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.
This could be an interesting topic if people could just keep politics out of it. There's no reason for the same tired "tax" arguments.
Well, how do you propose we pay for these trains, and the thousands and thousands of miles of tracks, bridges, dozens of train stations, and all the other maintenance costs to the infrastructure that are involved?
A freight train only leaves the station when enough cargo is loaded to make the trip profitable, commuter trains leave on a schedule, no matter if they are empty of passengers.
People are not freight, they will only pay a standard ticket price and will not be happy if the norm is to sit around for six hours waiting for an optimal passenger load. The passengers at the other end will not be happy to wait six hours for their train to arrive, only to wait another six hours for their optimal passenger load.
Cities and states that do not get any benefit from the trains will not want to pay increases taxes to pay for the trains, so other people can ride on them either.
It is high speed from Philadephia to NYC only. NYC to Boston is needlessly slow, the average speed is only 70 MPH on the entire line from Boston to DC with top speeds of 150 MPH. The plan is for speeds of 220 MPH.
The ACELA express and Northeast line are Amtrak's most heavily used lines and contribute 50% of Amtrak's total profits.
It would be wise to make it fully HSR.
Fair enough
I think it'll be a lucrative and remarkable idea in the NE corridor. It should also be a viable alternative for all commuters, not just business travelers. However, I don't see how it'll be a viable in other regions in the country for the same reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread. It makes no sense to have HSR in the Sunbelt or Midwest.
I think it'll be a lucrative and remarkable idea in the NE corridor. It should also be a viable alternative for all commuters, not just business travelers. However, I don't see how it'll be a viable in other regions in the country for the same reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread. It makes no sense to have HSR in the Sunbelt or Midwest.
Yeah, I agree right now it wouldn't be feasible in much of the country. A West Coast line would be cool from say Seattle to San Diego, and one tying Chicago and other Midwest cities to the Northeast, but even those will require much time and money.
I disagree. The old train "the City of New Orleans" should be in government owned HSR tracks and offer overnight service between Chicago and New Orleans. 950 miles in 8 hours at an avg of about 120 should not be all that difficult.
Just get a road atlas and divide the city distances by 120 to 150 to get travel times. Then compare the time with city center to city center air travel times. Modestly HSR is not that much different.
American taxpayers should be supporting American projects that will benefit Americans instead of throwing money down the toilets of the middle east.
Very well said .
We spend Trillions of taxpayer money in the Middle East not only to blow up their infrastructure, but then to rebuild it using private contractors that bloat the costs. Does that make sense to anyone?
Meanwhile our infrastructure in the US is outdated and falling apart. These projects would also have the added benefit of JOBS!
Of course our failed representatives haven't given a damn about Americans in decades unfortunately.
Consumers voted and they chose the automobile. Sorry you lost.
Consumers can be herded, and were. They also voted at the time to poke their nose into Iran... over what? And of course, that herding also helped us engage in the Middle East, something you've been in love with since.
Yeah, I agree right now it wouldn't be feasible in much of the country. A West Coast line would be cool from say Seattle to San Diego, and one tying Chicago and other Midwest cities to the Northeast, but even those will require much time and money.
Yeah, it'll make sense connecting dense metros with one another. To have one connecting Austin to Houston is asinine.
Yeah, it'll make sense connecting dense metros with one another. To have one connecting Austin to Houston is asinine.
These three do make a lot of sense:
Dallas to Houston
Dallas to Austin (to San Antonio)
Houston to Austin (to San Antonio)
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.
Should we built the high speed rail network?
City of New Orleans
