Why no viable rail system in the States?

[hiphopnation]

Amtrak is a joke. High speed trains in Europe and Asia could get you across the United States in 10-13 hours (just my rough estimation, no cite). Amtrak takes two days.

The Eastern seaboard train system ain't so bad, but is it just our car/oil obsession? Before the jet engine, railroads took Americans everywhere -- who's responsible for its decline and why. I want to travel by train, but it's just not feasible -- who has two days to kill lolly-gagging across the country?

[baldguy]

1. Because America isn't interested in efficiency, we're only interested in profit.

Corporate America makes more money from selling planes, trucks and cars than it does selling locomotives.

[hiphopnation]

5. profit and efficiency are not mutually exclusive

or at least don't have to be. the phenomenon is fostered here, but why? so frustrtating...

it's COOL to take a train in Japan and Europe -- hell, FUN even. Even the business travelers enjoy themselves.

why not here?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

20. A two day business trip from California to New York

Could turn into a five or six day trip.

It does seem that we could beef up rail travel along certain corridors, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for business travelers who have to travel long ways. It also doesn't make sense with our short vacation times.

When I lived in the U.K, I could easily hop on a train to visit a friend in London for the weekend. Here, train travel from Texas to Chicago would take longer than the entire weekend!

I actually love train travel. It's a great way to chill and meet people.

[hiphopnation]

33. i love it too

back when i wasn't stressed for time i would take the train from D.C. to Austin and back and it was great. Lots of inter sting people, a great way to see the country. but it would take two freakin' days! not viable for me anymore.

[Richardo]

23. Wrong dynamic.

[Javaman]

29. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Hook line sinker!

[lutefisk]

2. Because the rail- freight companies have political influence?

The freight companies want the tracks for freight and passenger trains just get in their way. The oil companies and the car companies don't make money from people riding trains. I'm just guessing here: it's all about money and influence and not what's right?

Who killed the electric street car?

[hiphopnation]

10. trains don't require oil?

maybe not on the same scale, but is it so difficult to learn how to turn a profit on a viable rail system?

detriot and houston should be the next business models to die, if you know what i mean.

the whole fuckin' thing needs to be turned on its ear. i'm not a businessman (which is probably obvious) but shit, how archaic.

[Clanfear]

25. Trains run on diesel.

even the Super Trains in Europe.

[wuushew]

47. The TVG and ICE are electric

so is the Eurostar.

[stirlingsliver]

58. Electricity From Nuclear Power Plants?

Where does the electricity to power the TGV, the ICE, and the Eurostar come from?

I thought I heard that a much higher percentage of electric power in Europe was generate by nuclear power plants.

Is that true?

[yurbud]

85. if something is electric, you could just as easily put renewables on the other end

at least you have the option.

[Selatius]

95. They get 76% from nuclear power according to this PBS article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

They seem more accepting of nuclear power compared to Americans even though they share the same fear. They figured that nuclear power would be the way to go because France has few natural resources. From the article:

A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice."

[Tesha]

64. Nonsense.

> Trains run on diesel.
> even the Super Trains in Europe.

Nonsense.

The great trains of Europe all are electric trains,
not diesel. In France, the TGV essentially runs on
nuclear power (which is how France generates the
lion's share of their electricity). Throughout the
rest of Europe, the trains run on whatever generates
the local electricity.

Trains can run on nuclear, hydro, wind, wave, solar,
or any number of power sources other than oil.

Tesha

[TheFarseer]

78. what happened to magnet trains?

I remember watching how trains were going to run on magnets in the NEAR future and that was in 1988.

[Touchdown]

105. Magnetic Levitation...and they're here.

3 projects... Pittsbugh, Washington to Baltimore, and Atlanta to Chatanooga are being pursued.

The real big one is Anaheim through Ontario to Las Vegas.

Two are already operational... Munich and Shanghai.

http://www.bwmaglev.com/









Site for Transrapid The German maker...

http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/basics.prg

[Canuckistanian]

73. There you go

I think the railways were crippled for the same reason as the streetcar - because they were too efficient at moving people and goods.

There was much more oil profit in selling cars and trucks.

[marmar]

3. And when fuel becomes that much more scarce....we are really f**ked....

For example, the heavily trafficked route between Detroit and Chicago (about 240 miles) is ideal for high-speed rail. There are 3 Amtrak trains a day (which rarely run within an hour of schedule) and more than 40 flights a day on four airlines - Northwest, American, United and Southwest. Ridiculous!

[Warpy]

4. Roads and airports are taxpayer subsidized,

and rail lines were not. If there had been a decent train to NYC, I'd have gone there a lot more frequently when I lived in Boston.

One thing Richardson has done here in NM is get the first legs of a north-south commuter rail system built, something that's woefully overdue in this part of the country. I will be a frequent rider when it finally gets all the way up to Santa Fe. Ridership north and south of this city is increasing as gas prices increase.

My own feeling is that as fuel prices continue to increase and DHS makes flying as humiliating as possible, rail travel will again come into its own.

[TahitiNut]

12. We have a history of government-created "Railroad Barons" who were enriched ...

... by the corrupt alliance of government (and eminent domain powers) and the private railroad corporations. The "subsidies" of the day were enormous. After all, when a swath of public land a mile wide across the country is deeded over to the private corporations, that's a HUGE subsidy.

[Richardo]

24. Admittedly a give-away, but it happended in the Lincoln administration for most of the western roads

AND, they've been paying property taxes on their right-of-way ever since.

[hiphopnation]

14. i didn't really start noticing gas prices

until i started looking at plane tickets back east for the holidays. that is to say, when i fill up my car i pay less attention -- when i look at a plane ticket -- YEEPS!

the amtrak back east was at least 30% more expensive and took twice the time. :wtf:

[leaninglib]

72. Amtrak is heavily subsidized and it is still more costly than auto or air.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/icr-amtrakair.htm

<<<If we were to subsidize automobile travel at the same rate as we subsidize Amtrak, the annual subsidy would be approximately $400 billion --- $100 billion more than we spent on defense in 2001. More than one of of every five federal dollars would be spent on Amtrak.>>>

[loser_user]

77. Rail Runner is not any faster though

Only 79MPH?

[LynzM]

6. Tell me about it!!

28 hours to get from Connecticut to Indianapolis, minimum! What a f'ing joke! You could almost drive there AND BACK in that time. Absurd.

[XemaSab]

74. Santa Barbara to Redding on the Coast Starlight isn't so bad for the most part...

$85 bucks round trip (gas would take about that much)

14.5 hours one way (it's about 8 driving)

The irritation factor for me is that it gets into Redding at 3 am. :(

Then it leaves Redding at 2 am. :( :(

Unless the train is really, really, really late. Which NEVER happens with Amtrak. :P

[NYVet]

7. Different culture, less infrastructure for the trains

Most people want to have the freedom to stop when they want to and the convenience of being able to travel to see Aunt Ethel and pull up in front of her house in their own car.

[marmar]

9. I'd rather be able to journey to see Aunt Ethel on a comfortable, high-speed train....

.... Then take the metro or light rail to see her at her house, but that's just me.

[hiphopnation]

16. or drive

drivers deal with traffic headaches, higher accident rates, road rage, etc.

trains in Europe -- they're dreamy! beautiful scenery, mostly efficient, and none of the travel stress.

[marmar]

17. Yup. I've taken the Eurostar, the Thalys, the AVE and the German ICE....

It makes one just plain jealous. Even the much-ballyhooed Acela Express on the east coast seems pathetic in comparison.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Try the Shinkansen some time

Downtown to downtown, plenty of leg room, get up and walk around, wait for the vendors to bring you a box lunch or a sandwich or a Coke or a beer, see Mt. Fuji.

[insanity]

94. Thalys

Was one of the coolest trips ever. Saw so much countryside.

The Dutch ICE and Snelltrains also kick my ass.

I think our train system is so bad because the west was developed with autos in mind... GM helped plan LA.

[Glorfindel]

8. I think it was deliberate murder of the railroads

Rail transportation is too efficient, doesn't use enough oil, so someone, somewhere, made the decision to build the interstate highway system and subsidize air travel at the expense of the railroads. The result? A transportation nightmare, suburban sprawl, horrendous traffic jams, air pollution, and airports surrounded by endless (ENDLESS!) acres of parking lots. I think the ingenuity of the human race could not devise a more absurd, inefficient, and harmful system of transportation. If one percent of the countless billions that have been poured into highways and airports had been invested in railroads, we'd all be better off. Oh, and the railroads had powerful unions that had to be smashed; that entered into the calculations also.

[hiphopnation]

34. great past...very well put

:thumbsup:

depressing but true.

[redqueen]

11. Oil? (nt)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. We used to

There was a good rail system during WWII. But when the trucking industry got the interstates built, train travel was doomed.

I've been waiting for a revival of it ever since Gore promised it in 1992. I think that using some of the existing interstates for high speed rail beds would be a great idea.

[hiphopnation]

35. gore ahead of his time once again

on the state of things now, rejuvenating the rail system is very low on the the national priority list.

but shouldn't be, it seems. it would benefit all and seems like an adroit business person could turn a profit on it if detroit and houston (and related industries and business models) could be turned on their ears.

[H2O Man]

69. Right.

Trains used to do a lot in two areas -- passenger and freight services. Around the end of WW1, there was a significant drop in the passenger services, because of the automobile. Then, after WW2, as you noted, the highways allowed trucking to reduce the freight business. In both instances, those with investments in oil reaped the benefits.

[kestrel91316]

15. A viable rail transportation system in the US would interfere too much

with corporate profiteering by the oil and automotive industries.

Any further questions?

[hiphopnation]

18. *sigh*

no. i'm beginning to regret having asked the question...too depressing.

[Clanfear]

19. You already answered it

It is not feasible economically or logistically.

[Joe Fields]

21. Why do you think so many railroads went bankrupt in the 1970's?

It wasn't profitable. Passenger service by rail declined to the point of near non-existence, save for the northeastern corridor, due to completion of the federal highway system.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Actually, the railroads chose to meet the challenge of the interstate highways

by purposely making their passenger service so awful (dirty trains, bad food, rude employees, cars either too hot or too cold--I'm old enough to remember the transition period) that passengers stayed away, giving the railroads the excuse to drop their service.

Other countries met the challenges of improved highways and plane travel by UPGRADING their passenger service. This includes Germany, which was the first country to have freeways (the Autobahn).

[Joe Fields]

79. Wrong.

Although it was a factor, it was insignificant, compared to cheaper and more convenient travel by automobile and airplane. The railroads just could not compete. By 1970, only 7% of passengers used the railroads.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Air travel wasn't cheap in 1970

I flew between New York and Minneapolis for Christmas between 1973 and 1981, and it cost about $225 then, which would be equivalent to about $1000 now. (During much of that period, I lived on $400 a month as a graduate student.) My grandmother paid the fare, or else I wouldn't have been able to travel like that.

The reason I didn't take the train was that it was gross.

[Joe Fields]

82. Yeah, 70 percent of passenger traffic flew back then because

rail traffic was so much cheaper.:sarcasm:

You need to do some reading on the matter.

With the advent of the interstate highway system, post World War II, coupled with cheaper air fares, rail travel plummeted in the fifties and sixties, and became almost non-existent in the 1970's.

[Richardo]

22. I'd be surprised if you could make the trip in two days.

You said: "Before the jet engine". That says it all.

It was also before the Interstate Highway system, which is by far the bigger factor. In the triumvirate of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, the combination of Planes and Automobiles trumps Trains every time. This applies to freight as well as passengers. The large railroads pull in $10 billion annually in revenues (apiece), most of this is from grain, coal, chemicals, automobiles and intermodal (shipping) containers.

Also: geography. Passenger trains work best in densely populated areas: frequent stops, faster than congested highways.

Also: Cost-effectiveness. Trains are at least 5x slower than an airliner, and are not price-competitive. No private railroad comapny could afford to offer passenger services, which is why the government has to subsidize it.

I spent 17 years working for a railroad company - hope this helps.

[paulk]

60. what you said!

The idea of a transcontinental railroad here in the US, especially if you're going to contrast it with European or Japanese rail systems as the OP has done - just doesn't make sense, for all the reasons you describe.

I think we will eventually see some high speed rail in the northeast corrider and a few other places around the country, but an efficient continent spanning passenger system? No way.

--------------

I worked for the UP/DRGW for 20 years.

[msongs]

26. 3000 miles divided by 13 hrs =230 mile per hour WITHOUT any stops nt

[hiphopnation]

28. so it wouldn't be that fast

maybe more like twenty hours

but the high speeds in Europe travel 100 mph at least

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

[marmar]

57. Try 186 mph....that's the average speed the highspeed Euros travel....

...and in a test, the TGV has gotten up over 300 mph

[LeftHander]

27. GM, IKE, Cold War and the Interstate System

That's why....

[DemoTex]

30. The Texas high-speed rail (DAL-HOU-AUS triangle) was killed by 3 Texas airlines.

American, Southwest, and Continental.

[hiphopnation]

32. when was this?!

god, that would have been great when I lived there

:puke:

[RB TexLa]

37. The Trans Texas Corridor will hopefully bring that back

http://ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/projects/

Of course the first reply to this could be one of our left wing Birchers screaming "Those roads are gonna destroy 'Merican sovereignty."

[underpants]

31. Fly round trip to Atlanta for $180 or take a train $330 each way

my wife actually checked that out a few days ago.

[CRF450]

36. Rail and buses arent a viable option for me.

Especially for my summer job. And since I live out in the country, I probably might not see it here in my life time.

[Atman]

They might be if air travel costs 20x that of rail.

Air travel is too cheap. There is no incentive for you to seek alternatives, so you keep falling back on the most ridiculously expensive, environmentally damaging option available. Unless, of course, you're traveling overseas. In which case you should start rowing. :hi:

.

[CRF450]

46. I feel that we should focus on better alternative fuel for cars instead of rail and bus

People here are so wide spread throught the country. I would much rather see electric powered vehicles come in the market than be forced to ride a bus or train. Besides, I like to drive.

[Atman]

50. I LOVE to drive. But rail is phenomenally more efficient and less damaging

than cars, busses, planes, all of 'em. Why do you think the car companies and oil companies hate trains?

.

[Atman]

38. Richard Branson (Virgin Airlines) had a brilliant idea...

Any airline route which was already covered by a rail service route, should carry a very hefty surcharge. It would encourage rail usage -- which is a brazillion times more efficient and eco-friendly than air travel. If you have an emergency and need to get to your destination faster, you could use the same "bereavement" waiver airlines currently use.

Anyone have a problem with that?

.

[Virginia Dare]

39. Sounds reasonable...

assuming that we have an efficent rail system in place.

[Atman]

43. One begets the other.

The rail services have no incentive to expand now, either. But if there was such a surcharge in place, it would drive customers to rail and rail would have to expand. There are thousands of miles of closed tracks, discontinued routes, which could be re-opened. Personally, living in the Northeast, which has a pretty comprehensive rail system, I love the option of going by train. I NEVER drive to NYC...it's just a $15 train ride away! Boston is the same train, just the opposite direction. If it were that convenient to everyone else, you wouldn't even think twice...you'd never deal with a fucking airline again!

.

[mwooldri]

51. Branson just happens to operate some train lines himself.

Of course he would say this: he has his thumbs in both pies - air travel and train.

[Atman]

53. Does it really matter? The science bears him out

He has completely admitted that his promotion of one side his business could kill the other side. But at the very least, he is being honest about it.

.

[Oeditpus Rex]

40. A high-speed rail system is in the works for California

A $10 billion bond measure is scheduled for the 2008 ballot. If it passes, and additional funding is secured toward the estimated $40 billion cost, the system could be operational by 2018.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7457634

[MindPilot]

41. youcantgettherefromhere.com should be Amtrak's web address

At the train station, the government doesn't get the same opportunity to degrade, dehumanize, humiliate and inconvenience every passenger as they do at the airport.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. See my post #65

:-)

[madokie]

42. If I remember correctly it was an effort by GM to destroy our public transportation system

so they could sell more cars. Its been a while since I have read about it so I don't remember any specifics except that it was a concerted effort by them to do that for that reason I just gave.

[Richard Steele]

56. Yes, a SUCCESSFUL effort. They were found guilty of deliberately destroying our mass transit system.

They paid a small fine ($10,000 I believe). :eyes:

http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm

[madokie]

75. which was but only a pittance to them and all part of doing business

I know there is good and there is bad in any brand but over all I have been very dissatisified with gm vehicles their quality just doesn't measure up to a ford. I've not had any small fords anything smaller than a taurus which btw was the best car we ever had bar none.

[Eurobabe]

44. The lack of viable rail transportation in the US

is going to become a major problem in the coming decade, with the price of oil and all. This sounds like a national security issue to me.

One of the joys of living in Europe is being able to get anywhere by rail. Sometimes you have to walk to get to a train station, but I think overall the populace is healthier because of the extra movement :)

Both France and Germany are experiencing train strikes this week, and it does gum things up, but it is a small price to may IMHO. I feel good when I use the trains, and they are relaxing and fun. :hi:

[Odin2005]

45. Because people prefered to drive or take a passenger jet, thus killing the passenger rail industry.

Also, suburbs were generally not linked to the passenger rail networks anyway because people preferred to drive. I can't believe people are concocting conspiracy theories for what can me more parsimoniously explained by blind economic forces and the law of unintended consequences.

[Richard Steele]

62. Nope. What you call a "conspiracy theory" was PROVEN in a court of law.

General Motors was found GUILTY of deliberately destroying
the mass-transit infrastructure of large cities in order
to boost auto sales.
http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm

Additionally, they extended their grasp into city planning
boards across the nation to encourage styles of development
that REQUIRED residents to own automobiles.

The "consequences" which eventually became ingrained in our culture
were ANYTHING but unintended.

[Odin2005]

90. Oh, don't get me wrong, I know the car companies did a lot of BS.

But IMO had people not turned away from passenger rail I don't think GM would of gotten away with that crap.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. In Minneapolis, the streetcar system went all the way out to Lake Minnetonka

until an auto-company front bought it up, ripped out the tracks, burned most of the trolley cars, and sold the rest to Mexico City. This was ca. 1954.

Minneapolis was not unusual. There was a time when most cities had trains that ran into the suburbs.

[lovuian]

48. they want us dependant on gas and we need autos

we keep the car industry and gas industry going

plus they didn't want to give us access to places

but Nick Lampson said Energy committe is looking to use these train tracks and put passenger cars on them

[RL3AO]

49. It would work regionally

AKA: L.A. to the Bay Area to San Diego and Boston to NY to DC but overall the U.S. is just too big geographically to work.

[hiphopnation]

55. too big?

the u.s. is too big to have vialbe rail service?

[RL3AO]

59. Considering a majority of the major cities are within 200 miles of either major coast

Yes a full national network might be hard. It might work, but I would love to at least see a few more regional networks.

[sarcasmo]

52. Isn't Amtrack Government run and or regulated?

That would be enough to know why it's crap.

[marmar]

61. Most of the European rail lines are government operated......

and they operate like fine Swiss watches....far better than any of the corporate airlines here in the United States.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Amtrak is crap because it's seriously underfunded

Over the past 37 years since its founding, Amtrak has received an average of $1 billion in subsidies per year. In one sense, it's a lot of money, but recall that after 9/11, the airline industry received $35 billion of corporate welfare all at once, a sum greater than all the subsidies that Amtrak had received by 2001.

Or, put another way, Amtrak's annual government subsidy is equivalent to four days of the Iraq War.

Yet to hear Republicanites and pseudo-Democrats talk, you'd think that Amtrak was solely responsible for the national debt.

With such a tiny subsidy, Amtrak cannot expand to provide viable service. For example, there is ONE train each way per day between Minneapolis and Chicago, and it goes via Milwaukee. It's a great trip, but it takes eight or more hours, so it doesn't meet the needs of the business traveler at all.

Could an airline survive if it offered only one trip per day between all its major destinations?

Compare Japan's Shinkansen "bullet train," which can take you from Tokyo to Kobe, an equivalent distance, in 3 hours and 18 minutes. That's downtown to downtown, with no airport hassles. You can leave Tokyo Station at 6:00AM and arrive in Kobe in time for a 9:30 meeting. Furthermore, the trains run on an average of every five to ten minutes.

That's a system that people can and do use. I once translated a history of the Shinkansen and learned that it carries over 1/3 of all traffic between Japan's two major metropolitan areas of Tokyo-Yokohama and Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe.

It's true that the U.S. is bigger, but we could work on a long-range plan of creating high-speed rail in each region first and then linking up the regional systems.

This would cost no more than the Iraq War, I'm sure, and it would

1) Cut down on oil consumption

2) Provide living-wage jobs for blue collar workers, so they wouldn't have to resort to the "poverty draft"

3) Bring us into the 21st century, catching up with Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Thailand.

[aikoaiko]

54. too slow, too expensive.

[marmar]

84. But if there were high speed rail, it would be less slow than flying on a lot of routes:

Once you factor in transit time and costs to and from airports, along with the security clearance and waiting times at airports, routes such as San Fran-LA, Any northeast city to any other northeast city, Detroit-Chicago, St. Louis-Chicago, Minneapolis-Chicago, Dallas-Houston, Phoenix-Las Vegas, Miami-Tampa etc could be handled a lot more quickly downtown-downtown on the train. ..... Ask anyone who travels London-Paris on the Eurostar about the bad old days of Heathrow-Charles de Gaulle.

[A HERETIC I AM]

63. Something to bear in mind re: the high speed rail in Europe vs. the US.

Dedicated rail right-of-way.

A dedicated high-speed system would be required. One with no grade crossings, long radius curves (Radii of 2.5 miles or more, as is the case with the TGV system in France) and gentle grades. The rail beds presently used by Amtrak, with a few exceptions (NE Corridor, for instance) are freight railways primarily.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Japan built dedicated rights of way for its Shinkansen trains...

...in the early 1960s.

[A HERETIC I AM]

76. I don't suggest it can't be done in this country, it's just that we don't presently have them.

And with very few exception, when these sorts of things get on ballots, they die an early death. Nobody really wants to pay for them (or so it seems)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Maybe if they were put in terms of

"This would cost the same as x days of the Iraq War..."

[rucky]

83. Because all of our Chinese slave labor is in China. n/t

[The Inquisitive]

87. can you elaborate on that one for me?

I don't see are real connection.

[rucky]

88. That's how the railroads were built the first time around. n/t

[The Inquisitive]

89. oh that's right

that makes more sense. I was interpreting as an attribution to outsourcing and the plight of the American worker as the direct cause of the decay of the railroads of the country. Thanks.

[Catchawave]

86. The interstates killed the railroad.

As a kid, I remember riding the Atlantic Coast Railroad up and down the eastern seaboard...those were the days.

[Atman]

91. You know when it dawned on me that the US is a third-rate power?

Not over anything Bush or Cheney did (at least not directly). The enlightenment came a few years ago after a terrible train crash in Turkey. We're always fed the propaganda that we're the greatest nation in the world with the best of everything, and the whole rest of the world wishes they were as cool as we are. Except for that in most countries, electricity is buried not put on sticks along the side of the road. Most countries have much better, more advanced cell phone service than we do. But the particular incident that woke me up was this train crash in Turkey.

It was a bullet train. Turkey has a bullet train, but here in the United States we're shutting down rail lines and driving behemoth gas-guzzling truck-cars. TURKEY HAS A BULLET TRAIN, but I can't catch a train to NYC that takes less than three hours! We're fed so much bullshit from our government it's just stunning. Keep the masses ignorant. The only reason they haven't walled us in, East Berlin style, is because we're already surrounded by a giant moat.

.

[hootinholler]

92. Standard Oil and General Tire

Was devastating to public transportation, which encouraged personal transportation (cars), which encouraged sprawl, which made it difficult to collect the traffic onto a rail line.

-Hoot

[paparush]

93. Cause most 'Murkins don't fucking walk...we gotta drive right up to the doors of

Target, Wal Mart, Best Buy, Starbucks, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Taking a train to DC means you have to walk outside and find a cab or walk down the sidewalk to work.

[SoCalDem]

96. General Motors, Ford, the concrete lobby, BF Goodrich, Goodyear n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

97. Freight and High speed passenger incompatable

The principal problem in putting high speed rail is the US is new rails. High speed trains require welded rails, etc. Most of the track in the US is owned by freight companies who have no incentive to improve the current rails as they are more than good enough for freight. Europeans, etc keep their high speed trains on seperate tracks which are designed and maintained specifically to support high speed rail.

So to put in true high speed rail in the US requires. Massive eminent domain takings to build all new rail lines across the US, at least everywhere we desire high speed rail to go.

[kedrys]

98. Don't get me started!

:nuke: We've been looking into the possibility of moving to Canada by train. The freight part is not problem - we put our stuff into PODS or something similar (although they'll probably be conveyed by truck). What we'd love to do is put ourselves, the cats and both our cars on the damn train and go. Well, guess what - the rail system is so anemic, I can't even get to Dallas from Houston by train!

Meanwhile, back in Canada, I could literally live in Montreal and commute ViaRail to Ottawa if it came to that. :grr: I can't stand it.

Oh, and the Montreal Metro conveniently connects with both national and suburban rail lines.

And you wonder why we can't evacuate people when the weather gets psycho. We have *no* infrastructure. :mad:

[Supersedeas]

99. an excellent question -- something that should be discussed in detail in the Presidential

campaign -- wonder why the Corporate Moderators have no such questions.

[Touchdown]

100. It doesn't have to be anymore...MAGLEV!

Magnetic Levitation. Trains floating on a cushion of magnetic repulsion. 300mph, quiet, clean, electric, no moving parts (no oil)...did I mention FAST?

http://www.transrapid-usa.com/main.asp

Oh' yeah, they're fast too!

Pennsylvania Project...

http://www.transrapid-usa.com/main.asp

Baltimore-Washington Project

http://www.bwmaglev.com/



BTW: Thay're FAST!

[hiphopnation]

102. wow...that is farkin' awesome

thanks so much for this info, but i don't understand how no oil is used. i mean, if it uses electricity, isn't oil involved somewhere in the process?

:thumbsup:

[Touchdown]

103. oil is used only on the hydraulics (It courtseys)

Moves up and down at the station for loading of passengers.

MagLevs float on air. They never touch the track (or guideway). It's about an inch or two of air inbetween the train and the surface of the guideway. The guideway is what drives the train, so no engine in the train. All electricity is in the track itself. There are really no moving parts to a MagLev train, since it has no wheels, electric motors or shocks...at least this one. There are other mag-lev designs that do power the engines, but this German design is all in the guideway (or train track).

[hiphopnation]

104. why doesn't this have more legs?

why have I never heard of this?!?!

this is totally freakin' amazing. there's a whole section on that site that guides you to your congressional reps to push them on this, i strongly encourage everyone in this thread to go push this. i don't know much about the technology but it sounds amazing and seems green, clean and efficient. sounds totally amazing, I'm going to spread this far and wide. thanks so much for the info again, TD!

:thumbsup::bounce:

[ileus]

101. I live in Va....our closest train is WV it has to goto DC to get us to Fl

Now with a schedule that takes you 2 days out of the way and 300 miles north before you travel the first mile south doesn't make sense.

Then once you make it to your destination you still have to rent a car so what's the use.


Spend a few bucks in gas (I can make the trip to Disney in my honda on two tanks) and I'm not tied to 700 others peoples schedule.