform ChinaSEPT. 23, 2013


On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-m.p.h. Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and a plan to bring it up to the speed of Japanese bullet-trains, which can top 220 m.p.h., will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.
Photo


Amtrak’s Acela in Baltimore, where a tunnel slows trains. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New York Times
Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html?emc=edit_th_20140807&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=45299538&_r=0

80 mph is fast but not high speed. Once again, the US is left behind.

[hack89]

1. The US rail system is built for freight

Building the track needed for high speed rail through such a crowded area would be incredibly expensive besides setting off decades of legal battles acquiring the land.

[Laelth]

2. In addition, our tracks are built for slower trains.

Many of us, here in Georgia, have been asking for high-speed rail to connect the smaller cities in the state to Atlanta, but our tracks are old and very curvy. They're too curvy, in fact, to support high-speed trains. New train lines built for high-speed rails will require new rights-of-way that are straighter and, thus, safer. It's acquiring the right-of-way that's the major hurdle (as you rightly note). Few people want to give up their property for a train that's just going to zip through and never stop. The state could, of course, seize the land through eminent domain, but the political climate (not to mention the judicial climate) is unfavorable to eminent domain actions at the moment.

Basically, we're stuck with what we've got.

-Laelth