79% of Travelers Would Prefer High-Speed Rail Travel Over Air Travel (interstates, CNN)
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.
It's been said many times, (probably in this thread, too) that trips longer than--I think--450-650 miles, are best taken by air. But, you also ignored SunGrins' point that Amtrak's routes and timetables are often designed to fail. (El Paso--not Chicago--to Denver)
If you think the taxes and fees collected for automobiles cover the cost of all roads, you are living a dream world.
Amtrak's time tables such as they are never will be accurate, at least outside of the NEC and select other areas where they own the ROW. Everything else in this country is largely freight ROW that Amtrak has permission/rights to run their trains over. However while the tracks are perfectly fine for coal drags or freight trains they simply aren't suited to fast much less high speed passenger trains.
A bulk of Amtrak's trains operate at speed restrictions between 70mph to 80mph due to track conditions. BSNF and other freight RR's have said if Amtrak wants better ROW for faster speeds, then it needs to pony up the money. Again the tracks are fine for freight purposes and that is all those RRs care about.
Then consider also since Amtrak does not own much of the ROW it travels over it is at the mercy of scheduling. If something happens and a train is running late and misses a window it should have been over a certain stretch of track, and a freight goes ahead of it; too bad. That and or Amtrak trains are frequently shunted to a side track so freight can pass (totally opposite of how private RRs did things back in the day).
There has been much noise about a HSR corridor between El Paso and Denver. Indeed it was one of the corridors identified in Obama's big HSR push:
Amtrak's time tables such as they are never will be accurate, at least outside of the NEC and select other areas where they own the ROW. Everything else in this country is largely freight ROW that Amtrak has permission/rights to run their trains over. However while the tracks are perfectly fine for coal drags or freight trains they simply aren't suited to fast much less high speed passenger trains.
A bulk of Amtrak's trains operate at speed restrictions between 70mph to 80mph due to track conditions. BSNF and other freight RR's have said if Amtrak wants better ROW for faster speeds, then it needs to pony up the money. Again the tracks are fine for freight purposes and that is all those RRs care about.
Then consider also since Amtrak does not own much of the ROW it travels over it is at the mercy of scheduling. If something happens and a train is running late and misses a window it should have been over a certain stretch of track, and a freight goes ahead of it; too bad. That and or Amtrak trains are frequently shunted to a side track so freight can pass (totally opposite of how private RRs did things back in the day).
There has been much noise about a HSR corridor between El Paso and Denver. Indeed it was one of the corridors identified in Obama's big HSR push:
The "big HSR push" (in 2009, the President took one train ride to his inauguration; none since) was little more than a public relations gesture and a sop to the "urban planning" crowd -- who are as captive to the Democratic camp as the Christian right are to the Republicans, and about as pragmatic.
Until the coming of Amtrak, "real market" rail passenger service was inexorably linked to the handling of mail and "express" services (the stuff that now goes via UPS and FedEx, and in much greater volume). n the 1950's, millions of older Americans still didn't hold drivers licenses, and air travel was sill viewed as risky. Major "trunk lines" such as the Pennsylvania and New York Central, still offered what amounted to near-hourly service on their main lines (which boasted four tracks, two for passenger and two for freight, east of Pittsburgh and Buffalo, respectively).
And in the west and south, players like the Santa Fe, Union Pacific and Atlantic Coast Line promoted luxurious streamliners -- but under ICC regulations, speeds between 80 and 110 MPH were allowed only after the installation of costlier signal systems. As the reliability and safety of air travel continued to improve, the railroads fell behind. The last major "new streamliner", Santa Fe's El Capitan debuted in 1956, (and eighteen years later, I rode on the same equipment while on my first vacation as a working adult).
To restore Amtrak service on even the two eastern trunk lines previously cited would require four daily departures even to equal 1970 service levels -- that means at least a tripling of the present Amtrak fleet; that technology serves a limited market, so expansion (including new car shops; at present there's only one, in Indianapolis, serving the entire country) would not come cheaply.
There is a huge gap between the dream proposed in the linked features and what the nation can afford, or is willing to afford.
High speed rail only work if it is convenient. To be convenient, you have to have terminals within a couple of hundred miles of major population centers. Other factors include connections to other transport systems including air and shipping. Then there is land acquisition and right of way.
In order to satisfy all this means restructuring much of the infrastructure in many urban areas. The cost and complexity is enormous. Displacement of homes, businesses, even highways as well as construction of new services and utilities would be astronomical.
This was a 'pet project' when Obama came into office. There were many newspaper and magazine articles about a high speed rail system nationally and locally where projected routes were planned. The cost was so enormous, the entire idea just fizzled.
We are so insistent upon building a bigger, nastier war machine, there is no money to build a better life.
Air travel is safer, and faster. It connects to more destinations than HSR ever could, without taking land from landowners for a right-of-way.
HSR is a Liberal's pipe dream. Nothing more.
It was the airlines that ended passenger rail in the first place, because it offered better service.
Agree except the last sentence.
Air service is now between awful and hideous unless you can afford first/business class.
I see HSR as a greater possibility of spoking out from the very high cost cities to lower cost cities (IE long distance commuter trains) for people of normal means to work in those cities as job centers seem to be consolidating from the crazy cost areas.
High Speed Rail is only going to be currently viable along certain economic corridors, such as Los Angeles to San Fracisco, Dallas to Houston, the East Coast Cities etc.
Anything else would be just too costly, although Maglev and other technology may make high speed land travel more viable in the future.
I agree. A group a investors backing the project and not my tax dollars.
How did the people from the US respond? A positive poll about high speed rail by a company that has a vested interest in rail. hmmmmm
Let it get popular and you will have longer lines at check in, heavy groping by a TSA agent and baggage fees.
Watch for FedEx and UPS to get into the baggage shipping business soon.
Don't worry. The .gov will step in and correct all of this for rail travelers also.
Why not? I'd pay with my taxes. We've paid trillions for the useless TSA already. I would love an alternative. My wife and I looked into taking Amtrak for a trip to the East Coast from Texas. It was not a viable option, not only because it wouldn't save us any money, but because the trip would take two days, much longer than it would take us to drive. Even if it cost the same as air travel I would do it if it were faster because I hate flying so much now.
Why not? I'd pay with my taxes. We've paid trillions for the useless TSA already. I would love an alternative. My wife and I looked into taking Amtrak for a trip to the East Coast from Texas. It was not a viable option, not only because it wouldn't save us any money, but because the trip would take two days, much longer than it would take us to drive. Even if it cost the same as air travel I would do it if it were faster because I hate flying so much now.
So you'd voluntarily pay if it were an option. Welcome to the private sector where your neighbor isnt forced to fund your mode of travel.
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.
