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.
If we could keep out the politicians and approach the subject from a rational point of view; maybe it would work. But; I don’t see that happening in my lifetime.
HSR is mostly an air alternative not a car alternative per se. It is viable in areas with compressed air space and distances not too far. a cross country HSR network IMHO is not a good idea as the cost/benefit ratio is out of whack.
In select areas (NE Corrider, TX Triangle, SF-SD corrider, Great Lakes it makes sense as there is mass of population and travel among them where HSR can be effecient).
Currently I fly to Boston; if another hour were trimmed offf the rail option I would definately use rail. This could suplant the 40 or so flights a day in the compressed air space opening this air space up for longer flights etc.
01-08-2012, 10:03 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 8 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,919,105 times
Reputation: 4052
I think it is mostly because High Speed Rail is very expensive to build.
Most people in the USA in particular think the USA has to prioritize and only focus on what matters most, especially in a near economic recession. Most of these people probably think High Speed Rail is not an important priority right now.
Also, those people think High Speed Rail won’t get enough business to upstage the expensive costs. Most current Train Rail lines aren’t doing so well for business and are near bankruptcy in the USA.
However, that does not mean those people are against Public Transportation in most cases such as for Buses, Subways, Light rail for a city metro etc.
Countries such as France, Japan, China, and Germany seemed to make High Speed Rail very practical and good for profit, though.
HSR is mostly an air alternative not a car alternative per se. It is viable in areas with compressed air space and distances not too far. a cross country HSR network IMHO is not a good idea as the cost/benefit ratio is out of whack.
In select areas (NE Corrider, TX Triangle, SF-SD corrider, Great Lakes it makes sense as there is mass of population and travel among them where HSR can be effecient).
Currently I fly to Boston; if another hour were trimmed offf the rail option I would definately use rail. This could suplant the 40 or so flights a day in the compressed air space opening this air space up for longer flights etc.
Not to mention that taking rail is cheaper than air travel in an increasing number of instances. Now that Southwest dropped their Philadelphia to Pittsburgh route the only remaining Phila - Pitt carrier, I can't remember which, is jacking up the ticket prices. It's cheaper to take Amtrak now to Pittsburgh. Now if only they upgraded that route to run trains at 110mph for the whole distance...
Based on the laws of physics, and current state of the art, the most efficient form of land transport is electric powered steel wheel on steel rail. It is not the most convenient, nor will it replace all other forms.
I don't understand why rail advocates are so stuck on the steel wheel thing. For passenger cars at high speeds, losses due to rolling resistance are not a major factor. Note that you can push a car by hand on a flat surface fairly easily -- even a Ford Explosion. Trains require steel wheels largely because of the relatively high axle load; the situation is not at all similar.
Quote:
But it stands to reason that rebuilding / constructing electric traction rail mass transit, interurbans, passenger and freight, or other forms will allow a transition from the automobile.
But the object is transportation, not transitioning from the automobile.
Quote:
If we can shift 80% of our cargo and passenger transport to electric rail, we could conceivably reduce petroleum consumption BELOW domestic production levels, and end the need to import petroleum.
But we can't, because rail is not and never will be a door to door solution. It's not flexible enough. Your best case for cargo is rail sidings for a few large customers, with most customers served by truck with intermodal containers. This would require building (and electrifying, as nearly all freight rail is diesel) a LOT of rail, not to mention a lot of intermodal yards. And require rebuilding the whole freight infrastructure so it could actually deliver things in a timely manner; with current freight rail, containers can sit around for days.
For passenger rail it's even worse. Most trips people make are just not suited to rail.
Furthermore, to make all this stuff electric is going to require a lot of power. Coal power, if you're trying to get off foreign imports. Chance of building coal plants in California = zero.
Not to mention that taking rail is cheaper than air travel in an increasing number of instances. Now that Southwest dropped their Philadelphia to Pittsburgh route the only remaining Phila - Pitt carrier, I can't remember which, is jacking up the ticket prices. It's cheaper to take Amtrak now to Pittsburgh. Now if only they upgraded that route to run trains at 110mph for the whole distance...
Philadelphia to Pittsburgh doesn't make sense for air any more due to the TSA. The real competition (as with Washington to New York) is the highway system. It's faster and cheaper to drive. And once the TSA gets its hooks into Amtrak, it's just going to get worse for rail.
Philadelphia to Pittsburgh doesn't make sense for air any more due to the TSA. The real competition (as with Washington to New York) is the highway system. It's faster and cheaper to drive. And once the TSA gets its hooks into Amtrak, it's just going to get worse for rail.
And when gas goes to $5 or higher/gallon? Or when these highways require extensive expansion and rebuilding due to their age and small size? Or when the population of the NEC increases and congestion becomes a major problem? Seriously, what is with the close mindedness. It's a disease that's spreading fast.
I see a lot of worries about TSA expanding its power to cover rail--why aren't people more worried about TSA expanding its power to cover highways, especially since that is this country's preferred mode of transportation?
9 lanes of freeway total. Not one 9 lane freeway. Also, high speed rail is intercity service. Not house to grocery story transit.
Correct on intercity. And how many freeways that aren't carrying heavy amounts of intracity traffic are 8+ lanes? Not many. HSR loses again. There's all but no point to HSR without an existing intracity transit system that does not exist and cannot exist in 90% of America with our current land use.
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.
