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.
bek americans are not as stupid as i thought. we are at 14 trillion debt and rising fast. we are broke. we need to start paying for stuff instead of signing for stuff. cant afford another pork barrel. we are now a debt driven economy. did i mention that we have no money?
btw americans wont use rail for the same reason french dont if at all possible, they dont like being mugged walking to and from the station.
Yes I understand that Acela is not the same as the Shinkansen. The energy savings are only material if people use it.
Acela is widely used, often sold out and generates a profit
Wish it were a little faster though. Some plans have the travel time time between Philly and NYC in 32 minutes, would shave nearly 30 minutes off the current time
On the topic I agree with many, it does not make sense everywhere, especially where the distances become greater. Acela works because of the proximity of the 5 large and 7 smaller along its ~400 mile path
Yes I understand that Acela is not the same as the Shinkansen. The energy savings are only material if people use it.
Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor (including the Acela) is extremely popular. Quick search on the Amtrak site indictates 36 trains per day bring people from Washington to NY. I've never rode on one that had a ton of vacant seats, either.
The reason so popular? It's fastest way to get from city to city. 3 hours 20 minutes even on the regional train beats the 4 hour, 24 minute drive time (An estimate so ludicrously low it can only be anticipated if you left washington at about 11 p.m.)
Also far quicker than flying, as you have to get to the airport, go through security, etc etc, then get from Laguardia, Newark or JFK to the city.
Acela makes the trip in 2 hours 45 minutes. Those who can pay the premium for the extra 35 minutes do it gladly.
In addition to the NEC, LA to SF would see the demand required for HSR.
The other thing is that you have to think 30 years in the future for stuff like this. What areas are growing? What will their needs be? Will the current infrastructure support movement of goods and people if fuel prices rise significantly?
I understand why Acela works. I rode it from Hopkington to NYC. It wasn't cheap though, and it stopped a lot.
It is funny how some HSR fans talk constantly about maglev. Yet the longest maglev in the world runs for just 19 miles. And that in a country (China) where it is easy for the government to use brute force to get things done. Estimates in the US put the cost of maglev at > $111M per mile.
I think security of rail is still overlooked. It amazes me that terrorists haven't taken advantage of the weak security yet. When security for rail becomes more important, the hassle factor will rise, and some of the potential convenience of rail will go away.
It seems like a lot of people don't really "get" the scale of HSR. They either assume it is something that is used to replace the private automobile as a way to get crosstown to work (like commuter rail) or something to get across the country (as in SF to NY.) It's really intended more for middle distances--such as the line planned from SF to LA. If you look at HSR lines in Europe, that's the kind of runs they do--trips that are long and inconvenient in a car, but short and inefficient in a plane. They don't run entirely through dense urban areas like commuter rail, but in the spaces between large cities, where they can make high-speed runs with a minimal number of stops. It is not intended to replace airlines or the automobile entirely--but to fill in the gap where neither of those transit modes is a particularly good solution.
A down economy is exactly when the government should be spending money on infrastructure--it's when materials and labor are the cheapest, when construction firms aren't building other things, and when interest rates are at their lowest. Investments in actual, physical infrastructure also pay huge dividends and last for decades--just as previous generations' infrastructure projects did.
Which leads me to the other point--in many cases, we simply can't just keep using the infrastructure we have now. Much of it is very, very old and won't last much longer, and since there were a lot fewer Americans when many of these old projects (WPA Depression-era, post-WWII redevelopment and highway era) were built, even maintaining them isn't enough to manage current capacity. In other words, keeping the systems we have (highways and airports) will actually cost more than adding HSR as another transit mode choice.
In fact, we aren't really adding a new mode--just putting back a mode of transportation (regional passenger rail travel) that used to be a source of national pride.
There is also the fear that ridership in many parts of the US outside of the NE Corridor will not make up for the extraordinary expense of construction and maintenance. I'm a rail proponent in most cases, but I'm not sure that we can afford this at the present time; rural America will just have to accept the current system of private cars, Greyhound and once/day ( in each direction) Amtrak service..
There are places where high-speed rail might not be worth it, but medium speed rail could be. Trains running at comparable (rather than more) to driving speed may be worthwhile. The Amtrak Cascades is a good successful example.
HSR is only good for long distance travel. We already have commercial airliners to do that.
Why throw away limited funds on building a redundant system?
It would make more sense to spend the money on building and expanding local public transit, in particular light rail and subway systems to help alleviate extreme gridlock on the highways and city streets. The average person can make use of light rail and subways on a daily basis to get around, commute to work, run errands, do shopping, etc so light rail is much more practical and affordable. OTOH, the average person uses HSR only once in a while if at all. And HSR will have to face stiff price competition from the well-established airline industry.
There should be a focus on improving antiquated local public transit systems before we think about building HSR. Right now HSR is a luxury we can't afford.
HSR is only good for long distance travel. We already have commercial airliners to do that.
Why throw away limited funds on building a redundant system?
It would make more sense to spend the money on building and expanding local public transit, in particular light rail and subway systems to help alleviate extreme gridlock on the highways and city streets. The average person can make use of light rail and subways on a daily basis to get around, commute to work, run errands, do shopping, etc so light rail is much more practical and affordable. OTOH, the average person uses HSR only once in a while if at all. And HSR will have to face stiff price competition from the well-established airline industry.
There should be a focus on improving antiquated local public transit systems before we think about building HSR. Right now HSR is a luxury we can't afford.
I think there's been an issue with crowding at multiple airports and airways around the US. There's also the issue of fuel-efficiency such that a rail line would actually be profitable to the company that operates it and saves money and time for the people riding it compared to individuals driving, planes flying, or buses a-going.
So the above reasons, and more, for why high speed rail are a good idea in various other parts of the world are the same reasons why it would work well for various parts of the US. The LA to Bay Area (especially with possible future extensions to the growing cities of Sacramento and San Diego) makes a lot of sense and would result in good economic sense (the real issue right now is that if we only built a partial line then we've basically wasted money and right now no governmental body will commit to full funding so instead it'll have to drag out and beg for funds constantly while the price keeps on escalating due to start and stop construction, lobbying, and various uncertainties constantly eating up more of the funds than if we just buckled down and funded the whole damn thing). The Northeast Corridor is a wonderful place to have it. A Chicago hub, especially through the two largest metros of Wisconsin and then on to the the Twin Cities as well as to Detroit with a possibility of hooking up with Canada's main corridor--all that would make sense and be comparable to what a lot of countries have. Building high speed rail through Alaska does not--but no one's calling for that. Also, the Florida one didn't make much sense either.
Anyhow, yea! It does tie into funding local mass transit though--high speed rail makes a lot more sense if you actually didn't need another car on the other end anyhow. It's part of the reason why the Florida high speed rail lines didn't make sense--you'd have to drive to the station and once you get to the station, you'd have to go and rent a car, and the distances were small enough that it's really not so inconvenient to just drive between the metros anyways. However, high speed rail still makes sense and profitable, intelligently planned lines should be funded.
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.
