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.
In many Western states, a rail system that could average a speed of 80-90 mph would be well recieved, I believe. There are vast areas of Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, N. & S. Dakota, and parts of Oregon and Washington that do not have any air service at all, and the only recourse for long distance travel is the personal automobile. The only alternative, the bus lines, have pulled out of a majority of the small towns they once served in this area.
Even in the larger towns in these states, air travel is often strange. A flight to a city 500 miles away often requires flying halfway across the country and back again to reach the final destination.
A modern, comfortable train with a regular schedule would be very profitable, especially for trips that would require an overnight stay when driving a car.
The Washington-Oregon- N. California coast would be a good run for high speed trains. The Interstates are all congested, and all have difficult and sometimes dangerous passes. Winter travel would be especially high, I think.
While the Interstates are a vital part of our economy and our national defense, so would be a modern rail system. Both our Interstate system and our airlines are vulnerable, especially since both are so gridlocked now, but a modern rail system would be both an alternative to either and may be less vulnerable, as rails are more easily repaired than highways, and rail doesn't have the vulnerability that comes from operating at 30,000 feet above the surface of the Earth.
If a train stopped in every podunk town in those states, it wouldn't be very high speed!
When you need to be somewhere, you need to be there. You fly. When you want to go somewhere, and time isn't an issue, you take Amtrak.
There are a few areas in the US that have the density to support HS rail. Very few.
The problem with Amtrak in many areas is right-of-way. Freight trains have priority. HS requires a dedicated track. A straight line between two points works best. To really pull off HS correctly we would need to move (bulldoze) hundreds to thousands of structures at an enormous cost. It would cost ten times as much as projected before it was done.
If a train stopped in every podunk town in those states, it wouldn't be very high speed!
No kidding. Not to mention...those areas without air service that banjomike is talking about go on for hundreds and hundreds of miles. It would take many, many hours to travel those distances even without all those stops. With the train's speed only being 80-90 mph, it would be faster to drive when you factor in all the stops. So why not just start a bus service for people who don't want to drive themselves?
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 02-05-2012 at 08:47 PM..
In many Western states, a rail system that could average a speed of 80-90 mph would be well recieved, I believe. There are vast areas of Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, N. & S. Dakota, and parts of Oregon and Washington that do not have any air service at all, and the only recourse for long distance travel is the personal automobile. .
Limousine and chauffeur service is a right, don't ya know.... Why should anybody in Wyoming (population 12) be expected to drive to Colorado when all those rich people are sitting on trillions that could be used to build a train...
No one doubts that flying is faster.
The problem is that without subsidy, the actual costs in fuel and resources is FAR HIGHER for flight than for rail.
When jet fuel hits $5 - $8 / gallon, while electric traction rail is a magnitude cheaper, THEN it will be self evident why rail should have been developed.
And thread. There is so much disinformation and just out and out dumb, it's astounding. HSR s not reasonable between NYC and LA. or even between LA and Seattle. Where it makes sense is how European countries actually run their rail, between cities where air travel is more hassel than it's worth. A system in the north east based around a Philly or DC hub would be likely be profitable if the government provided the right-of-way and rail, and private companies running the trains.
Winter is a big problem out here. Lots of road closures, lots of snow plows, and lots of snow and ice on the highways. Hundreds of folks die every year out here on the winter roads.
Driving long distances is a problem for older and younger drivers year round. The young ones go to sleep at the wheel. The old ones just get heart attacks. (and this is a common occurance. driving fatigue is a stressor out here).
Stretches of 60-150 miles with no services available.
Wildlife and livestock on highways at night.
Few State Troopers on patrol.
All this really adds up when regular travel is a necessity. It makes it hard for people who require specialized medical treatment, a relative or friend who needs regular care of some kind, whatever.
The roads in the states I mentioned also may be the only way a businessman can travel a route regularly, or attend to to biz in a city 3-400 miles away. No airplane commuter services are available for many medium sized cities out here.
Any regular travel here in Idaho is long distance. A student who attends the U. of Idaho and lives in Preston has to make a 18 hour drive to come home for the holidays. it can take as long as 24 or more hours to drive during bad weather. The closest airport to Preston is about 75 miles away, north or south, so if a student flies home, there's still a 150 mi. round trip for the parents to go pick the student up at the airport.
And this is not unusual. Idaho only has less than a dozen airports in the entire state. Same with montana and Wyoming. N. Nevada, E. Washington, etc.
We don't need high speed rail out here, just a modern rail system that averages a higher speed than a car. Ironically, the west had an excellent rail system for over 90 years. In the late 40's, a passenger train in Montana often averaged 70 mph through most of the state.
Last edited by banjomike; 02-05-2012 at 11:02 PM..
If a train stopped in every podunk town in those states, it wouldn't be very high speed!
They wouldn't have to. When the old rail system was intact and still running passengers, the train stations were about 50 miles apart, and if there were no passengers to be picked up, the station had a signal indicating none. The train never slowed if no stop was needed.
And there were 2 types of trains- the locals and the expresses. An express train would only stop as few as 3 times on a 1100 mile run. One common express run was the Sun Valley Express- it started in San Diego, stopped for more boarding at L.A., then was an express all the way to Ketchum, Idaho on an overnight run.
A local was used to travel a round trip of 3-500 miles or less. Passenger boarding took about the same time as a leg stretch and pee break on a highway drive does.
The modern locomotive is by far the cheapest way to haul people. They are electric- the only fuel used is to keep the generators going, not powering the train. Once at speed, the fuel usage is very low in comparison to a jet engine. And a train can haul many more passengers, along with more freight, that an airplane can.
A modern rail system out here would not cost any more than building another interstate, and the repair costs would be much lower.
Last edited by banjomike; 02-05-2012 at 11:09 PM..
Because this is America where the automobile rules the roost.
Spain, France, Taiwan and Japan, they'd all fit inside Texas.
Oh yeah, and HSR will only benefit the 1%...
Hitting the Cracker Jack box for your talking points again?
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.
Why should anybody in Wyoming (population 12) be expected to drive to Colorado when all those rich people are sitting on trillions that could be used to build a train...
