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.
Way to long for me. Im only good for about 3 hrs max of sitting in a seat built for a 14 yr old.
Agreed. I would gladly take four hours in a train to two hours in a flight, and usually at a lower cost too. That is a part of my plan for a European trip next year. So far, it is the Eurostar winning over ANY airline service between London and Paris. Flight over train is also unlikely between Paris and Venice.
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives the government power to construct roads.
Which airlines are they subsidizing?
ALL OF THEM - through the FAA, Military Contracts for the original and continuing developments of planes and much more.
"roads" - so "rail roads" and "gravel road" and "concrete roads" are not roads?
Given a highly developed nation like ours, it would be impossible to get the proper right of ways and other things needed to build HSR. It MUST be a government effort.
The basic idea is quite simple - just like roads! That is, if we have HSR the economic activity and efficiency brought into being with it benefits just about everyone (except some airlines - but there is plenty of biz to go around).
Example - I live not far from Hartford. My son lives in Pittsburgh. It is an 8 hour drive - way too long for any casual visit and we are getting older. How can I get there?
We took a plane once - it took me 16 hours to return and I ended up driving the last 5 hours after a connection was cancelled.
There are no trains - well, I could connect and spend 12 hours on trains...for what should be a 3 hour ride.
There are no busses.
It's very sad. We are simply not a first world country in these matters.
ALL OF THEM - through the FAA, Military Contracts for the original and continuing developments of planes and much more.
"roads" - so "rail roads" and "gravel road" and "concrete roads" are not roads?
Given a highly developed nation like ours, it would be impossible to get the proper right of ways and other things needed to build HSR. It MUST be a government effort.
The basic idea is quite simple - just like roads! That is, if we have HSR the economic activity and efficiency brought into being with it benefits just about everyone (except some airlines - but there is plenty of biz to go around).
Example - I live not far from Hartford. My son lives in Pittsburgh. It is an 8 hour drive - way too long for any casual visit and we are getting older. How can I get there?
We took a plane once - it took me 16 hours to return and I ended up driving the last 5 hours after a connection was cancelled.
There are no trains - well, I could connect and spend 12 hours on trains...for what should be a 3 hour ride.
There are no busses.
It's very sad. We are simply not a first world country in these matters.
No, we are not. I remember reading an article a while back in which a group of Europeans were shown a picture our trains and they laughed. They thought it was a joke, and couldn't believe it wasn't. To the rest of the world, our trains look like 19th century modes of transportation. And they're right. They are.
ALL OF THEM - through the FAA, Military Contracts for the original and continuing developments of planes and much more.
"roads" - so "rail roads" and "gravel road" and "concrete roads" are not roads?
Given a highly developed nation like ours, it would be impossible to get the proper right of ways and other things needed to build HSR. It MUST be a government effort.
The basic idea is quite simple - just like roads! That is, if we have HSR the economic activity and efficiency brought into being with it benefits just about everyone (except some airlines - but there is plenty of biz to go around).
Example - I live not far from Hartford. My son lives in Pittsburgh. It is an 8 hour drive - way too long for any casual visit and we are getting older. How can I get there?
We took a plane once - it took me 16 hours to return and I ended up driving the last 5 hours after a connection was cancelled.
There are no trains - well, I could connect and spend 12 hours on trains...for what should be a 3 hour ride.
There are no busses.
It's very sad. We are simply not a first world country in these matters.
we cant be...the sheer cost....all the people it will unhouse due to the thievery of eminent domain
all the crop land it will destroy
all the environment it will destroy
the economies it will destroy
and the shear cost of trying to build it
the COST, in not only time(aka man hours)(money) and equipment (also money) is very high
track (even the slow freight, or the standard passenger ) HAS to be kept with in guage ((((The distance between the inside edges of the rails of standard gauge track 4 ft 8½ in.)(on slow freight lines you have about an inch to an inch and a half play (going wider (you CANT go narrower or else the trucks (what a train wheel is called) will ""walk over the track"" (derail))))(on passenger tacks like amtrak the tollerence is even tighter of less than 3/4 inch.....on HSR you HAVE to be exact)( but some play (1/4 inch to 3/8 inch) is needed to prevent binding in curves)
every day tracks get ''beaten-up'' by weather, movement of the earth, vibration of trains running on them, rotting ties, loosening spikes, etc
track maintenance crews (also know as a maintenance of way team) have to inspect/ repair/ replace ties, spikes, connector plate, switches, etc....you also have different types of rail (weight of rail) like 70 rail, 90 rail, 110 rail, 150 rail, etc.....maintenance of way is not just track maintenance, but also maintaining the way (clearance) (ie shrubery that gets too close to the track)
also the radias of turns has to be considered, long passenger cars can not make a small radius'...then you alow have your switches (normally a straight with a curve turn off) rail experts need to know the difference between a #4 switch, a #7 switch, and a #9 switch....HSR will need its OWN right of ways...will require special radiuses for curves
Quote:
Among the requirements would be acquiring the right-of-way for tracks with “minimum 3-mile radius curves vs. half-mile radius for traditional commuter rail track,” for safety at higher speeds. The proposed route would arc through central Connecticut rather than parallel to existing tracks.
not to mention new tunnels for the Hudson river crossing, especially since many of the old tunnels are getting quite old:
Quote:
“If we don’t get two new tunnels in New York in the next dozen years, we’re going to have major problems,” Boardman said.
The current rail tubes under the Hudson River leading to Manhattan were thought to have a lifespan of about 20 more years, but damage from Hurricane Sandy is worse than feared, as erosion to wires and concrete accelerates. Closing even one of the 3-mile long tunnels will mean reducing the current capacity of 26 trains per hour to only six.
The last plan to build new tunnels under the Hudson was killed in 2010 , because rising costs made it too expensive for the states to fund. While the threat of losing Hudson River access is the primary worry, Amtrak’s currently proposed Gateway Project calls for a complete upgrade of the Northeast Corridor with faster trains, updated stations, new bridges and other infrastructure to support faster service.
one of the big ticket items that helps track maintenance is The Sperry Rail Car, a bright yellow vehicle fitted with ultrasonic and induction test equipment, is designed to detect internal rail defects not readily visible to the human eye. Defects that are found can then be immediately by a crew of track maintenance personnel......the newest variant of the car.....15 million dollars
snip........
to the west coast project:
The $68 billion project is already running behind schedule and won't be completed until at least 2028. The Los Angeles Times reports that there are still significant political and financial hurdles ahead: The system isn't fully funded yet, some parcels of land within the right-of-way haven't been acquired, and a deal with freight railroads hasn't been worked out yet. There's a very real risk the rail line won't be completed at all.
Meanwhile, the world has only a few short decades to tackle blossoming carbon emissions in time to keep global warming under so-called safe levels, defined as a rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius. On the world's current carbon emissions trajectory, we'll use up our total carbon budget by 2042. Amtrak's true high-speed rail line in the Northeast corridor, promising three-hour transits between Washington, D.C., and Boston (down from seven hours currently on the Acela), isn't slated for completion until 2040. Time is not on our side.
Given the incredible pressure that global warming is inflicting, we can't waste precious resources on high-speed rail. It's impractical to hope that truly high-speed rail—the kind that will compete with air travel—will arrive in time to do much good.
Instead, limited public transportation funds should be prioritized for climate-friendly projects that will pay off more than high-speed rail in the same time frame. Some options for politicians: 1) Expand the use of upscale electric buses, 2) support self-driving vehicle technology, and 3) regulate airline emissions.
That $68 billion California plans to spend on its high-speed rail system could buy 82,000 state-of-the-art electric buses, 55 times Greyhound's entire nationwide fleet. And they could start operating immediately. Dedicated bus lanes and congestion pricing have done wonders for reducing commute-hell in many cities, like London. There are ways to make intercity bus travel more appealing, too, as evidenced by the expansion of carriers like wifi-enabled MegaBus in recent years. Similar "curbside" buses are the fastest growing mode of intercity transport and are the most carbon-friendly way to travel medium to long distances in the United States.
Self-driving cars would also do wonders for the climate if they can fulfill their promise to virtually eliminate traffic. A recent Columbia University study showed that replacing New York City's fleet of taxis with an optimized swarm of self-driving cars would reduce operating costs (and presumably fuel use) by more than 80 percent. Plus, you'd have to wait only seconds to catch one. Of course, there are significant technical, cultural, and legal hurdles before this vision becomes a reality—but the potential is truly immense.
Short-haul flights, those 400 miles or less, are the single most carbon-intensive activity most of us ever do. The proportion of domestic flights that are short-haul (and thus could hypothetically be replaced with rail or bus travel) has been declining in recent years, thanks in part to a rise in video conferencing and frustration with security procedures. But total miles flown on airlines are still increasing in the United States and booming internationally. High-speed rail would do precious little to slow that growth any time soon. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to issue new rules pertaining to air travel by 2016. Since planes frequently fly overseas, the EPA is likely to coordinate its rules with the United Nations, which could result in the first-ever emissions standards for newly built aircraft.
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.
