The history of the bullet train, and its future in the USA

[mattkime]

>>Passenger trains will not work in America... just too much space in between; still need a car when you get to destination...

yes, because this word is the best of all possible worlds 8-)

[Ombligo]

^

What you don't expect the same security headache on a high speed train?

It's a complete waste of money. I agree with Bill on subsidizing freight rail for hauls over 150 miles to get trucks off the road and then work at getting those trucks to run off clean energy for the short haul from the rail lines. UPS is already partway there with alternative fuel trucks and others need to join in.

Further, the auto-train idea could be expanded and cheapened for passenger vehicles. Set up hubs near (but not in) centrally located major cities for those trains hauling cars /passengers. Off the top of my head I think hubs could be Springfield, Mass (serving Boston & NYC); Balitome (philly, DC); Atlanta; Cleveland; South Bend, IN; Memphis, Kansas City; Austin, TX, Denver, Salt Lake City; Las Vegas; Spokane, Tacoma; Fresno, CA (san Fran and LA. All are just a few hours drive from most of the population.

Price the ride near airline cost plus $100 for car (put most luggage in it.)

I know I'd be happy to have my car with me instead of dealing with rentals.

[Article Accelerator]

Mini 9 wrote:
I would prefer we have a ton of these over aircraft.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_fasttrack/

I agree wholeheartedly. So much nonsense associated with flying these days.

[Doc]

Rail or Fail
The alternatives would cost more.

Getting California’s train up and running will be expensive. But doing nothing would cost two to three times more. Why? Currently, gridlocked lanes waste $20 billion in fuel and productivity annually. And it’s only going to get worse. The Golden State is growing — quickly. By 2030, another 12 million people could be calling it home. Without an infrastructure overhaul, drivers can expect a 10 percent congestion increase every year. To accommodate the billion trips between cities that residents and visitors will make annually, the state would need to build 3,000 more miles of freeway lanes, five more commercial airport runways, and 90 more airline departure gates. The price: at least $100 billion. Oh, and all that construction wouldn’t alleviate traffic; it would simply keep pace with it.

When I was living in Los Angeles, newspapers were predicting that gridlock on the 405 would finally reach 24 hours a day by 2010.

They also wrote that traffic fatalities would be down to nil by that time because nobody could drive fast enough to get hurt in an accident.

Did any of that happen?

[kap]

Doc wrote:

When I was living in Los Angeles, newspapers were predicting that gridlock on the 405 would finally reach 24 hours a day by 2010.

Did any of that happen?

Don't know if it has happened but it sure feels like 24 hour parking lot!

[mattkime]

>>Set up hubs near (but not in) centrally located major cities for those trains hauling cars /passengers.

>>I know I'd be happy to have my car with me instead of dealing with rentals.

[Mini 9]

how does the other side of the slice get cut?

[cbelt3]

Hah. Rail is not as heavily subsidized as highways. Or rivers. Switch road money to rail and you would see... Nothing. Because most communities are built around roads.

[Paul F.]

freeradical wrote:

Oh boy, don't get me started on this. The voters in California got sold a bill of goods on high speed rail. We were told that high speed rail between SF and LA is somehow "public transportation". It is nothing of the sort. It is $10 Billion down the toilet. Now if that money were used to subsidize city buses - and NOT light rail - then you could argue that the money was doing good.

Oh, you didn't hear?
They're now quoting 45 Billion dollars for the San Franciso to Los Angeles leg alone.

I happen to think that we could be using trains more, and more efficiently, than we are now in this country.
Having the current system of Government planning, buying, building, and operating train systems inflates the cost to about ten TIMES what it should cost, and makes it a terrible idea and so costly that it could indeed bankrupt states. Including California. Or maybe especially California.