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

[Mini 9]

I would prefer we have a ton of these over aircraft.

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

[Paul F.]

At the prices the state of california is quoting, we could buy and operate a pretty damn big fleet of aircraft for nearly a century...

[Bill in NC]

Yep, the capital cost are so high that there is never breakeven.

However, heavy rail works very well for freight in the U.S.

Why not spend the billions on expanding and electrifying as much freight rail as possible?

And introduce tax incentives to cut down on coast-to-coast truck traffic (heavy trucks cause the most damage to roads and bridges)

Use trucks for short-to-medium range deliveries from the rail terminals (some shorter routes could be handled by electric vehicles)

The above would cut petroleum consumption and save wear and tear on the existing road network.

[kap]

Paul F. wrote:
At the prices the state of california is quoting, we could buy and operate a pretty damn big fleet of aircraft for nearly a century...

And that is just a quote!

[Thrift Store Scott]

Bill in NC wrote:
Yep, the capital cost are so high that there is never breakeven.

However, heavy rail works very well for freight in the U.S.

Why not spend the billions on expanding and electrifying as much freight rail as possible?

And introduce tax incentives to cut down on coast-to-coast truck traffic (heavy trucks cause the most damage to roads and bridges)

Use trucks for short-to-medium range deliveries from the rail terminals (some shorter routes could be handled by electric vehicles)

The above would cut petroleum consumption and save wear and tear on the existing road network.

Nah, it'll never happen; that plan is waaaay too sensible and logical.

[sekker]

Thrift Store Scott wrote:
[quote=Bill in NC]
Yep, the capital cost are so high that there is never breakeven.

However, heavy rail works very well for freight in the U.S.

Why not spend the billions on expanding and electrifying as much freight rail as possible?

And introduce tax incentives to cut down on coast-to-coast truck traffic (heavy trucks cause the most damage to roads and bridges)

Use trucks for short-to-medium range deliveries from the rail terminals (some shorter routes could be handled by electric vehicles)

The above would cut petroleum consumption and save wear and tear on the existing road network.

Nah, it'll never happen; that plan is waaaay too sensible and logical.
Depending on the rail density, this model could even work with electric-powered trucks for local distribution.

[Doc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw&feature=player_embedded#

[GuyGene]

Bill, you got it right, but, unfortunately, Scott probably got it right too (:. Two rights make it wrong...

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

[freeradical]

Paul F. wrote:
At the prices the state of california is quoting, we could buy and operate a pretty damn big fleet of aircraft for nearly a century...

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.

[macphanatic]

GuyGene wrote:
Bill, you got it right, but, unfortunately, Scott probably got it right too (:. Two rights make it wrong...

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

I think the idea is to replace air travel. The northeast corridor airspace is too crowded. When weather turns bad in one of the major cities, air traffic along the corridor is negatively impacted.

I would much rather take a train from Philly to Boston or Philly to Orlando if it made sense. A high speed train could make those trips in less than 2 and 4.5 hrs respectively. Considering that Philly to Orlando is a 2.5 hr flight, plus time for security, waiting before the flight, etc, train travel would take no longer. Unless you can fly business or first class, train travel is much more civilized.