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!!!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Verdel on -
Mike...good thoughts; important thoughts; crucial thoughts when it comes to a rational, national transportation plan...BUT...no obvious political constituency, thus no consistent action.
See www.fra.gov for already designated high-speed steel-wheel rail corridors. No action since 2002.
See www.popularmechanics.com (December 2007 issue) for a factual discussion of comparative energy costs and potential (or lack thereof) for Mag-Lev systems.
No comment or response on this from Mr. Pickens or the Pickens Plan communmity.
The truck/auto industry is dying...too much foreign oil, too slow, too costly, too polluting, and too destructive of infrastructure. (We wear out streets and highways faster than we can afford to fix them.)
If you REALLY want to sell electricity, build a national high-speed rail net (similar to Interstate Highway system which we built in LESS than 10 years). Watch what that does to foreign oil exporters and to the cost of goods sold in commerce. There are huge benefits from this. Government controlled construction and infrastructure; private operating compaqnies (no more AMTRAK ) and see what this does for our economy and our environment.
P.S. Natural gas is great...for a while...price will skyrocket, however, once it becomes the fuel of choice for the transportation sector. Okay for a "bridge" but the bridge better be short!
-
Permalink Reply by Mike S on -
Tom, I think you hit the nail on the head. Mr. Pickens' natural gas plan makes sense because it is available right now and it gets us dependant on our own resources - creating jobs and security. It's a bridge...and that bridge will hopefully lead to more public transit options and better use of our own resources. Imagine how much cheaper our groceries would be if you could ship grapefruit or corn on high speed rail to Oregon in 1 day on 1/10th the fuel? It's crazy that this isn't part of the energy discussion. Our nation is going to drastically change in the next 20 years (the way we build our cities, neighborhoods, and how we travel), and hopefully we're going to be on the winning side of that change.
I'd like to see a little high speed choo choo train up on the top of this webpage next to the wind turbine, flame, and sun.
-
Permalink Reply by Michel on -
Natural gas infrastructure needs to be built. CNG is easier to deal with than LNG, but pressurizing is the expensive part. A side benefit is that methane could become an important source of H2 if we ever get fuel cells off the drawing board.
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Verdel on
-
Michel...no arguments with what you said. Seems like it's Honda that wants to use CNG as a hydrogen source. Don't know how the Mercedes and BMW fuel cells work but they fielded those commercially (in small numbers) last year, wasn't it? And BP is building H2 fueling stations across Germany or did I get that wrong? There are actually compression devices that you can have installed in your garage and hooked to your natural gas line which will pressurize natural gas and pump it into your car. Seems like most of those have been sold in California. But they have been primarily for personal autos; not long haul truckers.
Only way to find out about these things seems to be to go websites like Michelin which are outside the US, where there is VERY little interest in this subject. (Seems like a few of us are all worked up, but not very many average folks who would spend 30 minutes reading up on anything outside the sports world....okay, cheap shot...I still have to keep up with my Sooners!)
What I sit here and ask myself every day, however, is that IF something works just fine for the "other" half of Western civilization, then why is it an automatic "bad idea" for us? I lived and worked in Europe as a young man and, courtesy of the Navy, I got plenty of looks at Asia over the past 25 years. In recent trips overseas, I continue to see economies and technological communities which were seemingly "behind" us in the early 60's and are now apparently leading the way. More power to them, but I thought we were supposed to set the lead and the standards and sell our ideas and innovations to the rest of the world. (CF: Tom Friedman, any recent book).
At my age, I would be content to see us to do a reasonable "copy" and just promote the integration and speed of our own economy. On the other hand, seems as though we like to debate about things more than we act.
Back to the subject...high-speed rail works great in Europe and Japan. It does require government subsidies but what do you think gasoline taxes and tag fees are for? If anyone thinks the interstate highway system was financed by the tooth fairy, I beg to disagree. We saw what we needed in 1965 when we passed the High Speed Ground Transportation Act. We just never "did" anything about it and because the technological discourse in this country continues at the junior high level, we probably won't. (There is a solid reason why the government encourages all public papers and correspondence to be prepared at an 8th grade reading level.)
Forgive my pessimism...I just think that most "average" Americans "get it" a lot faster than our leaders do.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Jones on -
Why did you not ask why Congress is not talking about their Super Computer that can fix any problem in the entire world even that Nancy Pelosi problem with automakers that need a plan. From my view point a Monorail service would be better than a rapid transit, Bart has to many encounters with the other public transit modes and when one traffic signal fails so does Bart's schedule and everyone on board becomes late for something or other. Monorails travel above the ground above other modes of transit and are feasible for cities to use as a transportation system especially for tourism and commuting to and from work each day. It all depends on the city administration if they would approve of Monorail Service as opposed to mini-Turbine Methane Fuel-Cell buses and Government Hybrid Vehicles.
-
Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on -
My understanding is that monorails do not function well in cold climates where they interact with snow and ice. Denver investigated them and decided against it in the 90's. Interest in monorails collapsed some time ago, LightRailNow discusses this.
There are two issues here. One is wether to have one or two rails; the other is elevation. Agree that running at ground level is pointless. In places where earthquakes are not a major concern, puting the trains 20' in the air is a good solution. Chicago is an example of this. The trains are elevated, called 'the El', and run all over the city. The planning for this system began in the 1870's. Construction began in the 1880's and continues today. My great grandparents rode them. It is a very effecient way of moving people around. The El uses two tracks, and electricity. The other location for the trains is in the median strip of expressways. This is another effective way of building rail.
Downtown Chicago is circled by elevated trains. They form a loop around the area, which is known as 'The Loop'. Elevating trains is not rocket science. The original parts of the El were buillt by Civil War veterans using mules and shovels. The initial investment is large but the payoff stretches for centuries.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Jones on
-
Reply by neil cox on October 24, 2008 at 4:29pm
Sorry Charles Jones, you lost me. More metaphor perhaps? I made 20 train long trips about 50 years ago, The vibration was bone jarring, and the noise nerve racking. It was a bit quicker and a bit less costly than driving. Traveling by plane was not much better on the average, but more costly. 300 mile per hour train or vacuum tube maglev.will be even more costly at least the first decade. If I don't pay big, the taxpayers will. Worse there is no way to know how safe, as liars abound, and have become very convincing. Neil
Answered by Charles Jones 11:54 PM 11-20-08
So your one of the lucky few that kow theres a better way than driving a Government Hybrid Vehicle in lots of traffic some which would love to slow you reaching a destination down a few hours or days which says little about tire safety issues that lead to blowouts and slit sidewalls. Juvenilism is where the peddle met the metal issue in Radical Terminologies but it leads to more terrorism purposes with each time it becomes successful. No you did not enjoy a Monorail because few of them are created to go the distance, many are just for tourism, most of them are for commuting to and from work but considering how many parking lots full of Hybrid vehicles they could avoid I feel they would be better for Washington, D.C. than a Hybrid Government Vehicle Fleet that is not in motion 24 hours a day. OK so the sound bothered you, the vibration bothered you, and you now know the reality to Monorail which is non-stop, no detours, no adversity due to sand storms and the hurricane victums can get away faster than a railroad, no vibrations since they are not making contact with the monorail and since two monorails can run side by side on separate systems it makes me wonder why filling stations and parking lots and traffic cops are needed in Washington, D.C. because in any city in America a Super Computer can do the work to install a Monorail in a few hours where it would take a Nancy Pelosi team spirited automaker a few years to suggest a plan that they could help accomplish it if they purchased a nuclear reactor to make their own steel instead of buying other steel producers product. I can say more about Ford and China Roll Steel arriving in Canada to be fabricated to auto parts and assembled at the Ford Plant in Canada to receive the Title "Assembled in Canada" while the last batch is headed into America to be sold at Ford Dealerships and Used Car Dealers Lots that Special Ordered them at a discount under selling the American made autos and trucks. Was that some sort of a plan Nancy Pelosi had not heard yet?
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Calhoun on -
Yes I have made enquiries. It costs MUCH more to lay 100 miles of rail road track than to build an on or off ramp,
It costs less to lay an EQUIVELANT length of railroad track as the current length of on or off ramp.
and there are NO rails already in place for the BULLET TRAINS that we are talking about here.
-
Permalink Reply by Veronica Gold, OH State Leader on -
Someone may have already pointed out the fact that Senator Reid of Nevada injected federal funds into a spending bill in the last 6-12 months for high speed rail between California and Las Vegas. Right now, sad to say, that's like bringing the broke to the broken. Maybe someone reading this post can recall which bill contains the rail funding. A search of Nevada newspapers would definitely provide the specifics.
Compared to flying these days, I think more people would use rail, especially if they could bring their pets. (No joke-Americans love their animals.) Rail is spacious and when traveling long distances, provides a breathtaking overview of the U.S. It's also cheaper and much nicer travel for families compared to planes.
-
Permalink Reply by Leslie G. on -
September 28, 2009
Batteries ARE included:
Norfolk Southern unveils experimental electric locomotive
ALTOONA, PA. - With U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Congressman Bill Shuster in attendance, Norfolk Southern today unveiled the latest in alternative energy locomotive technology at its Juniata Locomotive Shop in Altoona, Pa. NS 999 is a prototype 1,500-horsepower switching locomotive that relies solely on rechargeable batteries for power.
Article
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
