Agreed, but what they were proposing will only get you as far as Albany in 3 hours. If I could park my car on Friday at 5:30, be on my train by 6:15, and be in NYC a little after 9 for $100 I’d be all over it.
But honestly, how long before some durka durka walks onto the first car of one of these high speed trains and blows the bomb in his suitcase at 200 mph killing everyone on board as the whole thing derails? The minute that happens the wait at the train station for screening will be about the same the wait for a plane.
there’s a lot of difference between being on the ground and being in the air though. I mean, if they disable the engines on a train, it comes to a stop, not falls out of the sky. If there’s a hostage situation, it’s hard to board a moving train, but not impossible. There’s not a whole lot of difference between bombing a low speed train and a high speed train, except for the possibility of more people using it and a higher probability of derailment, which is likely either way. Also, it can’t be used as a weapon to fly into shit, because it can only go on the tracks.
I’ve never been on high speed rail in europe, but those of you who have, what was security like?
They should just do a real high speed(170mph+) corridor from Boston to DC to show people how it is done - rather than this stupid 90mph acela slow train everywhere…
The main problem here is Society. No red blooded American is going to take a faggy train anymore when they have a perfectly good truck they can drive!
I see this going the way of the mono-rail from the Simpons.
I would be all over a high speed train as I have no special affliction towards the airline industry. Plus trains can operate 100% of the time, no matter weather conditions.
I just don’t see this becoming profitable ever in this country, sorry to say it. I personally think it would be cool as hell, but again do not see it succeeding.
Another downfall I see for this is that it would be a government project. If a private company built it on pre-existing rails it purchased and modified for dirt cheap. Keep cooperate overhead low and contracted out maintenance to the railroad (whom already has all the tools and equipment) then it might have a chance.
Edit: Train should travel at, at least 100mph, better yet 150+.
Oh yea, when is the last time you took a bus, subway, or other method of mass transit anywhere?
I will keep my fuckin car, and most people will agree. For the price, I will fly and rent a car Vs paying for a government subsidized ticket that takes me longer to get to desitnation, to just have to rent a car anyways.
there are multiple ferries that go from connecticut to LI, NY. They have been in service for a while and are doing pretty well. I really do not think that this high-speed rail will fail.
Truth, and all the ghetto people ride the bus in Buffalo.
Put me in a house in AZ near a light-rail stop, and my office near a light-rail stop, and my girlfriend and I would go from two cars to one.
We don’t have the population, or the traffic gridlock to drive something like this. Therefore, only the poor ride the rails or bus in Buffalo (with very few exceptions)…
I am all about public transportation, if it is done right, and doesn’t inconvenience me.
As for national train transportation, Amtrak is a failure in my eyes. The ticket is usually more expensive than airfare, and it should be half as much as a plane ticket.
Did you guys ever hear about the ballot initiative that was introduced by Florida residents? Mind you, Florida residents will vote/have voted yes on any ballot initiative that doesn’t involve gambling…
Basically they wanted a Disneyland style monorail built throughout the state. None of the voters actually thought about how much it would cost and a few years later another ballot initiated was introduced by the citizens to reverse the monorail initiative…
Actually, I take mass transit whenever I can. I take the bus often as well as local shuttles. I used to take the subway on occasion. For over a year I lived in Buffalo with no car on the road. I mostly rode my bicycle and took mass transit or my motorcycle.
I’ll be traveling up to Montreal this weekend and fully expect to take advantage of the Metro subway and bus systems. When I studied in London and traveled Europe all I used was public mass transit. In fact, the only place I’ve ever rented a car was Florida.
Amtrak actually “owns” most of the commuter traffic between Boston and DC - the Northeast Corridor - and one of the few parts of Amtrak that turns a profit.
much of the time saved via the NE Corridor comes from the fact that most of the airports for NYC are easily an hour-plus outside Manhattan during rush hour. Same goes for Baltimore.
Ticket prices are high because Amtrak actually owns all the track and property it runs on in the NE Corridor, and has to rent the other tracks in the country from the freight lines. OTOH, airports own terminals, but outside of landing fees, don’t pay much in terms of “air rights”. I’d expect a significant change if fuel prices skyrocket, as the NE Corridor is electrified and probably way more efficient “per-person-mile” in terms of energy usage. Heck, the locomotives even return energy to the system on braking.
Even the Acela - America’s version of “high-speed rail” isn’t that fast - maxes out at 125 mph for a short part in New England - and that’s because of the track. Track that was originally laid in the 1880’s. Upgrading that would significantly cut times between DC and Boston (and if applied elsewhere, NYC to Chicago, too… concieveably, if a dedicated line was used for TGV-style rail between NY and Chicago, that trip could be done in 5-6 hours.)
the big issue as to why Amtrak is always looking for help is that it has a significant capital expense to pay off (land taxes, maintenance of stations, track, etc.) If America handled that like it handles airports (e.g. Nationalized Trackage), Amtrak would be profitable. The problem is, that is a serious expense. And so will new rail.
I think that the Alameda (LA) corridor project (the “tunnel” to take freight out of the harbor area) wound up costing $2.4 billion for a 20-mile stretch of track through downtown LA.