Jauronimo Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 As Alaska Darin pointed out, there really isn't much demand for highspeed rail in this country as you still have the problem of, how do I get around once I get off the train. Instead of renting a car or emptying your wallet on cab fare, most Americans will simply take their own car. So spending billions on a large project for which there is no public demand and offers a mode of transportation that is slower and often marginally less expensive than flying is the epitome of stupid. Its easy to forget that nations like China and India, as much as they are growing exponentially, still have a long way to go. The infrastructure in China just isn't up to par with the United States. Few people own cars in China, therefore travel by rail is really the only option. There are roads but they aren't exactly the interstate highways that we have here. They are rough, poorly maintained, poorly marked, no on ramps or off ramps, unlit, and since they really aren't policed, there are no traffic laws. Right of way is determined by whoever honks the loudest and drives the fastest. And when you share the road with any manner of cart, bicycle, cow, bus, moped, motorcycle and autorickshaw, your speed pretty much maxes out at 30 mph which makes driving long distances in the less developed world a nightmare. While we are comparing this country to those decades behind, why don't we all just walk. Its better for the environment and it works great in Angola.
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I hear those things are awfully loud They glide as silent as a cloud.
Jauronimo Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 They glide as silent as a cloud. Is there a chance the track could bend?
KD in CA Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Mass transit is a feel good thing for liberals. Look at me, I renounce the the individuality of a private car to join the masses on approved public transportion. Of course it fits in with their "Goverment knows best" mindset. Don't forget the 'shiny new toy' aspect. I take mass transit to work along with tens of thousands of people on 50 year old Metro-North trains. The problem isn't the 'speed', the problem is it costs a fortune to keep 50 year old train cars operating. For a fraction of the proposed spending on this 'high speed' idiocy, they could replace every train car in the MNR and LIRR systems. And probably every other system in the country. We already have mass transit systems in the only places they will be used -- in large urban areas.
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Is there a chance the track could bend? Not a chance my Hindu friend!
Magox Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 The ICE trains in Germany are faster then any train in the USA. 226 MPH is pretty damn fast in my book Ok, seriously, you are approaching Conneresque levels
Chef Jim Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) The ICE trains in Germany are faster then any train in the USA. 226 MPH is pretty damn fast in my book "Oooooh mommy look, fast, shiney twains." And as I've said before the only high speed trains that would have heavy use would be a train from LA/SD to Vegas. There are a lot of people that drive to Vegas that would take a high speed train in a second. LA-SF would be a waste. I have lots of people the travel up here for business and or pleasure and only one drives and that's because he's cheap. Hopping a plane from LA to SF is like taking a bus it's so simple and cheap. Edited October 24, 2011 by Chef Jim
Joe Miner Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 "Oooooh mommy look, fast, shiney twains." And as I've said before the only high speed trains that would have heavy use would be a train from LA/SD to Vegas. There are a lot of people that drive to Vegas that would take a high speed train in a second. LA-SF would be a waste. I have lots of people the travel up here for business and or pleasure and only one drives and that's because he's cheap. Hopping a plane from LA to SF is like taking a bus it's so simple and cheap. There are a few locations that people might use them. I could see the state of TX perhaps make decent use of them as well. It's just big enough to be a pain in the ass to drive around, but not big enough to make flying necessary. If you could turn a 5 hour car trip into a 1 to 1.5 hour train ride, that could be worth it.
IDBillzFan Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 "Oooooh mommy look, fast, shiney twains." And as I've said before the only high speed trains that would have heavy use would be a train from LA/SD to Vegas. There are a lot of people that drive to Vegas that would take a high speed train in a second. LA-SF would be a waste. I have lots of people the travel up here for business and or pleasure and only one drives and that's because he's cheap. Hopping a plane from LA to SF is like taking a bus it's so simple and cheap. Not to mention, if you're going to do LA-SF, it's only worthwhile if you have stops in/near San Jose and Oakland. Otherwise, a train going LA to Vegas would be the ticket. The train they keep talking about would put you in Vegas in less than 90 minutes. Put a bar on that thing, and it's a no-brainer.
Pete Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Ok, seriously, you are approaching Conneresque levels I am merely pointing out that Germany has fast trains from personal experience. I love how some are so quick to try and belittle on this board Edited October 24, 2011 by Pete
Alaska Darin Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 There are a few locations that people might use them. I could see the state of TX perhaps make decent use of them as well. It's just big enough to be a pain in the ass to drive around, but not big enough to make flying necessary. If you could turn a 5 hour car trip into a 1 to 1.5 hour train ride, that could be worth it. And how many people need to do that every day/multiple times a day? Because that's the only way things like that are economically feasible. Trains are VERY expensive.
Captain Hindsight Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 High speed rail isn't for "advanced" countries. It's for TINY countries. The places where it's successful are generally the size of individual U.S. states with a very dense population. Germany's land mass is about the size of Montana, with a population density that is about triple that of California. Imagine shoehorning the populations of New York state, Texas, and California into Montana. That's Germany. Yeah, it's all about "advanced". Countries like Germany have virtually no choice on things like high speed rail, because they simply can't build an automotive infrastructure that would be cost effective. They already have intricate mass transit in each major metropolitan area, which makes arterial connections between those places even more feasible.** **This means when you take a high speed train between large European cities, you still have good transportation options available. In America, you're still pretty much stuck renting a car or taking taxis. Now factor in the exorbitant cost of train travel, coupled with the hassle of TSA, and voila, you have virtually no reason to ever get on a train. It's easy to sit back and pretend that "High Speed" rail would work in America because it works other places but there are VERY limited applications in this country where it may work. It's silly to waste the time or money on it, given what Amtrak has already taught us. Interesting take. I hadnt really thought of it that way. I think it would interesting to have high speed rail connecting LA to NYC but the way the world works today, It doesn make much sense. The size of this country is the big problem with that.
Joe Miner Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 And how many people need to do that every day/multiple times a day? Because that's the only way things like that are economically feasible. Trains are VERY expensive. Good point. Probably not enough.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Trains are VERY expensive. YOU IDIOT! DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT IS WHAT A 'MILLIONAIRE'S TAX' IS FOR?
Magox Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I am merely pointing out that Germany has fast trains from personal experience. I love how some are so quick to try and belittle on this board Well at least you consider equating someone to Conner is indeed to "belittle" one. Also, the speed of the trains have nothing to do with the substance of the topic.
Alaska Darin Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Interesting take. I hadnt really thought of it that way. I think it would interesting to have high speed rail connecting LA to NYC but the way the world works today, It doesn make much sense. The size of this country is the big problem with that. It's almost 2800 miles. That would be a nightmare and if it only stopped a few places, you're still looking at an entire day traveling for a significantly higher cost than air travel.
Magox Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 The reason why it works in Japan and Europe is simple, population density + tight land mass = economic feasibility When grownups make decisions, they look into these things, they don't care how fast or cool they are, they see if it is economically viable.
Chef Jim Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 It's almost 2800 miles. That would be a nightmare and if it only stopped a few places, you're looking at an entire day traveling for a significantly higher cost than air travel. I'm someone who used to not like to fly. But even if train travel was significantly lower I'd feel much safer in the air. Also when I travel I want to get there as quickly as possible.
Magox Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I'm someone who used to not like to fly. But even if train travel was significantly lower I'd feel much safer in the air. Also when I travel I want to get there as quickly as possible. yeah, but you would miss the scenic view of the 230mph train
GG Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I'm someone who used to not like to fly. But even if train travel was significantly lower I'd feel much safer in the air. Also when I travel I want to get there as quickly as possible. Trains are a push in the highly congested NE corridor. Door to door, you're about the same flying vs car vs train. But speaking of cost, try to rationalize $500 roundtrip NYC-DC on Acela vs $10 roundtrip BoltBus. Those $$$ billions are better spent building another highway lane.
Recommended Posts