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.
Works in theory. But high speed rail has been tried in lots of countries and has never worked like they thought. Too expensive to build and maintain. We need to learn from history (though we never do).
Where are you talking about, and what do you mean by 'worked like they thought'?
From where I'm sitting, countries that have already invested in HSR (and they are still sufficiently few for all those that have done so to be seen as pioneers) look like they have everything to be smug about. In Europe, the French TGV and German ICE trains are widely envied by countries, like the UK, that don't have such systems. The Thalys system linking France, Belgium, Holland and NW Germany has killed air travel between the locations it serves dead in the water, as have the new HS lines in Spain.
Here in the UK, politicians across the political spectrum now agree that a new HSR network is a no-brainer and essential to our future economic needs (whether they have what it takes to deliver one is another question, of course). We are spending the equivalent of $30bn just on a non-HS line linking the suburbs of east and west London - a project not just supported, but fought tooth and nail for, by both our previous, left-leaning mayor, and the current conservative one.
It is true that US distances are greater than those in western Europe, and that population densities are much lower. But HSR can put cities 700 miles apart within 5 hours of each other, which is similar to the centre-to-centre travel time of flying - and instead of a fragmented, tiring, and unproductive journey, you will be sitting in the same place for the entire journey, with access to phone and Wifi. Even NYC to LA, which take an absurd amount of time in the existing Amtrak network, could be made into a comfortable overnight trip, which could be a very attractive alternative to a four hour flight sandwiched between two very 'enjoyable' trips to/from LAX/JFK...
Building high-speed trains will obviously create jobs. But they have potential to do even more. Say a high speed train gets built in rural Iowa. These folks would be able to commute to Chicago or St. Louis to work for a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
During previous recessions, people would pack up and move to cities with job growth. Now, due to the dismal housing market, people are less likely to move away.
These high-speed trains can change the way we think about commuting. They can let people in rural areas compete for jobs in the city.
U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110208/pl_nm/us_usa_transport_rail - broken link)
This doesn't improve the economy.
Even if what you says happens all it means is that someone travels more distance to work than they did before.
Besides, you are putting auto manufacturers and moving companies out of business. Congratulations.
It is true that US distances are greater than those in western Europe, and that population densities are much lower. But HSR can put cities 700 miles apart within 5 hours of each other, which is similar to the centre-to-centre travel time of flying - and instead of a fragmented, tiring, and unproductive journey, you will be sitting in the same place for the entire journey, with access to phone and Wifi. Even NYC to LA, which take an absurd amount of time in the existing Amtrak network, could be made into a comfortable overnight trip, which could be a very attractive alternative to a four hour flight sandwiched between two very 'enjoyable' trips to/from LAX/JFK...
The exact same people that created the fragmented system you speak of are the people that will be in charge of HSR.
Why should we expect anything to be different from what we already have?
I can fly form Knoxville to Las Vegas in 5 hours. Non-stop. For 80bucks. What's the upside of taking a train? Unless maybe it is cheaper?
Where are you talking about, and what do you mean by 'worked like they thought'?
From where I'm sitting, countries that have already invested in HSR (and they are still sufficiently few for all those that have done so to be seen as pioneers) look like they have everything to be smug about. In Europe, the French TGV and German ICE trains are widely envied by countries, like the UK, that don't have such systems. The Thalys system linking France, Belgium, Holland and NW Germany has killed air travel between the locations it serves dead in the water, as have the new HS lines in Spain.
Here in the UK, politicians across the political spectrum now agree that a new HSR network is a no-brainer and essential to our future economic needs (whether they have what it takes to deliver one is another question, of course). We are spending the equivalent of $30bn just on a non-HS line linking the suburbs of east and west London - a project not just supported, but fought tooth and nail for, by both our previous, left-leaning mayor, and the current conservative one.
It is true that US distances are greater than those in western Europe, and that population densities are much lower. But HSR can put cities 700 miles apart within 5 hours of each other, which is similar to the centre-to-centre travel time of flying - and instead of a fragmented, tiring, and unproductive journey, you will be sitting in the same place for the entire journey, with access to phone and Wifi. Even NYC to LA, which take an absurd amount of time in the existing Amtrak network, could be made into a comfortable overnight trip, which could be a very attractive alternative to a four hour flight sandwiched between two very 'enjoyable' trips to/from LAX/JFK...
The multi-national line you are talking about serves an area about the size of Kansas and Nebraska although it serves many more people than live in those two states. That area would be about 400 square miles and would hold all of those areas.
I think that this kind of travel would be fine for freight but doubt it would have a lot os success in the United States of America.
Cost overruns during construction.
Routes based on politics, not need/utilization.
Eminent domain to acquire right of way (land seizure by force).
Not price competitive with existing modes of travel.
Monopolistic, i.e no competition to incentivize improvements or even to maintain existing standards.
Will require ongoing subsidies.
All taxpayers will bear the burden of creating and maintaining, but only a minute percentage will benefit.
Amtrak's ongoing failure is well documented and fact, high speed rail will be worse.
Sorry dreamers, it's time to grow up.
The multi-national line you are talking about serves an area about the size of Kansas and Nebraska although it serves many more people than live in those two states. That area would be about 400 square miles and would hold all of those areas.
I think that this kind of travel would be fine for freight but doubt it would have a lot os success in the United States of America.
For once I agree with you (well not the last part). We should introduce HSR in high density population areas where building the right of way works out cheaper than building or extending new highways, bridges, airports, etc.
Sheer stupidity.
Extremely high price tag and not the right population density or crime rates to support it.
Here's a solution:
Lower the crime rates in the cities to match those rural Iowa towns. After that you'll see migration back into the cities.
High speed rail will only fail in low population density areas. Low crime is also beneficial, as people hate leaving their cars just to have them broken into.
They said the same thing about building Interstate highways.
Quote:
nearly everyone in America benefits from the Eisenhower Interstate System on a day-to-day basis.
Quote:
One cannot discuss the NHDS without also mentioning its impact on the U.S. economy. It is, quite literally, the economic engine that drives this country's prosperity. No other industrialized nation has such a sprawling and comprehensive system of roadways, though many are now seeking to emulate the U.S. model as a means toward becoming more competitive in the international marketplace.
Cost overruns during construction.
Routes based on politics, not need/utilization.
Eminent domain to acquire right of way (land seizure by force).
Not price competitive with existing modes of travel.
Monopolistic, i.e no competition to incentivize improvements or even to maintain existing standards.
Will require ongoing subsidies.
All taxpayers will bear the burden of creating and maintaining, but only a minute percentage will benefit.
Amtrak's ongoing failure is well documented and fact, high speed rail will be worse.
Sorry dreamers, it's time to grow up.
Frank, read post #198. It might open your eyes about the long term effects of progress.
My Republican friend said he thinks 70% of the 53 billion $$ if approve would go towards the NE were Rail is well used and causes massive redevelopments..... Even during the Bush era , the NE was pampered by Republicans and alot of redevelopment occurred. A population shift is underway in the Megapolis form auto suburbs to Railway suburbs.....which is also feeding the Railway usage spike. Towns and cities are building up there downtowns and making them dense and walkable.... There competing with each other....hehe. There are 18,000+ miles of Railway that should be restored either by private or public funding for Passenger Rail.... Connecting all the Northeastern cities and large towns..... Those of you against this , are mostly outside the NE and are either rural folks , jealous or uneducated on the subject of diverse transportation....
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.
Nope, lets keep throwing more tax dollars at the auto companies and their pampered work forces. 
