The vast size and distribution of the United States clearly makes high-speed transcontinental rail impractical compared to flying. However, completely ignoring the most populated corridors is insane.
Fast trains in regions like Boston-DC, Atlanta-Miami and San Francisco-San Diego make a lot more sense than flying when you factor in the time to get airports, traverse security and get on and off the plane. The Shinkansen in Japan is absolutely a marvel. Let's just do it!
Reshared post from +Maria Stepanov Sommerfield
The topic of discussion in my house this morning was how outdated and antique the US train system is compared to the rest of the world. I wish the US would get with times. The West Coast especially has a completely antiquated rail system.
Post imported by Google+Blog for WordPress.
Except in the US the rail track is owned by the freight companies and they have the right of way.
Other countries are jealous of our freight capabilities, and we utilize it to benefit what is left of our manufacturing economy.
To add high speed rail means adding more track, and that leads to 'Eminent Domain', NIMBY battles, and rolling back about a 100 years of wetland and nature protection.
In other words, it cannot and will not be done.
I think it's a concept that needs to be taken past bar-room conversation, at least. Eliminating traffic between large cities would be good, and if we cam offer more public transport, that's always good.
I work in the railroad industry during the day… You're all right in your views.
Another point is that U.S. government and the people expect the passenger railroad to be self-sufficient… And it never will be.
All over the world it is subsidized, just like roads and highways… But some reason the general public cannot grasp that concept here and therefore, the biggest issue, money, will never be allocated to it because it simply isn't as exciting as wind-farms or solar power.
Another issue, clearly evident in the above picture is the FRA's requirement of crash-worthiness. Each locomotive and coach is required to be of certain weight in order to, much like cars, protect its occupants. This standard is centuries old and rather irrelevant today.
The rest of the world does not have crash-worthiness standards… They have crash-avoidance standards. This allows for lighter, more efficient, and less expensive equipment.
The u.s. and FRA are heading in that direction too, but very slowly. Expect to see euro-like train in 20 years here.
As much as I love the idea of efficient trains, there are some issues that are hard to get past.
First of all, people hate mass transit. Especially in America, people love their personal space. Getting people out of a car and into mass transit is hard. Planes go 500mph, so a vastly faster mode of transport is one way to do it. However, at this time high speed rails may only go up to around half the speed of a commercial airline, AFAIK.
On top of that, there's no reason to think the TSA won't molest train stations, either.
I wasn't at all impressed with the trains that I rode in Europe. They were very much old and busted. Slathered in graffiti, broken windows that would not close, poor climate control, etc. Finding a seat was sketchy. I've heard that the Japanese trains are very nice, though.
Assuming that trains could be maintained well, and they filled a niche outside of plane flights (or if flights become prohibitively expensive in the future), they could work.
For example, suburban to city traffic is horrible around here. Offer to reduce someone's daily commute from 1+ hour to 30 minutes and you'll get passengers.
Well, at least California is proposing to rectify this with its Baby Bullet train between the Bay Area and SoCal. I voted for it, although I have no idea where the state thinks it's going to come up with the money for the project. But it's better to have the project on the table and be discussing funding than to shoot it down before it even enters that phase.
P.S. My favorite train system has to be the maglev system in Singapore. But the TGV isn't too shabby a runner-up.
We nearly got a light rail system in Florida, last year I think it was, until the governor sent all of the stimulus money back to Washington, because he thought it would ultimately lose money for Florida. I just hope it can be resurrected when this guy is out of office, because you pretty much can not live in Florida right now without owning a car.
Paging +Simon Campeau
Although freight lines owns the tracks, they don't have the "right of way"' that's a myth.
North American mainline tracks are not electrified, hence the standard loco. Also, standard diesel-electric rail engines are meant to go back and forth, and are often working in packs. An aero locomotive cannot do that.
Also, there's no need or an aero loco under 100 mph.
Amtrak and Via trains are not going any faster than 95 mph.
Also, mountains. It would be difficult ( read way too much expensive) to build train tunnels to have straight tracks in the adirondacks and in the Rockies.
There's not enough people in the mainlands to justify fast trains.
The only places where fast trains could be helpful, the relief is making it impossible.
Fly, bro.
I meant inlands
The Amtrak is already a better experience than flying for moving around the Northeast (though I'd rather fly from DC to Baltimore). There's a lot of stops, would high speed rail to make a huge difference? It's expensive and hard to secure the track. Washington, BWI, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Middle of New Jersey, New York- You're stopping 6 times in 250 miles. How long would a high speed rail be up to speed? Would it get the time down to 3 hrs?
The train is also being attacked by $25 and less professional bus service on the low end.
That should be "I'd rather fly from DC to Boston." Not Baltimore. Though if I had a helicopter that'd be cool too.
+Simon Campeau Thanks . You open up a vision I did not have. A+