Riding on one of these was far better than an airliner.
Posted on 03/01/2006 10:14:13 AM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Researchers at Purdue University are mapping a plan for the future of the nation's interstate highways. They provided details Tuesday of a vision of what a road trip might look like 40 years from now.
Researchers say the plan would take drivers off the roads and put them onto the rails. High-speed passenger trains would whisk people along the interstate quicker than the cars and trucks rolling alongside. A trip from Indianapolis to Chicago could take less than an hour.
"If you chose to travel by high-speed rail rather than by highway, that four-hour trip would take you approximately 50 minutes," said Dr. Bonnie Savage, Purdue University.
Savage spent three years researching congestion on interstate highways. She says within ten years, more than half of an average motorist's time will be spent sitting still in traffic jams. Dr. Savage says traffic congestion costs the country about $78 billion a year in lost productivity, wasted fuel and other expenses.
The idea for a new national transportation network is based on an old one. Planners invented the current interstate highway system exactly 50 years ago. The new proposal upgrades the original and would serve the region's needs for the next 40 years.
The new plan calls for putting cars and trucks in separate lanes on rural highways like parts of I-65. Truckers would use their own, exclusive lanes, side-by-side in the country and on elevated highways in the city.
"Of major concern to us in the state of Indiana is increased freight movements. We are in the center of the United States. We're 24 hours away by truck from 80 percent of the US population that consumes goods and services," said Tom Sharp, INDOT commissioner.
Planners say the system would pay for itself by getting rid of a pattern of transportation waste. They suggest corporate travelers, as well as ordinary drivers, can save fuel, time and resources. Drivers would utilize wider lanes, and find less congested traffic.
State officials expect the plan will be attractive enough to draw federal dollars to refurbish the interstate system.
"This isn't something where we say, 'This would be nice if it was a shorter trip.' This impacts us. This impacts our lifestyle. This impacts our economics. We are truly set on the verge of needing this. We are lucky to have the opportunity to develop something like this in the time frame where it's needed," Savage said.
If plan is going to succeed, drivers will have to use it. No one knows how enthusiastic people will be about giving up their wheels and letting someone else do the driving for them. But according to a WISHTV.COM epoll Tuesday, some 71 percent of respondents say they´d absolutely use it.
Riding on one of these was far better than an airliner.
It's not going to work.
1: How will the accounting be to determine the payback? Will motorists just turn over the money they would have spent on gasoline/diesel over to the government? Or will the government own and operate the rail system?
2: If the government operates the system, then there will be extreme pressure from local politicians to put stops in their hometowns, thereby negating the time savings. The rail workers will then use their union muscle to featherbed the jobs, causing massive inefficiencies and creating a need for operating subsidies from tax funds.
3: Where will the space for rental car operations be at downtown passenger terminals? Downtown retail space is at a big premium and will drive up the cost of rentals, thereby negating part of the 'cost savings' over driving.
4: If rail transportation is so much more efficient, then why is an ever increasing of long-distance freight hauling being carried by trucks? It seems that just market forces alone would keep virtually all long distance freight operations going by rail.
5: Most intercity travel is by air. Rail just cannot compete with the cost and time of flying. Amtrack is competitive and profitable only in the Boston-Baltimore gigaplex area. A Chicago to Indianapolis high speed rail system cannot compete with Southwest Airlines.
Yeah, a couple of scum-bums.
They consistently fail to factor in human behavior and, speicifcally, American preferences. Indy to Chicago in 50 mins is great but what about Indy to the four stops someone is going to make in Chicago: shopping on Michigan Ave; have lunch with Aunt Betsy in Northbrook; stop by NWestern and see how your alma mater looks; and finally go visit a friend on the way back south.
Americans want to drive their cars. Mass transport makes sense going very long distances or moving great numbers of people in small areas (ie Manhattan)
What is it that you can't understand about this Willie? Or is your pro-union, pro-train bias so great that you just don't care to consider it?
I laid out a decent plan for how to use trains in one of your threads one time, and you ignored it. If you could quickly load/unload small cars on trains, then they could be useful for commuting medium distances. Quickly meaning load/unload in less than 20 seconds. No need to leave the car, just plug it into the train for power and stay in it. No need to mingle with smelly boom-boxers in the rail commune, just stay in your own car and surf the net while you travel.
You didn't like my idea. Maybe you just hate cars too much even when they ride on trains.
Nothing is idiot-proof to a sufficiently talented idiot...
nah.. most cars already are fully capable of 100mph+. we just need to get the gov't to allow us to go that fast.
The whole point of a conveyor system is that the car would use no fuel while on it. It could be powered by nuclear generated electricity and reduce our oil consumption by a substantial amount.
Yes, it would be extremely capital intensive - but then so were laying the original railroad tracks, building and maintaining airports and most of all - building and maintaining our highway system.
Don't quite agree.
Can a blithering idiot still kill themselves, for example, in a modern elevator?
I can't think of too many ways to do that, but I guess it might be somehow possible.....
It will take hours to load and unload the traincars.
Good idea, but the point would actually be a bit deeper than that. Everyone would have to go this fast. This would mean that no one would be able to individually control their car. The plus side is that it would eliminate traffic jams (for the most part) since the space between cars and speed would be the same. I'd take the first part of that to begin with, then we can bump up the speed.
How is a high speed train any more "socialist" than the freeway system?
You'd need far better highways and automobile dynamic controls for +100 MPH. The average driver is not as good as Earnhardt (Jr or Sr), or Patrick.
You got it.
Individual vehicles, but an overall control system.
I like it. No more traffic jams on the freeway.
Elevator surfing.
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.