High Speed Rail

Why is no one talking about high speed rail as an alternative to automobiles in the US? If we would invest in high speed rail (which much of the rail network is already in place), we could easily travel across the country more quickly, while reducing our need to expand expensive highways and airports. Someone once told me that it costs the same to build an on-ramp to a highway as it does to lay 100 miles of railroad track. Getting a country-wide high speed rail network seems so obvious to me, but why is no one talking about it? We're America...we should have the worlds best high speed train system!! Not to mention the jobs it would create in operating and building the system!!!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 2, 2008 at 8:06pm: FYI:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Konrad Roeder on October 26, 2008 at 11:51am: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1QGNsRg74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jviyBx5MMqQ; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on September 2, 2008 at 11:32pm: Lots of leftists are talking about rail. And have been for over 30 years. Here is one link:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/

Once people quit voting for Republicans, we will have rail all over the country.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 3, 2008 at 8:09am: Really, I don't see it as a Republican or Democrat issue. In fact, I don't know why Republicans aren't leading the charge, because it would greatly reduce government spending on highways, airports, etc....which would allow for lower taxes, and ironically, lower taxes on gasoline. It's also a safety issue, because automobile travel is extremely dangerous compared to rail. I don't have kids yet, but when I do, I hope we have extensive rail so I can feel more comfortable about traveling with my family.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stan Smith on September 3, 2008 at 10:39am: Mike, I think the reason they aren't doing more about it is that it makes too much sense ;). On the serious side, I'm glad you put the calrail ref on here. Ironically, I live in CA and didn't even know about it. I'm 190 mi. north of Sacramento, though, If they get it completed in my lifetime, I would rather go to So Cal via the rail than fly down there. I think that it should be extended to Seattle as well.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by neil cox on September 3, 2008 at 11:21am: USA has spent a trillion dollars on medium speed rail the last few decades. Typically the projects came in way over budget and have benefited comparatively few. Why should we think high speed rail will be safe and beneficial to a majority of taxpayers in the long term.
We do have an interesting thread on capsules that travel in a thousand mile long vacuum tube at 150 miles per hour with faster in the future, which use almost no fuel. I think it will work well, but initial cost may be too high and some passengers may be claustrophobic. Perhaps some one knows how to find the thread. Put vacuum in the search at the top right on many Pickens pages, perhaps? Neil; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 3, 2008 at 11:42am: I think the major reason most rail projects have failed in the past few years is because there is not a complete network of rail in the US. It would be like if we just built a big airport in Atlanta and Dallas. Sure, you can fly between those cities, but no one else can really utilize the system. That's why the airlines operate so many flights into small airports, not because they make money, but if they didn't fly to Topeka, Kansas and Flint, Michigan, the whole hub and spoke system would suffer. Trains operate the same way. If you could hop on a train in your city (which is probably already served by some sort of defunct rail) and take it to a larger city where you can immediately connect to a high speed train, the system would work. Basically, the more connections you have, the better off the whole system would be. That's why government needs to step in and put forward incentives or a plan for a large scale rail network (probably best operated by a number of private businesses). We did it with the interstate highway system. It would put scores of people to work, and increase our nations mobility - not to mention the added benefits of making downtowns prime areas again for transit oriented development, decreasing our need to expand our highways and destroy valuable land and natural resources, and decreasing our dependance on oil. It already works very well in Europe....but our system could be even better, faster, and safer.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by neil cox on September 3, 2008 at 11:44am: Vacuum sort of worked. It jogged my memory. Search for ETT About halfway down the first hit are the words evacuated tube transportation. Click on these words and you will get the thread by Daryl Oster. There are many intelligent comments in the comment wall. It is a maglev system. Neil; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 3, 2008 at 11:57am: Thanks...just ran across it myself. Pretty interesting stuff. Sure would beat airline travel! Even if we just built a few ETTs, you could get across the US pretty quickly if you could take regular rail to the ETT stations.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dana Hopkins on September 7, 2008 at 6:20am: As an amusing ad slogan.... ETT phone home?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Konrad Roeder on October 26, 2008 at 11:59am: "USA has spent a trillion dollars on medium speed rail the last few decades."
Where did you get this from?

I think you might be off by a factor of 1000
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_/ai_85368152; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 3, 2008 at 11:49am: Excellent point. It would be great if the California High-Speed rail project would be extended in the future to Portland and Seattle. Interestingly, the whole California high-speed rail project will be powered from Wind energy.

If California builds HSR, and you lived near a transit station, you really wouldn't need a car for anything. I seem to remember Mike Huckabee talking about getting people to drive less and walk more. American's are really car happy, and spend a lot of their productive life stuck in traffic. Heck, maybe even our health care costs would decrease if we all started to walk rather than drive. That sure would decrease our oil dependance, but you don't hear the politicians talking about that...; ▶ Reply to This