Posted on 03/29/2009 9:50:58 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
To Americans, high-speed trains evoke the gee-whiz factor of a trip to Tomorrowland: Ride futuristic cars that zoom you to a destination in a fraction of the drive time — without having to fight your way through an airport. Read a book, do paperwork, take a nap while you whoosh ahead in high-speed comfort.
To governments, they evoke benefits to the common good — reduced freeway traffic, lower carbon pollution and more jobs.
But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...
No problem.
Hey, we're all a bunch of rich folk, yaknow.
and it's for the "common good" to boot.
Don’t get me wrong, I love new technology and science.
It just seems priorities may be a bit out of whack when we are facing ma$$ive deficits as far as the ficsal eye can see.
If there were two LARGE cities in america that had a strong subway system and cars were optional(like NYC) then I would say build it.
But where’s the second NYC for the highspeed rail to go to?
Chicago.
Atlanta?
http://www.itsmarta.com/
Boston?
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/
Chicago?
http://www.transitchicago.com/
Europe is a third the size of America. And by "Asia," the author means Japan, which is even smaller. The vast distances of the American empire do not lend themselves to transit on earth.
I would, however, like to see private enterprise develop a transcontinental fast passenger service. I just don't think it would be financially viable.
But, but, but...
They can always build these to connect to the new Obamavilles sprouting up all across the country.
For the wee young ones its a reference to the camp called Hooverville in John Steinbecks novel and movie, The Grapes of Wrath.
Most people of chicago don’t own cars?
I find that hard to believe. But if it’s true, then I say build it. Nonstop initially. THen at some point make stops for cleveland and pittsburg if and when demand is there.
It’s risky though. It’s likely to turn into a colossal waste of money.
The term “high-speed” rail is generally abused. Typically...if the train was moving along at 75 mph...we’d probably consider that high-speed. For some folks...it’d have to be 100 mph or better to attach the title.
The Germans put in a major high-speed line between the Frankfurt airport and Koln (note: Koln has its own airport but barely does thirty flights a day, with most geared toward European travel). At the end of the planning process...they figured out that most regular people weren’t going use the train...so they geared the whole thing to first class travel only and for business-men...which meant an enhanced price tag ($100 for a 1-hour trip one-way). The amusing thing is that you could travel the trip in 75 minutes...so you barely shave 15 minutes off the trip. Four years have passed, and they rarely want to mention profits off this line.
Only in the case of LA to Vegas...could I see any rapid-rail making money. And if you can’t make a profit...then why do it?
As long as its done fairly, and properly (not like CCWs) I totally agree.
Our current traffic laws are insane, and nobody gets taught how to drive properly; thus our highways are clogged to the point of near total disfunction by a mix of drivers, and non-drivers behind the wheel.
That is close to average speed now. Trains used to travel much faster than that 25 years ago, but lack of track maintenance, and urban expansion have clipped the railroaders' wings.
Correct, and let's hope that there never is one!
Then we could get our high-speed bullet trains.
Come on Zero....do it!!
At least ONE person understands the situation. Congratulations, sir. ALL of Europe is 1/3 the size of the USA, and most of its countries are smaller than many of our STATES. Drop JAPAN into the USA and it would NOT be noticed for two or three weeks.
The very scale of the USA makes such train service impractical. Start your HIGH-SPEED rail trip in Boston heading west, and after several hours, your journey is merely just beginning.
Travel in the USA is geared at HUNDREDS of miles per hour over distances of THOUSANDS of miles. Thousands of flights per day bring millions of people to their destination with both speed and safety. Planes have become so fast that often the DRIVE to and from the airport takes more time than the flight.
There is NO NEED for this pie-in-the-sky (or rather cash-in-the-ground) project.
Acela dose not operate on the same type tracks. The high speed trains in Europe run on Dedicated Rails.. specialty built for those trains. That's the ONLY thing that runs on them.
Acela runs on essentially the same rails that were built in the 19th and early 20th century. Sharing rail passenger and freight operations.
I don't believe that in today's economy.. that American can afford to put in a true transcontinental high speed rail system.. the land alone would cost too much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.