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.
Why is the rail option not available? And by "high speed", I don't mean a TGV going 300 km/h. 150 km/h would be sufficient.
Because it would cost something like a trillion dollars in capital investment to build it. The rail system would have to serve all the markets that are currently poorly served by regional airlines, not just yours. Wichita to St. Louis, Redding to Sacramento, Gainesville to Orlando, you get the picture. As I said, an airplane can fly wherever the pilot wants it to go, and the capital investment has already been made.
Why is the rail option not available? And by "high speed", I don't mean a TGV going 300 km/h. 150 km/h would be sufficient.
Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the fight California has been going through to push through highspeed rail. It's very expensive. Federal support is required, and the gov't wouldn't have enough transportation money to contribute to multiple HSR projects around the country at more or less the same time. Our economy isn't doing as well as China's and Japan's (or rather--we seem to be bogged down with other priorities of an international nature....), so we don't get HSR.
Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the fight California has been going through to push through highspeed rail. It's very expensive. Federal support is required, and the gov't wouldn't have enough transportation money to contribute to multiple HSR projects around the country at more or less the same time. Our economy isn't doing as well as China's and Japan's (or rather--we seem to be bogged down with other priorities of an international nature....), so we don't get HSR.
It's been a few years since I lived in California, so indeed my familiarity is shoddy. I can't agree that America's main distraction is "priorities of an international nature", but I emphatically agree that for some reason, big and ambitious infrastructure projects just don't seem to be tractable anymore. It's hard to say to what extent the impediment is on the "left" (fear of environmental impact, high labor costs, rampant litigation, onerous regulations), "middle" (NIMBYism) or "right" (skepticism and contempt of government's ability to orchestrate anything, preference for local governance vs. federal impositions, general distaste for public transportation). Regardless, there's a left-right-middle consensus that another Hoover Dam or Panama Canal or Apollo Program is neither affordable nor desirable. Nobody seems to crave investing a couple of trillion dollars into highways, or rail, or a revamped airport system.
To reiterate, we don't need high speed rail. We just need rail, period. In California, this is perhaps less practical, because so many people live in the LA basin, the Bay area or San Diego. Most people are already within say 100 miles of a major international airport, so they can drive to the airport without undue duress. But in the Midwest, we're a patchwork of towns and medium cities. Every 50 miles or so, there's a city of 50,000-150,000 people. But other than Chicago, we have nothing resembling LA or the Bay area. We're plagued with severe thunderstorms that ground especially the smaller regional airliners. We have 4+ months of winter, with snowfall that could be cleared from airport runways, but which snarls highway traffic. We are, in short, the perfect (by American standards) environment for a Swiss-style rail system, which is comparatively slow (100 km/h) but which methodically goes from town to town, picking up passengers on a regular schedule. And the most grievous irony is that this is exactly what we had 100 years ago.
Yet another alternative is to revise our highway system, allowing - wait for it! - high speed driving. If speeds were unlimited on superhighways, I could drive from my town to O'Hare at 150 mph, park in a massive remote parking-lot, and reach my international flight departing from O'Hare, without worrying about a missed connection from my regional flight. Oh well. One can dream....
Competition is not just between airlines. For whatever reason, the US never developed a real, at least real in modern sense, passenger rail system, which could compete with air travel. Transportation system is often the most heavily protected, anywhere in the world. But different modes of transportation do compete with each other within countries, and that could explain the difference between airlines that suck elsewhere and airlines here that quite often suck much more even though competitively speaking, the US commercial aviation market is actually more competitive than most.
Nice rail system could provide real competition to short haul flying, like between cities of either coast, and unlike driving, taking train usually doesn't mean you have to concentrate for 5 hours on the trip itself purely for safety reason.
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Prior to WWII the United States had the most modern, fastest, technologically advanced and safest passenger rail system in the world. Every single invention regarding "high speed rail" came originally from American passenger rail roads (using their own money I might add); including in cab signaling and automatic train stopping systems.
There were steam powered locomotives early as the 1920's and afterwards that could reach speeds of >100 mph quite easily and do so pulling trains of six or more heavy weight cars like a sack of feathers.
Passenger rail in the United States was over regulated, over taxed, and quite honestly treated very badly by the federal government. The railroads stepped up during WWII and provided massive support to the war effort (basically all materiel related to the war and a large percentage of troops were moved by rail), only to see the industry treated like the red headed step child at a family reunion in the post war years.
After WWII the prime focus for transportation in the USA became the automobile and later air planes. Vast sums of government funds were poured into building the infrastructure and supporting those industries. Meanwhile the railroads were loosing their money making clients (freight) to trucking (helped along by the new Interstate highway system), but the federal government often forced them to run money losing passenger services until they were nearly or went bankrupt.
Passenger rail service not then nor now is able to run without subsidies. In the old days freight paid the bills and thus carried passenger service. The profitable railroads in the USA today are all freight with limited to no passenger service. Where you do see passenger rail service including commuter and Amtrak is due to government (local and federal) subsidies. Amtrak probably could make a go of things if it only ran the North East Corridor and ditched everything else including long distance trains.
It's been a few years since I lived in California, so indeed my familiarity is shoddy. I can't agree that America's main distraction is "priorities of an international nature", but I emphatically agree that for some reason, big and ambitious infrastructure projects just don't seem to be tractable anymore. It's hard to say to what extent the impediment is on the "left" (fear of environmental impact, high labor costs, rampant litigation, onerous regulations), "middle" (NIMBYism) or "right" (skepticism and contempt of government's ability to orchestrate anything, preference for local governance vs. federal impositions, general distaste for public transportation). Regardless, there's a left-right-middle consensus that another Hoover Dam or Panama Canal or Apollo Program is neither affordable nor desirable. Nobody seems to crave investing a couple of trillion dollars into highways, or rail, or a revamped airport system.
To reiterate, we don't need high speed rail. We just need rail, period. In California, this is perhaps less practical, because so many people live in the LA basin, the Bay area or San Diego. Most people are already within say 100 miles of a major international airport, so they can drive to the airport without undue duress. But in the Midwest, we're a patchwork of towns and medium cities. Every 50 miles or so, there's a city of 50,000-150,000 people. But other than Chicago, we have nothing resembling LA or the Bay area. We're plagued with severe thunderstorms that ground especially the smaller regional airliners. We have 4+ months of winter, with snowfall that could be cleared from airport runways, but which snarls highway traffic. We are, in short, the perfect (by American standards) environment for a Swiss-style rail system, which is comparatively slow (100 km/h) but which methodically goes from town to town, picking up passengers on a regular schedule. And the most grievous irony is that this is exactly what we had 100 years ago.
Yet another alternative is to revise our highway system, allowing - wait for it! - high speed driving. If speeds were unlimited on superhighways, I could drive from my town to O'Hare at 150 mph, park in a massive remote parking-lot, and reach my international flight departing from O'Hare, without worrying about a missed connection from my regional flight. Oh well. One can dream....
Agree without and it is a case of "you don't know what you've got until it's gone".
When Milwaukee Road and other passenger rail service ended out west/in the mid-west that was that. Right of ways have in whole or part long been abandoned and good amounts of what remain are owned/used by freight railroads who want little or no part of passenger trains.
It would cost likely billions to put back all that ROW.
... focusing on consumer wants and desires and trading goods and services that consumers want to buy for money they are voluntarily willing to pay, thereby creating value in society. Corporations (and partnerships and sole proprietorships) are the primary way value and wealth are created in society.
Consumers want and desire a first class experience, but are not willing to pay for it. Those of us who are willing to pay for it don't fly commercial anymore.
I can deal with the 2 hour early airport arrival times...
Me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbarkus
I can deal with the intrusive security personnel barking orders like a drill sergeant.
Me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbarkus
I can deal with the gays-grannies-grandes flight attendants.
Me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbarkus
... What I struggle with are the unwashed masses (literally) showing up in clothes I wouldn't wear to bed, dragging oversized suitcases on the plane, muscling their baggage in the overhead while knocking me senseless, hauling more food on a board to snack only until the plane is on descent leaving you to smell it the entire trip.
Me too.
In fact, on my last trip, the person sitting next to me apparently had beans for dinner the night before. You know, "...beans, beans, they're good for your heart; beans, beans, they make you..."
I wish airlines instituted both a hygiene code and a dress code. They could just use the dress code in effect in the '50s: men should wear suits and ties, and women should be in analogous dresswear. Tattoos must not be visible - either covered with clothing or theatrical make-up.
And I'm willing to pay for it. I'm all for more expensive air travel. I'd gladly support a minimum ticket price to reduce the number of people flying by a third.
It's been a few years since I lived in California, so indeed my familiarity is shoddy. I can't agree that America's main distraction is "priorities of an international nature", but I emphatically agree that for some reason, big and ambitious infrastructure projects just don't seem to be tractable anymore. It's hard to say to what extent the impediment is on the "left" (fear of environmental impact, high labor costs, rampant litigation, onerous regulations), "middle" (NIMBYism) or "right" (skepticism and contempt of government's ability to orchestrate anything, preference for local governance vs. federal impositions, general distaste for public transportation). Regardless, there's a left-right-middle consensus that another Hoover Dam or Panama Canal or Apollo Program is neither affordable nor desirable. Nobody seems to crave investing a couple of trillion dollars into highways, or rail, or a revamped airport system.
Pez, love ya, but Reality calls:
We're chronically juggling multiple wars at once. The Republicans hijacked what was left of the budget by slashing taxes on themselves, so revenue was decimated. It's pretty simple math.
Even at 200 mph, it would take 15 hours to go from New York to Los Angeles.
I don't have 15 hours.
Chicago to Cleveland? It might only take two hours, but you have to add the time to and from the train stations. It is easier for most people to get to the airport than to a downtown train station.
And airplanes don't use expensive tracks that have to be razor straight, requiring whole sections of cities to be demolished. Fast airplanes can fly around slow airplanes; fast trains have to wait for slow trains. Trains are fun but they are an absurdly expensive luxury in the U.S.
No. Because the special interest groups for gas&oil and automotive industries didn't want the competition from trains.
There are plenty of potential passengers for high-speed rail within California, Texas, PNW, etc. It's cool to ride a high-speed train from Denver to San Francisco too I guess.
We're chronically juggling multiple wars at once. The Republicans hijacked what was left of the budget by slashing taxes on themselves, so revenue was decimated. It's pretty simple math.
The last hope is Donald Trump. Donald Trump will rebuild America.
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.
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.
