As long as it’s a private enterprise funded by non-government money I don’t have a problem with high speed rail. It would not work around this area though and I don’t think it would work even in the more densely populated areas in OK.
Most of the Amtrak lines are a waste of money. The Amtrak lines were shut down here in OK years ago simply because no one was riding them. They were partially resurrected not too many years ago and it’s the same old thing; most people don’t care and the politicians and powers that be who promoted and shoved this back into being will not be caught dead riding an Amtrak train. Except for the initial photo-op in front of the news crews.
It’s the wheeled equivalent of the post office; a money losing, bloated bureaucracy.
If anyone follows the animated show The Simpsons, they had an episode about something similar. It was the Springfield Mono-Rail that was going to be the cure all.
The town got stuck with a worthless junk system and the cheerleader in charge was absconding with a suitcase full of cash.
We used to have low speed trolley cars that would get people across the river to get them to work. Once they got there, the three or four blocks of walking was OK. The price was a nickel. NYC has a subway. Please! Can somebody finish this story? I have no idea where I’m supposed to be going with it.
Maybe there is a point. Give us gasoline for $1.59 a gallon and we won’t need any speed rail. Give us the gasoline price we need and we’ll make our own jobs too. The same kind of people who caused the mortgage collapse are the same type who can’t find the four billion dollars they had last year who are the same type of people who bid on oil futures.
If money is just a toy, we’re all going to be held down for the rest of time. Nobody seems to know what to do about it either. People seem to protest a lot now, but the only reason they do is because it’s a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. The people seem to know that nobody can really attack their position if they don’t really have a position. For now, I’ll occupy Car Talk and avoid credibility.
Once they got there, the three or four blocks of walking was OK. The price was a nickel. NYC has a subway. Please! Can somebody finish this story? I have no idea where I’m supposed to be going with it.
I’ll finish it for you…
Back in the 40’s and 50’s…GM went around the country to cities and bought up trolly systems or influenced cities to get rid of trolly systems in favor of buses. GM was eventually take to court and found guilty of this…but the fine was pitiful.
As an infrequent visitor to the urban centers I am flabbergasted that there is no effort to deconstruct some of the more congested city centers and encourage the overcrowded population to move to less dense areas. When workers consider the time and cost of commuting the pay differential of a metropolis might not be so good. Personally, I would prefer to work an additional 2 to 4 hours each day as to spend that much time in bumper to bumper traffic.
With a train, you save the time getting to and from the stations, because they are in the hearts of the cities, and don’t have to arrive at the station two hours before boarding time. You are also spared the indignities the TSA supplies, not to mention that my fat ass fits in a train seat and my long legs have a lot more room. I’m all for trains.
Trains (or the “Tube”, “T”, or whatever) internal to a city are great - if they’re available. Normally you can park outside, and train in. Makes commuting so much easier - and quicker. This article was for the rail linking cities.
I’m not surprised that it fell through. Look at the investment (over decades), that the European governments have put into their systems, and it makes sense to keep them going - plus they’re used - a LOT. Here in the US, (on average) people want to have their car with them at all times, making even city-wide trains a risky venture, to say the least. We tend have a very different view of the life than the rest of the world, and even at $5 a gallon, fuel is still much cheaper her than in a lot of other countries. Just talk to people on vacation here from Europe. They’re amazed at how cheap things are.
I agree with Trombenik. I’m all for trains. I hate planes. Too small, too much hassle, have to arrive too early and go through all the indignities to get in a metal tube and share your space with so many people crammed so close together. Give me a train any day. I used them often when I lived in Europe. Cost was less than driving, didn’t have to pay to park, didn’t have to worry about getting your car stolen.
For a train to be cost-effective, population density has to be high and the distances traveled short. This fits Europe well, but not North America off the Northeast coast. It doesn’t really work in Cali because of the 300 miles between the Bay Area and LA. There already are trains for commuters.
I think trains would be a good alternative to commuter airlines for the (say) Reading PA–>Philadelphia type of flight. Most “hub” airports are already at capacity, and any snafu (like weather) results in lengthy delays due to the slower processing of air traffic due to instrument flight rules re: separation.
Given that a commuter plane carries a fraction of the passenger load of a mainline Boeing/Airbus…yet requires the same amount of ATC service and separation…having train “spokes” to serve a Class B airport “hub” would alleviate congestion and save fuel/time.
Trans-continental rail traffic makes little sense because of fuel savings at high altitude (thin air). A loaded state-of-the-art jet approaches 100 MPG (per revenue passenger) on flights over 1,000 mi…all at 500MPH. Try to match that speed in thick sea-level air, and efficiency would drop WELL below 100 §MPG.
“I think trains would be a good alternative to commuter airlines for the (say) Reading PA–>Philadelphia type of flight.”
I doubt it. There were plans more than 20 years ago to have a train from the Lehigh Valley International Airport to NYC, but it never materialized. Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton are almost close enough to be suburban NYC; still, no dice. I will say, though, that the train from the airport in St. Louis to the downtown area is sweet. I was there for a conference, and didn’t have to rent a car. It cost something like $12 each way.
Texases, you can already book a train (or bus) from Boston to Washington.
There used to be passenger trains from the Boston area to northern cities, but they all shut down due to lack of ridershiip. When I was a kid I recall one that used to stop at the train station on Elm Street in Manchester, NH. That was discontinued many, many years ago.
TSMB - yep, and if any true ‘high speed’ 200+ mph ones get built, that’s the first (and maybe only) place I’d build them.
But you make the good point - why build it if folks won’t use it? The Chinese are finding that out right now, with low ridership of their prized new trains…
I get the willies thinking that Medicare is being cut, taxes will increase, social security is hanging by a thread, the post office is bankrupt, NASA has been defunded, and people are talking about spending hundreds of billions (perhaps even a trillion) of dollars to build high speed rail systems that nobody wants and nobody needs that will put further strain on our already overstretched tax dollars…annually…for the foreseeable future.
Will a highspeed rail benefit this country…probably (in the long term).
But we have too many other pressing problems to worry about before we spend BILLIONS on something like this. Maybe when our economy is back on track…we’ve shored up Medicare and Social Security…then let’s start talking about it again.
I’m on our towns budget committee. We make these kind of decisions every year. We’ve been having a debate for 3 years now about funding a 10 mile rails to trails project. I’m all for it…would LOVE to have something like this in our town. But I’m NOT for funding a project like this when our high-school is in need of some basic but costly repairs…plus we had to spend $1million on new bridges after the floods we had…We just can’t ask people in these hard times for more money via higher taxes to fund this. Let’s fix the other problems first…then in a couple of years let’s look at it again. If things are right I’ll vote for it in the budget.
About 20 years ago, Amtrak was re-routed through my town. I live about 150 miles southeast of Chicago. The train left my town about 7:00 a.m. in the morning and would arrive in downtown Chicgo about 10:30 a.m. The train would leave Chicago about 8:00 p.m. and I would be back home around 1:30 p.m. This was a real convenience. When I have driven to conferences in Chicago, I have paid about as much to park the car as what it costs for the hotel room. The Amtrak is now back on its regular route and the C & O tracks that ran through my town have been pulled up and converted to a rails to trails. Every time I rode the train it was full.
While high speed rail travel would be great, I wonder if the present service might be upgraded so that schedules are maintained and perhaps passenger trains given priority over freight. If improvements attract more riders, then is the time to think about real upgrades.
I find the idea of 200 mph trains ludicrous. Unless these routes are non-stop between distant cities, the speed doesn’t really do that much good.
I would rather cross the continent in a non-stop 70 mph train than do it in a 200 mph train that has to stop in every city along the way. The non stop 70 will likely get there faster.
The one thing high speed rail has going for it is that it is more efficient and convenient than traveling by air.
You MUST mean in the future…Because the high-speed rail from Boston to NYC is NOT more convenient.
And to make high-speed rail more convenient they’ll have to add a LOT (THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS) of miles of tracks. Traveling East to West by train is one thing…Traveling North to South …in many parts of the country the tracks don’t even exist.
Mike, ask someone who has traveled by high speed rail, and he or she will probably tell you how much more convenient it is than air travel.
…and no, I don’t mean in the future. I mean right now, in places like Japan.
…and yes, I know the infrastructure would need to be built here in the US before it’s a viable option because it doesn’t yet exist. May I call you Captain Obvious?
We do have the Acela train from Boston to NYC…While it’s NOT the high-speed as the ones in Japan…it is a lot faster then the regular trains…And it’s very inconvenient. I’ve taken it a couple of times (only because it was a last minute trip and couldn’t get air fare).
Building the infrastructure is going to be the big obstacle. Besides the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS…there’s the politics. Not just Feds and state level…but the town level also. I don’t see it coming any time soon. Way too expensive for my tastes. Far better things to spend our tax dollars on with a lot more benefits.
