Should we not also have high speed rail since it will wreak havoc on the freight rail system?

Problem No. 1 is the havoc high-speed rail could wreak on our freight-rail system, with which many of the proposed routes share trackage. Subsidy-free and profitable since deregulation, as The Economist reported recently, the freight-rail companies own most rail tracks and are one of the country’s economic and environmental crown jewels. Freight rail moves goods cheaply, efficiently, and with a carbon footprint smaller than that of any other form of transportation. European trains, meanwhile, with which high-speed-rail advocates compare the American system invidiously, move almost no freight. They move people, and require subsidies to do so.



Evidently, the administration thought it could build medium-to-high-speed rail on the cheap in most of the U.S. by making Amtrak trains run more frequently, increasing their speed to 110 miles per hour, and sponging off the freight system. Here’s the problem: The more passenger trains on a given rail corridor, the fewer freight trains, and the administration envisions massive numbers of new trains. Since passenger trains have to meet schedules, they take priority. The faster a passenger train travels, the more freight it displaces. According to The Economist, “One Amtrak passenger train at 110 MPH will remove the capacity to run six freight trains (which travel 50 MPH) in any corridor.” And in many areas, freight rail is already at capacity, and will require more investment to keep up with expected growth.



You’ve read a lot about those mean old Republican governors, Ohio’s John Kasich and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, who turned down free money, Obama money, for high-speed rail because the state would get stuck with a big part of the costs. Iowa, Florida, and Michigan are considering following suit, according to Fred Frailey of Trains magazine.



Frailey also points out that in many cases, freight-rail companies need to build more sidings and even double tracks to accommodate high-speed rail. The costs are enormous. Negotiations between the federal government and freight-rail companies in North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington State are stalled over how much more capacity is needed, and who’s going to pay for it. If the federal government doesn’t pick up the tab, excess costs could be passed along to consumers in the form of higher freight rates, which in turn will impact the price of energy and manufactured goods.



Running high-speed rail on existing tracks also opens the door to re-regulation of the freight-rail business. Already, under President Bush, Congress mandated that freight systems spend an estimated $18 billion on safety systems designed to prevent passenger-freight collisions like the one in California that killed 25 and injured 135 — systems the industry says are largely ineffective and unnecessary. That’s the start of a slippery slope; the federal government will intrude more and more as a mediator between a dull but efficient freight system and a politically popular but deficit-ridden passenger-rail project. We know how that’s going to turn out.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/2…Should we not also have high speed rail since it will wreak havoc on the freight rail system?
since no one will actually own the rail system it will turn to crap
lol i live in a railroad town. 30 years ago almost everyone worked there. now there's nothing but a huge empty shop and roundhouse tracks overgrown, people had to move elsewhere for jobs. freight has been dying out for quite sometime in the rural areas. The town is half the size it used to be because the freight trains dried up. Freight rails are slowly but surely drying up anyway.Should we not also have high speed rail since it will wreak havoc on the freight rail system?
Someone makes some stuff up and you believe it and panic. If you want to live in the dark ages move to South America and live in the Amazon.
BREAKING NEWS: ROMNEY ANNOUNCES HE WILL NOT RUN IN 2012Should we not also have high speed rail since it will wreak havoc on the freight rail system?
High speed rail cannot run on existing track. The track is not adequate to the purpose.
"European trains, meanwhile, with which high-speed-rail advocates compare the American system invidiously, move almost no freight."

Do your homework son.

The Channel Tunnel is designed to take railfreight. A huge amount moves by rail in Europe.

Every argument you apply to the efficiency of freight by rail also applies to passenger services. Why can't freight move at high speed too?
1) there was a time in the 1890s that the railroads owned america



remember the Government financed the RR. Free land, 1 square mile for every few miles of track



2) high speed CANNOT travel on the same tracks as freight



3) the main cost today is track maintenance, it is cheaper just to keep speeds to 20 mph rather than fix track



4) high speed will be expensive no question



5) China is starting from nothing so its high speed system is a good investment



american transportation is a mix. we use roads because they were built in the 50-60s, have already been paid for. and GASOLINE WAS CHEAPER THAN WATER. Never again will that be true



6) Freight does NOT need speed, people want it.



7) Safety is way too expensive, lives are cheap

BP did not need regulation their wells were safe



8) WE are the government US "we the people" NOT "We the rich people and big business"









there are certain route where high speed makes sense