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.
no it wont be less...it will be just about the same....only unhousing more people
hsr will need its OWN right of ways...will require special radiuses for curves
not to mention new tunnels for the Hudson river crossing, especially since many of the old tunnels are getting quite old:
You act like we didn't do any of these things when building our interstate system. Now it is a system we know we couldn't live without. Imagine the benefit we would get from HSR if it is as beneficial as our interstate system.
You act like we didn't do any of these things when building our interstate system. Now it is a system we know we couldn't live without. Imagine the benefit we would get from HSR if it is as beneficial as our interstate system.
But it wouldn't be as beneficial as our interstate system and HSR is something we could live without. We could take all that money being spent on a train that duplicates air travel to fix education, the VA, help the poor and many other needed programs.
Spending isn't "is this a good idea" (which it isn't), it is "is this the best idea"
But it wouldn't be as beneficial as our interstate system and HSR is something we could live without. We could take all that money being spent on a train that duplicates air travel to fix education, the VA, help the poor and many other needed programs.
Spending isn't "is this a good idea" (which it isn't), it is "is this the best idea"
I disagree, being able to travel around in our country is very beneficial. One could probably argue we could live without an interstate system too before we decided to construct it.
I disagree, being able to travel around in our country is very beneficial. One could probably argue we could live without an interstate system too before we decided to construct it.
People are not able to travel in our country?
Last time I checked we had air, rail, road and sea travel to just about any place you want to go and to even more places you didn't.
You act like we didn't do any of these things when building our interstate system. Now it is a system we know we couldn't live without. Imagine the benefit we would get from HSR if it is as beneficial as our interstate system.
even '''motherjones''' a far left rag says HSR is a waste of time and money.... especially when it comes to the environment and the effects of global warming
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.
even '''motherjones''' a far left rag says HSR is a waste of time and money.... especially when it comes to the environment and the effects of global warming
That article is more about criticizing how long it would take HSR to be active to have any real affect on the environment. I agree with them, we probably would be better off building a system for buses because we are too slow at building HSR.
We have a failing education system. We have people living on the streets. We have a healthcare system that is questionable. We have Veterans that are receiving sub standard care, and we are supposed to print enough money to pay for a HSR system? A system that historically has given benefit to only a few? There are a lot of projects that would be NICE to have, but we can't afford it. Our bridges and highways that you keep referring to are falling in ill repair and we can't seem to find the money to even bring them up to standard.
The rail infrastucture is best used for freight, not enough people want to ride a train for long distance travel.
People do not want to ride something that is lacking in service, thus is why we need to upgrade our rail. If people stopped driving on a road due to poor conditions of the road, you would say repave it, not let it be because people don't use it now.
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.
