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.
An Amtrak train from LA to Chicago takes over 40 hours as opposed to a 3 1/2 hour plane ride, so there's no way that HSR would work due to the lack of density between the two cities, on top of the 10-plus years required for an environmental review.
HSR will work fine but mostly as regional service. Chicago to Cleveland Atlanta to Washington, DC to NY, Houston to Atlanta/New Orleans
and it will be much nicer than the hell that flying currently is...
Certainly more comfortable and a more well-behaved class of fellow passengers. Furthermore, less time going through security (At most stations at least), a much more organized boarding process, and I've never encountered a lost bag or item.
I've taken rail services in the UK many times. You buy your ticket, get on the train at the station no TSA nonsense and the train leaves. More leg room, more space period. Its just easier and more comfortable. Train leaves from the city and arrives in the city center.
An Amtrak train from LA to Chicago takes over 40 hours as opposed to a 3 1/2 hour plane ride, so there's no way that HSR would work due to the lack of density between the two cities, on top of the 10-plus years required for an environmental review.
Ohhh what the ****.
Does everyone that uses I-80 between Chicago and Sacramento drive from Chicago to Sacramento?
How does everyone have a brain fart whenever HSR comes up? Like the Interstate Highway System, most people on the roads are making local or regional trips. Chicago riders are going to travel to Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, etc. They will obviously fly to California. That has nothing to do with the viability of linking a dozen cities between Chicago and California.
High speed rail for passengers.
=
only HIGH POPULATION areas ONE WAY NO STOPS.
can be largely automated if there are no accidents conductors don't need to do anything.
rural areas = use cars no high speed until they get into large cities
NYC to San Francisco
NYC to HOUSTON
NYC to MIAMI
NYC to WASHINGTON DC
vice versa.
if small towns want it too bad they need to meet the population density threshold first.
in the scale of dense large cities
PROBLEM SOLVED.
no reason not to have them.
perhaps one high speed rail to each state later on
BUT NOT NOW ONLY DENSELY POPULATED AREAS MAKE SENSE.
that is the compromise I would make with the magnetic bullet trains if they want it.
public transportation only makes sense if your population density is high after all
steps: for high speed
1. high speed for regional transportation
2. get off and take local transportation once in area.
3. walk/bike/taxi when it gets close to said area
done
we can also have high speed freight on trains instead of on planes.
We have these things called laws that must be followed.
Seems to me it may have more to do with attitude. Where there's a will there's a way. We tackled big projects like the Hoover dam and the Golden gate bridge smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression.
Seems to me it may have more to do with attitude. Where there's a will there's a way. We tackled big projects like the Hoover dam and the Golden gate bridge smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression.
There is no logical reason for HSR to not exist in the United States.
That is why conservatives oppose HSR.
Thank you for this infallible logic.
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.