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.
The "sweet spot" for trains travel is about 300-500 miles. Less than that distance, and it probably makes more sense to most people to drive. Greater than that distance, and flying makes more sense. Luckily, many corridors exist within that 300-500 mile range which could effectively be linked by rail.
"Driving" only makes sense when the cost of fuel is cheap. Once the cost for fuel goes up and up, and availability goes down and down, then everyone will be clamoring for electric powered rail. By then, it will be too late.
The short term, tunnel vision bound 'leaders' who buy the studies to support their 'decisions' don't wish to upset the passengers on the sinking ship of state.
The age of cheap and plentiful oil is at an end. The rise of 2.2 billion consumers in Asia will be arrayed against the 300 million consumers in USA. Guess who can outbid whom?
If there's a viable alternative other than electric rail, that can replace or reduce the 200 million gas guzzling private automobiles and thousands of diesel sucking trucks, let's hear about it.
My guess is that America will have a fuel crisis in the winter of 2010-2011. Maybe even sooner.
We can't keep burning up 1 billion barrels per month. (2007 consumption rate)
I suspect that when the world stops using the U.S. dollar for international trade, it will drop in buying power - like a rock.
Gasoline will hit $6/gallon. Fuel oil / diesel will hit $7/ gallon.
Any transportation system dependent upon oil will be severely impacted.
Any industry dependent on cheap oil will be hurt.
Anyone using fuel oil for space heating is going to feel the pain.
I'd personally never give up my car to ride a train. Sorry....I know it would be better for the environment, but I wouldn't.
Before long there may be 12-step programs for car addicts, perhaps located in the same building as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and Smokers Anonymous.
But to overcome such a nasty, unhealthy, dangerous addiction, a support group is needed. Hard to kick that habit alone!
Run the electrified rail on nuclear fission with full fuel recycle and we can have a carbon dioxide free effectively perpetual transportation system. Building it and the electrical supply system will just take time, money and resolve. None of which we seem to have because we are wasting too much money buying and protecting oil supplies from and for our potential enemies.
Exactly> Jetgraphics, your heart's in the right place, but the money to criss-cross this country with an HSP system sufficient to allay the majority of personal vehicles would be staggering. Heck, even in downtown Nagoya & Tokyo, I saw zillions of two-cycle (yuck!) mopeds!
So, hows about electrolysis into hydrogen via nuclear energy or wind power or tidal energy or solar or whatever, coupled with ethanol or biodiesel, all combined with localized trolley networks, to fuel this nation?
Coupled, let's say, with energy conservation, good old American technical ingenuity in state-of-the-art design and a reduced population (that doesn't cost anything!)?
Of course petrochems are doomed (The Athabasca Tar Sands? An energy-equation JOKE!), but we're an inventive lot, and we cherish our personal freddoms. Not all of us want to be crammed into a cattle-car-like environment as the Japanese and Koreans accept.
Obviously trains won't replace LA to NY flights. The sweet spot for trains is about 300-400 miles. Less than that distance, and most people will drive. Greater than that, and flying is the best option. Luckily, there are many, many city-pairs which are about that distance apart. In the Midwest, pretty much every city is about that distance from Chicago, which is why the Midwest HSR will be a hub and spoke system with Chicago as the Hub.
Furthermore, even though few would ride a train from NY to LA, many people would ride it from NY to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, to Indianapolis, Indianapolis to St. Louis, St. Louis to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City to Albuquerque, Albuquerque to Phoenix, and Phoenix to LA. People forget that, unlike a plane, trains make intermediate stops along the way between the two termini.
I'd say train transit's sweet spot is under 250 miles. In NJ, I wish NJ Transit gets the green light to double track the Atlantic City line between Philadelphia and Atlantic City, or atleast between Lindenwold (where PATCO ends) and Atlantic City (45-60 miles).
Sweetspot of 400 miles for train remains really only for routes like Boston-Washington DC, where there is enough demand (where business travelers, elite are buying tickets) for high speed trains and greater frequency.
Other major cities routes may work, but they'd likely have to be top 10 market metropolitan area on both ends of route.
At over 300 miles, plane travel becomes more competitive over other routes. Even in a large market to medium size market route under 500 miles, which is where low cost airlines become relevant.
Low fares, short duration.
Just in the Mid-Atlantic alone:
Southwest:
Philadelphia - Raleigh, Baltimore - Raleigh
Philadelphia - Columbus, Baltimore - Columbus
Philadelphia - Pittsburgh, Baltimore - Pittsburgh
Baltimore - Cleveland
NY (LGA) - Pittsburgh
AirTran:
Baltimore - Charlotte
Baltimore - Boston
JetBlue:
JFK - Charlotte
Baltimore - Boston
Last edited by subwayfan; 06-22-2009 at 09:13 AM..
After commuting by LIRR for over a year now, I love it. Commuting by train is one of those "never know until you try it" type of things. I suspect most, after giving it a fair shot, would prefer mass transit to driving, and all the pitfalls that come with traffic. I would miss my reading and nap time if I changed jobs outside the city.
Outside of the NEC and Chicago, cities in the US aren't laid out for mass transit commuters. Most of America is laid out nicely to get where you need to go in a car. A revamped rail system would have to come with a revamped inner-city rail as well to make it inticing. Nobody will give up their car and fluff commute to take a fast train in to town and wait 20 minutes for a bus, just not practical for those cities where you can still drive and park comfortably. Even if you interconnect cities across gthe US with highspeed rail, few will use it without it being significantly faster or cheaper than flying.
Great idea, fast trains, proprietary tracks. Unfortunately the demand would remain in the NEC, where Amtrak and regional rail are doing just fine with their always full but slow trains.
Out here in the Desert there are two competing ideas for HSR, One is CANV-Maglev(310mph rural/186mph urban, Anaheim to Las Vegas) and DesertXpress(150mph, Victorville to Las Vegas), Maglev will climb the pass as It can climb up to a 10% grade, While the other would have to go to Palmdale to interchange with the CHSRA(220mph) system, All are Electric only(Catenary like on the TGV or the Bullet Train for conventional HSR, In the guide way for Maglev), Costs I've read are supposed to be $45,000,000.00 a mile for either Maglev or DesertXpress, Currently Maglev has $7 Billion in loan funding from China and are going to build from Las Vegas to Primm NV for $1.8 Billion and do Planning and such from Anaheim to Ontario Calif, Whoever gets trains running from down in Ontario to Las Vegas first will doom the other and Maglev has an Early lead.
Oh and yeah no one wants to build an HSR line from LA to Chicago or LA to NYC, As that would have to go almost as fast as an airliner and only Maglev has the potential I think, So far Maglev is up to 361mph, But 400/420mph or faster might be required to be competitive(It's a guess, probably wrong). And as others have mentioned 300-400 miles or from LA to SF would take about 2 hours and 46 minutes I've read(http://www.cahsrblog.com/ or on some other site like the CHSRA's site). That would take more then a few drivers off the freeways who travel north and south between areas and also be competitive with airlines in the state of California, the CANV Maglev line is supposed to be 269 miles and so would be the rare interstate line out here to be competitive(Victorville to Las Vegas in about 45 minutes w/a station in Barstow, CANV-Maglev is not Federally funded so far, Earlier It got a little of course). Maglev has been proven reliable as I've not read of any problems, As has Conventional HSR(Grade separated from other traffic: Rail, Fwy or Hwy and exclusive[No mixing Freight or slower passenger service w/HSR, Otherwise It's not In-state HSR, It's local service]).
I haven't read through all the posts, so I apologize if this has been stated before.
I believe people object to their tax money going to a cause that most won't personally benefit from. We're in love with the control that our autos afford us. They allow us to go where we want, when we want. Contrast that to having to travel on a schedule and having to get to a station by a certain time or end up waiting for the next train, which may come along who knows when. These are also some of the same reasons that some prefer not to fly; however with flights you have the advantage of being able to travel vast distances in far less time than driving, even taking layovers into account. With some commuter rails, not only do you have the lack of control, but they tend to make several stops before reaching its final destination, which adds significantly to the travel time.
I would love to see HSR in the United States, but I wouldn't expect such a network to cover the entire country as distances between many US major cities are simply too great, even if we had 300mph trains.
It would work if it were to connect cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC and even an East Coast HSR line connecting New York with Miami (and all cities in between). Besides, many people in the Northeast tend to use mass transit more and are less car-centric than the rest of the country, so it could become a feasible alternative to flying (and far better for the environment).
I would love to see HSR in the United States, but I wouldn't expect such a network to cover the entire country as distances between many US major cities are simply too great, even if we had 300mph trains.
It would work if it were to connect cities such as New York, Boston, Chicago, Washington DC and even an East Coast HSR line connecting New York with Miami (and all cities in between). Besides, many people in the Northeast tend to use mass transit more and are less car-centric than the rest of the country, so it could become a feasible alternative to flying (and far better for the environment).
Yeah I tend to agree, 300mph is just not fast enough to go across the US or even halfway, But for shorter trips between cities that aren't more than 400 miles distant from each other(Anaheim CA to Las Vegas NV is about 269 miles), That should be do able, Even at 220mph, Although I'd love to see 300mph. More speed Scotty!
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.
Or this alternative thinking!
