Originally Posted By DAR <<If they can do it, we can do it.>> So you're agreeing with Governor Jindal.
Originally Posted By markymouse I have to wonder how much plans like these depend on state pride. Yes, on any given day there are enough people in Pittsburgh who need to be in Philadelphia to justify a high speed rail connector. But Tulsa, Oklahoma and Portland, Maine? The alternative Texas map is a good reminder that there are more than one idea out there. I'm pretty sure the average Texas businessman is more interested in connecting Houston with Dallas and Austin than getting to Meridian, Mississippi or Little Rock, Arkansas. By the way, I have an above average knowledge of US geography, and I have never heard of Meridian, Mississippi.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian,_Mississippi" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...sissippi</a>
Originally Posted By trekkeruss The Shanghai MagLev probably falls under the category of pride. I haven't been on the train, but from what I understand, as originally built, it doesn't serve much of a purpose. The line only has two stations: one at the airport and then the terminus station, which is nowhere near the center of Shangahi.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "By the way, I have an above average knowledge of US geography, and I have never heard of Meridian, Mississippi." Well, whatever you do, don't go on about your above average knowledge of the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I still don't understand the need for high-speed trains in the US. We already have an effective long-distance (high-speed trains aren't meant for short distances) transportation system in the US: the airlines. I lived in Europe and didn't have a car and got around extremely well using the train/bus systems. I loved it. But I never rode a high-speed train and did just fine. The problem is here in the US you have much greater distances than in Europe, which is why air travel is so prevalent here. I travel all the time all over the US on business - high-speed trains would never work for me (plus they would be much more expensive). And high-speed trains in the US would require massive infrastructure spending, which would never be recuped through train fare, unless they charged 10 times what an airline ticket costs and had as many passengers (not ever going to happen). But who would pay for an expensive high-speed train ticket when you can fly relatively cheaply and quickly? Some undoubtedly would, but businesses wouldn't pay for their employees to travel that way and that would kill their viability. Of course, the government could always subsidize high-speed train fare and keep the prices comparable to airfare. But is that really what we want? Do we really want to support businesses with tax dollars when they can't turn a profit themselves? If they can't turn a profit, the idea is not a good one. I would love to ride a high-speed train for fun once in a while, but shouldn't we be moving toward a more fiscally responsible era? Paying hundreds of billions of dollars (if not more) for an unnecessary mode of transportation seems irresponsible. Trying to keep up with the Joneses (France, Japan, etc.) isn't a good enough reason for me. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^High speed rail is good for the economy. It creates jobs buy building infrastructure and transporting people to regions that are poorly served by air carriers. It also alleviates traffic congestion on the ground and in the air. I don't know what state you're from, but I suggest you take a look at California's high speed rail plan. The idea will make a lot of sense once you know the benefits: <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean If only my area (LA/OC) was connected to San Diego, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Sacramento .... via high speed rail .. I would make more trips to those places. By car, is too long. And airlines are not only costly, they are a huge rigmarole process! The luggage issues, have to get there 2 hours before, etc. Trains reduce all that rigmarole.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 High speed trains wouldn't make too much sense for going between LA and NY, but LA and SF? Sure. Plenty of other routes I can think of too. Basically, if you can get there on the train in comparable (even less) time than by air, considering all the hassles of airports, arriving an hour early, and getting to and from each airport (train stations are typically near downtowns), it would make sense. From Hans' link <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/why.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca..../why.htm</a> <California's planned 220 mph high-speed train system will cost less than half as much as building more freeway lanes and airport runways and will increase mobility while cutting air pollution and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition to relieving traffic congestion by keeping cars off the roads, the system will eliminate traffic delays at existing at-grade railroad crossings by replacing crossings with overpasses or underpasses. And by moving people and goods quicker and cheaper than we do now, the system will boost our productivity to new heights. When it comes to safety, studies have shown that high-speed trains will reduce the number of traffic accidents on our roads and highways.> If that's true - less expensive than more roads and runways, and goes 220 mph, thus meaning LA-SF in two hours - it makes sense.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <California's planned 220 mph high-speed train system will cost less than half as much as building more freeway lanes and airport runways and will increase mobility while cutting air pollution and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition to relieving traffic congestion by keeping cars off the roads, the system will eliminate traffic delays at existing at-grade railroad crossings by replacing crossings with overpasses or underpasses. And by moving people and goods quicker and cheaper than we do now, the system will boost our productivity to new heights. When it comes to safety, studies have shown that high-speed trains will reduce the number of traffic accidents on our roads and highways.> Nice sales pitch. They forgot to add that high speed trains will increase the likelihood of rainbows spontaneously apprearing along the route. Please. How about an objective viewpoint? <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/high-speed-train-2166857-chsra-cost" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...sra-cost</a>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf From the link above: "If a high-speed train were economically feasible – that is, if revenue from anticipated operations were projected to be higher than capital and operating costs – private investors would be lining up to put money into it. The fact that our legislators want taxpayers to pony up means that even the project's supporters know it is an economic dog." Aren't you all getting sick of throwing tax money away? Sheesh.
Originally Posted By oc_dean You know ... it's this same way of thinking, and handling this ... is why many areas of California are sooooooooo behind on newer transit systems. You know that the only commuter of any type for Orange County is Metrolink on an existing Santa Fe railroad line. One line. In the meantime every freeway in OC is an utter joke. Ever try getting down to San Diego from OC on just about any hour??? Go ahead and try. It will be a miserable crawl in many spots throughout the highway. The more the legislators make up excuses to bring many huge metropolises for CA into the 21st Century ... the longer our commutes become every year. Many times ... I wish I had nothing to do with my native state .. and lived elsewhere ... because some think crawling along freeways is okay.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "Ever try getting down to San Diego from OC on just about any hour???" Ever take Amtrak between OC and San Diego?? If not, why not? Public transportation exists - people just don't use it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I've done Amtrak before. It's scenic and it's fun. BUT, I it's frequency is limited. Complimented with another rail option would increase the number of trains coming in and out throughout the SoCal region. Plus, high speed means I can get in and out of San Diego faster. The more time I'm in a city, and less on the rail, the better.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Public transportation exists - people just don't use it.<< It depends on what public transport system you're talking about it. If you are thinking about busses. EECH! Most inefficient way of getting around the SoCal (OC/LA) area! I can be in a traffic jam heading down to South Coast Plaza on the 405 .. and I would still get their earlier than a city bus every will. I've tried it. Between the wait for the various connections .. the constant stops at every 'bus stop' ... busses are ineffective means of getting around SoCal's vastness regions! Rail? Only one. The Metrolink. Not enough lines to connect enough areas. And from what I know ... it gets plenty of ridership for those living close enough to the line. LA has a few subways ... I've used the Red line cutting through Hollywood to downtown. Sometimes I felt like I was in New York. That line gets A LOT of ridership. So, really ... it's not that no one is using what we have ... It's that .. there's too little of it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean sorry.. >>busses are ineffective means of getting around SoCal's vastness regions!<< Vast. Not "vastness".
Originally Posted By Mr X To whomever made the comment about a 220mph train making the trip between LA and SF in two hours, you are making a lot of assumptions here. First of all, can the train travel on a total straightaway track through no populated areas, thus being able to maintain that 220mph speed for the entire journey? And, is this train going to be non-stop all the way from city to city? Assuming not, the more realistic journey time would probably be somewhere around 4 hours or more.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss As a point of reference, today's fastest conventional railed trains reach about 190mph, plans to raise the limit another 10mph in the not-too-distant future. One of the problems with going faster is the way the trains get their power, via pantograph. I believe at very high speeds, excessive wear on the pantograph and powerlines occur. The French TGV did set a record a couple of years ago, at 356mph: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ir_n3J5ABA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..._n3J5ABA</a>
