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.
Maybe it's good for regional traffic if the ridership was there, but nothing nationwide.
Quote:
"We are prisoners of economic geography. Suburbanization after World War II made most rail travel impractical. From 1950 to 2000, the share of the metropolitan population living in central cities fell from 56 percent to 32 percent, report UCLA economists Leah Platt Boustan and Allison Shertzer in a new study. Jobs moved too. Trip origins and destinations are too dispersed to support most rail service."
Maybe it's good for regional traffic if the ridership was there, but nothing nationwide.
America is too big for high-speed rail | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/America-is-too-big-for-high-speed-rail-106444879.html - broken link)
Most ppl don't understand it wouldn't be a Nation wide thing. It would be divided into regions. A few connector lines , but thats about it. The Northeast would have the Highest Usage , and largest Railway network. The Midwest would have the Highest speeds , higher then California and on more lines. The Northwest will have only 1 or 2 lines but will be more like a Japanese type system. The Rockies will only be 1 line. Texas its to soon to tell. The Southeast will never have True HSR. Florida will build a network of HSR lines , but won't get high ridership.
Northeast / Eastern Canada
Midwest / Central Canada
Northwest / Western Canada
Southeast
Texas
West Coast / Southwest
Florida
Rockies
I don't support it because it's not practical.
This country is too large.
Maybe it's good for regional traffic if the ridership was there, but nothing nationwide.
I disagree. The laws of physics support rail over other forms of land transport. So do economics - it is far cheaper per passenger or cargo per unit fuel per distance traveled. And rail is far more durable than pavement, and so is the rolling stock.
America once had the MOST track laid of any nation on earth (254,000 miles). But thanks to the efforts of the anti-rail highway lobby, we're reduced to a small fraction of that (less than 160,000 miles today). And let's not forget the 44,000 miles of track of electric urban rail that was deliberately destroyed.
I wish there was a replacement for petroleum that would revive the "good ole days" of cheap and plentiful oil (before 1970s). But it looks like we're faced with a world wide increase in demand, outstripping supply. And that supply is swiftly depleting, to the point of diminishing returns.
Therefore, we have to transition to the MOST EFFICIENT forms of transportation so that our finite fuel budget moves the MOST passengers and cargo.
That resolves to electric powered rail, for land transportation. We should substitute ALL forms of electric traction rail transit (where practical):
Heavy rail (mainline), high speed rail, interurban, streetcar, tram, funicular, cogwheel, cable, subway, commuter, as well as multicar segregated right of way light rail.
Can we do it?
America once built 500 electric railroad systems in less than 20 years (1890 - 1910). Most cities and towns of 25,000 or more constructed and operated an electrical rail transportation system. The U.S.A. did this with a population of less than one-third of today's, approximately 3% of today's GNP, and relatively primitive technology.
And it was done without tax payer funding, for the most part. Which might explain how it was completed so fast...
I disagree. The laws of physics support rail over other forms of land transport. So do economics - it is far cheaper per passenger or cargo per unit fuel per distance traveled. And rail is far more durable than pavement, and so is the rolling stock.
America once had the MOST track laid of any nation on earth (254,000 miles). But thanks to the efforts of the anti-rail highway lobby, we're reduced to a small fraction of that (less than 160,000 miles today). And let's not forget the 44,000 miles of track of electric urban rail that was deliberately destroyed.
I wish there was a replacement for petroleum that would revive the "good ole days" of cheap and plentiful oil (before 1970s). But it looks like we're faced with a world wide increase in demand, outstripping supply. And that supply is swiftly depleting, to the point of diminishing returns.
Therefore, we have to transition to the MOST EFFICIENT forms of transportation so that our finite fuel budget moves the MOST passengers and cargo.
That resolves to electric powered rail, for land transportation. We should substitute ALL forms of electric traction rail transit (where practical):
Heavy rail (mainline), high speed rail, interurban, streetcar, tram, funicular, cogwheel, cable, subway, commuter, as well as multicar segregated right of way light rail.
Can we do it?
America once built 500 electric railroad systems in less than 20 years (1890 - 1910). Most cities and towns of 25,000 or more constructed and operated an electrical rail transportation system. The U.S.A. did this with a population of less than one-third of today's, approximately 3% of today's GNP, and relatively primitive technology.
And it was done without tax payer funding, for the most part. Which might explain how it was completed so fast...
Why does it have to be Electric? Electric is very expensive , we can build High Speed Diesel corridors...... Not Every Corridor can Support Electrification only busy ones.
Of course not, it's evil. Just listen to pundits, politicians, lobbyists and many others over the last 50 years. Sure it works in Europe, Japan, China and other places but it won't work here. Seriously, though, it can be a useful mode for medium distance corridors, 200-400 miles. Beyond that, airlines are they way to go. Some "optimists" predict that gasoline will reach $20/gallon within 20 years forcing the issue. I wonder how many of the systems funded last year will be built. It is obvious there will not be any additional funding for the next few years.
Why does it have to be Electric? Electric is very expensive , we can build High Speed Diesel corridors...... Not Every Corridor can Support Electrification only busy ones.
Why electric? you ask.
Well... importing over 75% of our petroleum is not a "good idea", for one reason.
Our ability to generate electricity is not limited to fossil fuels, is another reason. (Hydro, Nuclear fission, Solar, Wind, etc.)
Or that electric traction rail is more efficient than diesel-electric or diesel trucking.
Transferring freight from truck to electrified rail trades 17 to 21 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity. Simply electrifying existing rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity.
Electrifying 80% of railroad ton-miles and transferring half of current truck freight to rail would take about 1% of US electricity. 1% is an amount that could be easily conserved, or, with less ease, provided by new renewable generation and/or new nuclear plants.
Transferring 85% of truck freight to rail, and electrifying half of US railroads, which the author considers to be possible with a large enough investment (see Appendix Four), would save 2.3 to 2.4 million barrels/day. That is 12% of USA oil used today for all purposes, not just transportation.
Let's see - - - increase electric demand by 1%, while cutting diesel consumption by 12%... good idea.
Replace long haul truck (up to 21:1) and diesel locomotives (up to 3:1) . . . good idea.
And Russia, a nation that is an oil exporting country, recently completed electrification of the Trans-Siberian Railway, in 2002. Are they missing something? Or the fact that electrification allowed them to "double train weights to 6,000 tonnes."
Electric traction is more efficient, and boosts performance, and is less polluting than diesel-electric.
And let us not forget, when world demand for petroleum drives up the cost for driving, wouldn't it be nice to have an alternative?
Currently, we import 75% of our 7 billion barrel a year oil "habit".
At $100/barrel, that computes to $525 billion "exported".
At $75/barrel, that computes to $394 billion "exported".
HMMMMM.
Maybe it would be a GOOD IDEA to invest in a transportation system that is not dependent upon oil, especially imported oil. Spending that $394 billion / year in the USA to create a nationwide network of electric rail might be a wise expenditure.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
The government should help but it should only be built in high density areas where lots of people live. Mainly the coast and maybe the Milwaukee-Chicago area.
Yes, nationalized high-speed rail will not only speed up transportation in our country, the govt will be paying private contractors for the building of the infrastructure and technology. More jobs! After that, the government can hire permanent govt employees for security, operations, and maintenance. Even more jobs!
Between greedy unions corrupt politicians and crooked construction outfits this idea only looks good on paper
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.
