High speed trains in the US...yes or no?

Papazita · #1 12-30-2009, 06:32 PM

New train service opening up in China... 245 miles per hour.

Do you think we'll ever see something like this in the US?
Pros? Cons?

Discuss...

Stanley Design · #2 12-30-2009, 06:36 PM

Not for a while I'd say. The US doesn't have the money to throw around for something that isn't necessary.

geeza · #3 12-30-2009, 06:45 PM

I don't think we'll have anything like this with the current infrastructure.
As far as being "unnecessary", I think the current fuel issues and need for alternatives makes it pretty necessary, esp. considering the cost of air travel.

guitar ed · #4 12-30-2009, 06:46 PM

We are debating this question in CA. And I think not. The logical route, from LA to SF can't work because too many communities on the SF Peninsula don't want it in their towns, at all. And many other towns in between want it to stop in their town, thus slowing it down.

Instead, it will run from somewhere in LA to some useless locale in the SF Bay Area, and nobody will take it. It will be built to run at some insane speed, that will never be approached because it will be stopping & starting too often to get to top speed.

Oh, and it will run parallel to the San Andreas earthquake fault for several hundred miles, and cross it a time or 2 as well.

I am a big believer in democracy, but there are times when it is more of a problem than a solution. And this is one of those times.

edg

TBird1958 · #5 12-30-2009, 06:52 PM

The U.S. *could* do this, the ability and technology is already here the biggest issue is that the Chinese system and all similar ones worldwide use a dedicated ( not shared with a freight railroad) right of way built to a very high standard. That is a very expensive proposition. Just as an FYI tho, there is high speed service on the U.S. East Coast between Washington DC, Philadelphia and NYC and it competes favorably with airplanes.

tomd999 · #6 12-30-2009, 07:00 PM

Hi,

Maybe in the Boston-DC corridor and out on the left coast, but not for the rest of the country. Let's hope it won't be run by Amtrak.

Tom

WookieeForLife · #7 12-30-2009, 07:02 PM

I hope so. It'd be cool.

Papazita · #8 12-30-2009, 07:03 PM

Just think of what a juicy target miles and miles of unguarded high-speed train track would make for the next nutjob with a bomb in his Speedos.

At any rate... A day trip from Ohio to NYC? I'd use it!

WookieeForLife · #9 12-30-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papazita

Just think of what a juicy target miles and miles of unguarded high-speed train track would make for the next nutjob with a bomb in his Speedos.

At any rate... A day trip from Ohio to NYC? I'd use it!

Isn't it amazing how in some parts of the world, people can leave their bikes out and know nobody will steal it?

EDIT: point being, some parts of the world don't have to deal with as many crazy people.

burk48237 · #10 12-30-2009, 07:44 PM

I could see a few connections in the MW that would make sense. trains are certainly far less hassle then air travel. Chicago to Detroit flights are always full on week days.

warwick.hoy · #11 12-30-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBird1958

The U.S. *could* do this, the ability and technology is already here the biggest issue is that the Chinese system and all similar ones worldwide use a dedicated ( not shared with a freight railroad) right of way built to a very high standard. That is a very expensive proposition.

This is the problem. It's feasible and I'd love to see it happen but currently freight traffic has the right of way; passenger traffic be damned. A whole new infrastructure would have to be built. I could get on a train from Spokane to Seattle which would be a beautifully scenic trip; if it didn't leave at 3am (2 hours after it's scheduled departure).

rr5025 · #12 12-30-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBird1958

The U.S. *could* do this, the ability and technology is already here the biggest issue is that the Chinese system and all similar ones worldwide use a dedicated ( not shared with a freight railroad) right of way built to a very high standard. That is a very expensive proposition. Just as an FYI tho, there is high speed service on the U.S. East Coast between Washington DC, Philadelphia and NYC and it competes favorably with airplanes.

+1

I wish we'd get reliable rail service here. I loved being able to take trains anywhere I wanted in England. I absolutely hate the airlines, the CEO's are all greedy bastards in my opinion. They cut thousands of jobs so they can get a bonus. They charge you for bags and for cans of soda. On my transatlantic flight I couldn't even get a free beer. I go from London to Edinburgh and free beer. Trains would definitely help alleviate the fuel problems here, I know if I could have taken a train from school to home I would have only driven home at the beginning and end of the year.

Pilgrim · #13 12-30-2009, 08:28 PM

We absolutely need to rebuild the passenger train infrastructure in the US, and high-speed should be part of it. It won't pay its own way, so the gummint will have to support it, but there is no good option.

jmain · #14 12-30-2009, 08:48 PM

I fully agree that we definitely need to refocus on passenger train transportation, to include high-speed. Makes the most sense to do it now and not wait. Train travel was diminished both passively and actively by advocates of the automobile, and further by deregulation.

We've neglected most aspects of our infrastructure in the US since the early 80s. It is in deperate need of funding and repair. Potable, waste and storm water infracture must be funded, but should be put as much in the roads? Its a question we have to ask. Is the automobile infrastructure, which is not sustainable at the rate of growth, worth the infusion of capital in the long run? We do need to invest in it for the short and near term, but we have to think about alternatives for the future.

Papazita · #15 12-30-2009, 08:58 PM

Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!

Jimmy Bones · #16 12-30-2009, 09:32 PM

They're building one in Honolulu.

Honk'n_down-low · #17 12-30-2009, 09:43 PM

I think you'll see the investment for the Northeast Corridor - some other select spots. Freight via trains are already on the rise - the combination of the rise of business via freight and the need for high speed rail and I think you'll see it happen - but I am an optimist too : )

**jmattbassplaya** · #18 12-30-2009, 09:47 PM

Pros - Fuel efficient, very fast, alternative to air travel AND interstate travel, safe, can be used commercially and publicly, over time will become very cheap.

Cons - Can`t go everywhere, will cost a lot of money at first.

Honestly I`d LOVE to have a train station throughout TN. By car it takes 6 hours to get from Memphis to Knoxville and by these proposed trains it`d only take 2 hours and change. Now apply that same logic to many large states with many major cities spread out across it... nice...

iamlowsound · #19 12-30-2009, 10:03 PM

There is one on the east coast, from DC to Boston. Not that fast though.

There is talk of one from Windsor to Montreal here in Canada and I think that is a fantastic idea. Montreal to Toronto in 2 hours? Yes, please! It would turn that entire corridor into one big city and would be a huge boost to businesses and the economy.

lowsound

Pilgrim · #20 12-30-2009, 10:05 PM

The west is a tough area to make work - but just as an example, the path from Cheyenne, WY to Colorado Springs, CO is a straight line North-South.

I've said for years that if there was a train that made two runs each way per day on that path, they'd fill every car. They'd hit Cheyenne - Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs. It would be a lot better than driving I-25.