• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

High speed rail in the US

bozothedeathmachine

Muse
bozothedeathmachine
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
649
Linky

Why in the hell are they pushing this? The Sec. of Transportation was on the Daily Show a few weeks ago crowing about it. Sure, it'll be great for the northeast, where cities are densly packed and not far apart. But normal-speed trains work just fine there.

I even get the single-link ideas, like San Fran to LA, Orlando to Tampa, etc. But this...

nine-state proposal in the Midwest are also considered strong contenders.
Click to expand...
Did they learn nothing from Amtrack? The US is just too damn big and spread out for rail to be a viable option.
 
bozothedeathmachine said:
I even get the single-link ideas, like San Fran to LA, Orlando to Tampa, etc. But this...
nine-state proposal in the Midwest are also considered strong contenders.
Click to expand...
Did they learn nothing from Amtrack? The US is just too damn big and spread out for rail to be a viable option.
Click to expand...
And why is the US being too big a problem? Because it takes forever to get from point A to point B.

Now, let's see. Travel time is distance divided by velocity. We can't change the distance, so how do we decrease travel time....?

You're right. There is just no solution.

eta: if there were a high speed line from St. Louis to Kansas City, my family would have taken it last weekend. After taking the train a year or two ago, I'll never drive to Chicago again. But you're right, it only makes sense on the coasts.
 
Last edited:
Right now the fastest speeds achieved are in China and just over 200 mph.

That TX to PA in just under 7 hours.

Not to shabby considering it uses 1/10 of the fuel a plane would.

Rail travel is VERY efficient.
 
King of the Americas said:
Right now the fastest speeds achieved are in China and just over 200 mph.

That TX to PA in just under 7 hours.

Not to shabby considering it uses 1/10 of the fuel a plane would.

Rail travel is VERY efficient.
Click to expand...

As opposed to flying which would with airport delays and such take what 12-14 hours? I think they might even let you bring a liquid on a train.
 
I would love to have that kind of service available but in addition to building it, I think that the fares must also come down a bit to make it a more practical alternative.
 
Last edited:
bozothedeathmachine said:
Sure, it'll be great for the northeast, where cities are densly packed and not far apart. But normal-speed trains work just fine there.
Click to expand...
So are you arguing that the northeast is the best place for high speed rail or not? You seem to be arguing that cities closer together is both good and bad for high speed rail.

If it's not good for high speed rail, then what about in most of the country, where cities are spread apart? (Just trying to sort out the logic here.)

King of the Americas said:
Right now the fastest speeds achieved are in China and just over 200 mph.

That TX to PA in just under 7 hours.

Not to [sic] shabby considering it uses 1/10 of the fuel a plane would.

Rail travel is VERY efficient.
Click to expand...
QFT


jdp said:
I would love to have that kind of service available but in addition to building it, I think that the fairs must also come down a bit to make it a more practical alternative.
Click to expand...
Fares, that is. See above about the efficiency of rail travel. All other things being equal, rail travel should be a lot cheaper than air travel.
 
:o
JoeTheJuggler said:
So are you arguing that the northeast is the best place for high speed rail or not? You seem to be arguing that cities closer together is both good and bad for high speed rail.

If it's not good for high speed rail, then what about in most of the country, where cities are spread apart? (Just trying to sort out the logic here.)


QFT



Fares, that is. See above about the efficiency of rail travel. All other things being equal, rail travel should be a lot cheaper than air travel.
Click to expand...


You're right, boy is my face red. :o It probably should be cheaper but it doesn't seem to be. Just for fun I looked up a DC-Phil trip, one I take often. The one way price is 44$ on Amtrak and that doesn't even get me quite where I need to be. To drive it would be about 5 gallons of gas plus tolls so perhaps 20$ give or take. And if I am going with more than just myself the car gets cheaper still since I don't pay any more for fuel or tolls. The train on the other hand will charge another 44$.

I should add that I would certainly prefer the train since driving is nothing but an aggravation. At least on the train I can use the time productively.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
And why is the US being too big a problem? Because it takes forever to get from point A to point B.

Now, let's see. Travel time is distance divided by velocity. We can't change the distance, so how do we decrease travel time....?

You're right. There is just no solution.
Click to expand...
There's a theoretical solution, and there's political reality. And the political reality is that every Congressman in whose didtrict the rail line passes through will demand a stop in his 2-stoplight town. It's already happened in the California high-speed line, there are now so many stops it's unlikely the train will ever attain it's advertised top speed, and of course the stops themselves add a lot to travel times.

eta: if there were a high speed line from St. Louis to Kansas City, my family would have taken it last weekend. After taking the train a year or two ago, I'll never drive to Chicago again. But you're right, it only makes sense on the coasts.
Click to expand...
Why? I can drive to St. Louis in 4.5 hours, Amtrak takes 5.5. And if I took the train there I'd be pretty much confined to the city center, unless I want to rent a car. And if I have a passenger it's cheaper to drive also.

The one time I took Amtrak was from Boston to NYC, and it was not a pleasant trip. Took forever, and stopped at every podunk town along the way. And the train was crowded and the Amtrak employees rude. Not to mention the bar car didn't even open for several hours after departure. :mad:
 
See the time to spend money on this would have been before giving folks money to trade in their "clunkers" for new motors.
 
I think federal funding for high speed rail would be a great incentive to get states to increase urbanization. Part of the energy reduction efforts in the US needs to be greater urbanization, and this would nicely go with that. And doing all this change would create a whole lot of jobs.
 
King of the Americas said:
Right now the fastest speeds achieved are in China and just over 200 mph.

That TX to PA in just under 7 hours.

Not to shabby considering it uses 1/10 of the fuel a plane would.

Rail travel is VERY efficient.
Click to expand...
It's efficient only if you ignore all the infrastructure needed (thousands of miles of it), and maintaining that infrastructure. A plane might use more fuel but it doesn't require any infrastructure between takeoff and landing.

California's initial estimates as far as costs are $40 billion for 700 miles of track. That's over $57 million per mile, and of course I'd bet they go way over the estimated costs. They also think they'll get over 90 million passengers per year, I'd be surprised if they get even a third of that.

I'd prefer to wait and see how it goes in California before committing more money we don't have to this potential white elephant.
 
Upchurch said:
And when you got there, you've been driving for 4.5 hours. When I got there, I've spent the last 5.5 hours reading, napping, browsing the web, and generally relaxing.
Click to expand...
Some of us enjoy driving. :cool:

And as I've already mentioned my one and only trip on Amtrak was nothing even remotely resembling "relaxing".
 
Francesca R said:
Count me out of ever driving for anything like 4.5 hours :eek
Click to expand...

But how do you go anywhere? Hell I can drive much longer than that and not get out of my state, let alone into another one.

And I am not talking abotu driving that long and only going in a trip that would idealy take 45 minutes.

America is big, there are times people will drive that far to go shopping.
 
Francesca R said:
Count me out of ever driving for anything like 4.5 hours :eek
Click to expand...

The "road trip" is an American tradition. We think nothing of driving 4-8 hours. I once drove FL to OH without any significant stops (approximately 16 hours).
 
Upchurch said:
And why is the US being too big a problem? Because it takes forever to get from point A to point B.

Now, let's see. Travel time is distance divided by velocity. We can't change the distance, so how do we decrease travel time....?

You're right. There is just no solution.

eta: if there were a high speed line from St. Louis to Kansas City, my family would have taken it last weekend. After taking the train a year or two ago, I'll never drive to Chicago again. But you're right, it only makes sense on the coasts.
Click to expand...

No, the problem with the US being so big is that that because of that a fact a huge amount of miles of tracks would have be be layed out making it very expensive. I reckon that a high speed rail network connecting every major city in the US would cost trillions of dollars. And screw that. I've got no problems driving or flying.
 
dtugg said:
No, the problem with the US being so big is that that because of that a fact a huge amount of miles of tracks would have be be layed out making it very expensive. I reckon that a high speed rail network connecting every major city in the US would cost trillions of dollars. And screw that. I've got no problems driving or flying.
Click to expand...

How much did it cost to lay the ribbions of highway back in the 1950s and 60s that we now take for granted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom