U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-15-2015, 03:37 PM
bu2
 
9,916 posts, read 6,391,843 times
Reputation: 4129

Advertisements

Did you read it yourself?

The Northeast Corridor (Boston-New York-Washington) comes in at the top of just about every list of potential candidates for high-speed rail, with the distances involved being considered within the "Goldilocks" zone for fast trains. For example, at just over 200 miles from New York to both Boston and Washington, fast trains could compete with even faster airplanes by offering centrally located stations and providing an alternative to the hassle of airport security lines. These cities are dense, have strong downtowns, and extensive mass transit systems once you arrive.
Just as importantly, rail on the Northeast Corridor can also compete with driving, mainly because traffic congestion makes driving in the region so slow and unreliable, while tolls and parking costs can make it an expensive and time-consuming option. Rail in the northeast even has a great track record; after Amtrak's almost-high-speed Acela service began on the Northeast Corridor in 2000, ridership exploded, quickly outstripping air travel between New York and Washington.....

Still, all is not lost for those hoping to see high-speed rail in the United States.


<img alt="California&amp;#39;s high-speed rail: LA to SF in 3 hours" class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150106172709-ca-rail-high-speed-1-cfb-large-169.jpg">


  • JUST WATCHED

    California's high-speed rail: LA to SF in 3 hours

Replay
More Videos ...



MUST WATCH












California's high-speed rail: LA to SF in 3 hours 01:17

PLAY VIDEO

California is committed to building its high-speed rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, paying for the line largely with state money raised by a new cap-and-trade market on carbon emissions. Several privately funded projects are also in the planning stages. For instance, a Dallas-to-Houston line promises 205 mph service in 2021 without a single dollar from the taxpayer. Meanwhile, another private company has already begun construction on a Miami-to-Orlando line with a more modest speed of 125 mph, with service expected to begin in 2017.
All this points to how high-speed rail will likely progress in the United States: piecemeal. It is doubtful that we will have a nationwide system of fast trains soon. And this is not necessarily a bad thing; through a combination of private and public action, we should target markets where high-speed rail makes sense. That means looking for shorter corridors connecting dense places with existing mass transit infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2015, 06:14 PM
 
608 posts, read 363,709 times
Reputation: 1995
Default autonomous only lanes

Quote:
Originally Posted by tikigod311 View Post
Expect automated cars to be well over 70 MPH. With any sort of exclusive lane and maintenance done on a fleet level through a service like Uber, I would expect the speeds to eventually be well over 100mph.

Exclusive lanes may require an extra barrier on per-existing lanes, but that is such a minimal cost compared to laying new rail. If there were barriers and fleet cars, expect 150+ MPH cars. It's gonna be sick. And it's going to happen.

Autonomous/Driverless/Automated cars have significant advantage over rail on cost to implement, cost of service, level of service, and convenience on every single metric as far as I can see. The only way rail (which I love) will compete is in a metro where the terminal is immediately pedestrian.

Autonomous cars will disrupt travel like the way cell phones have disrupted they way we communicate.
Plus, we could easily add autonomous lanes beside existing freeways for minimal costs.
With self-driving cars, we could install transponders to set the speed of the cars to all be the same speed (say 120mph). With no passing, then you only need one lane in each direction.
And you could have the two directions adjacent to each other and no longer need a median, so it would be only as wide as a two-lane road. This would cut way down on right-of-way acquisition costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,328 posts, read 7,473,626 times
Reputation: 15910
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Did you read it yourself?

The Northeast Corridor (Boston-New York-Washington) comes in at the top of just about every list of potential candidates for high-speed rail, with the distances involved being considered within the "Goldilocks" zone for fast trains. For example, at just over 200 miles from New York to both Boston and Washington, fast trains could compete with even faster airplanes by offering centrally located stations and providing an alternative to the hassle of airport security lines. These cities are dense, have strong downtowns, and extensive mass transit systems once you arrive.
Just as importantly, rail on the Northeast Corridor can also compete with driving, mainly because traffic congestion makes driving in the region so slow and unreliable, while tolls and parking costs can make it an expensive and time-consuming option. Rail in the northeast even has a great track record; after Amtrak's almost-high-speed Acela service began on the Northeast Corridor in 2000, ridership exploded, quickly outstripping air travel between New York and Washington.....

Still, all is not lost for those hoping to see high-speed rail in the United States.



California is committed to building its high-speed rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, paying for the line largely with state money raised by a new cap-and-trade market on carbon emissions. Several privately funded projects are also in the planning stages. For instance, a Dallas-to-Houston line promises 205 mph service in 2021 without a single dollar from the taxpayer. Meanwhile, another private company has already begun construction on a Miami-to-Orlando line with a more modest speed of 125 mph, with service expected to begin in 2017.
All this points to how high-speed rail will likely progress in the United States: piecemeal. It is doubtful that we will have a nationwide system of fast trains soon. And this is not necessarily a bad thing; through a combination of private and public action, we should target markets where high-speed rail makes sense. That means looking for shorter corridors connecting dense places with existing mass transit infrastructure.
But there's a lot here the High Speed Rail advocacy doesn't want to talk about:

The Acela can utilize its much-ballyhooed 150 MPH top speed for only about 10 per cent of the total Boston-New York-Washington corridor. Ironically, the longest single stretch of such trackage is in poor little Rhode Island.

The reasons are many: an older system of electrical catenary (overhead wires) between New Haven and New York; four drawbridges along the Connecticut shore (used almost exclusively by private pleasure craft); antiquated tunnels in Baltimore, and the North (Hudson) River tunnels between New York and New Jersey -- which have a capacity of only two tracks and are recognized as vulnerable to terrorism.

And the promised 3-hour Los Angeles-San Francisco service depends upon resolution of what is sometimes referred to as the "Tehachapi bottleneck"; the first stage involves the line from Los Angeles to Lancaster and Mojave via Newhall - not too challenging. But the portion between Mojave and Bakersfield involves fairly heavy grades and severe curvature -- so much so that the current freight line actually crosses over itself in a loop, and the obstacles are such as to prohibit installation of a second track in some areas despite severe congestion.

Fortunately, an alternate route is available, and Warren Buffet's Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which currently has to share the rails with owner Union Pacific, can probably be sweet-talked into sharing the cost of a new set of tunnels -- one for HSR and another for freight. But that isn't even being discussed yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Over the long run, I have little doubt that both projects will eventually be completed. But the total cost will likely exceed $250 billion (that's BILLION, with a 'B'), if the proponents of the projects insist upon services compatible with those in Europe and Asia.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-15-2015 at 09:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 12:37 AM
 
Location: West Cobb (formerly Vinings)
3,615 posts, read 6,486,942 times
Reputation: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Last1Out View Post
High speed rail doesn't fit in the U.S. the nation is too big, cities are far apart and the cities themselves too spread out when you arrive, and air travel is faster and cheaper. Don't take my word for it, read here ... Why can't America have high-speed trains? - CNN.com
Oh nonsense. People travel around Europe in high-speed trains. It's pretty big too.

We'd have to hop on a plane from East to West Coast. That's about it. Less patient people may stick to their megaregion (e.g. Atlanta to DC) and fly elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 09:18 AM
bu2
 
9,916 posts, read 6,391,843 times
Reputation: 4129
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
But there's a lot here the High Speed Rail advocacy doesn't want to talk about:

The Acela can utilize its much-ballyhooed 150 MPH top speed for only about 10 per cent of the total Boston-New York-Washington corridor. Ironically, the longest single stretch of such trackage is in poor little Rhode Island.

The reasons are many: an older system of electrical catenary (overhead wires) between New Haven and New York; four drawbridges along the Connecticut shore (used almost exclusively by private pleasure craft); antiquated tunnels in Baltimore, and the North (Hudson) River tunnels between New York and New Jersey -- which have a capacity of only two tracks and are recognized as vulnerable to terrorism.

And the promised 3-hour Los Angeles-San Francisco service depends upon resolution of what is sometimes referred to as the "Tehachapi bottleneck"; the first stage involves the line from Los Angeles to Lancaster and Mojave via Newhall - not too challenging. But the portion between Mojave and Bakersfield involves fairly heavy grades and severe curvature -- so much so that the current freight line actually crosses over itself in a loop, and the obstacles are such as to prohibit installation of a second track in some areas despite severe congestion.

Fortunately, an alternate route is available, and Warren Buffet's Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which currently has to share the rails with owner Union Pacific, can probably be sweet-talked into sharing the cost of a new set of tunnels -- one for HSR and another for freight. But that isn't even being discussed yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Over the long run, I have little doubt that both projects will eventually be completed. But the total cost will likely exceed $250 billion (that's BILLION, with a 'B'), if the proponents of the projects insist upon services compatible with those in Europe and Asia.
The Dallas-Houston one is projected to cost $10 billion. And it will have service comparable to Europe. There's also the Miami-Orlando one, also privately funded.

Very few people will take HSR coast to coast. But there is a very big market for HSR in corridors like Dallas-Houston. Southwest Airlines fought that 25 years ago, but now they don't care. Airlines don't really want to do those short haul flights. They aren't particularly profitable anymore. You'll eventually (sometime this century-but not anytime soon) have HSR across the country, but primarily serving intermediate stops, not the whole corridor--Boston-NY-Philly-DC-Richmond-Charlotte-Greenville-Atlanta-Birmingham-Mobile-New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio-El Paso-Tucson-Phoenix-Las Vegas-LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 10:39 AM
 
Location: West Cobb (formerly Vinings)
3,615 posts, read 6,486,942 times
Reputation: 814
Btw, for anything as close as - say - Charlotte, it won't make sense to fly anymore if there's HSR because you have to get to the airport at least 1.5 hrs early to be safe. By the time you took off, you'd already be 60 miles from Charlotte on a 120mph train. You'd be in Charlotte already before the plane passed the GA state line. And you'd have had a lot less hassle, could probably take more bags, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 07:54 PM
 
893 posts, read 626,193 times
Reputation: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Last1Out View Post
High speed rail doesn't fit in the U.S. the nation is too big, cities are far apart and the cities themselves too spread out when you arrive, and air travel is faster and cheaper. Don't take my word for it, read here ... Why can't America have high-speed trains? - CNN.com
Most of the country doesn't live in the middle of the country. Most live on the west and eastern coast. High speed rail across the mid-west might not make sense, but there is no reason why the southeast, northeast, southern California, and upper mid west should not have high speed rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:35 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top