Author Topic: Is there any support now for a highspeed rail network? (Read 2044 times)

LtHans · « **on:** September 16, 2001, 06:52:00 AM »

I've always wanted to travel around the US, but one of the things I want to do is not pass thru airport security, and I want to bring my car with. It may take longer yes, but you get to see more as you travel. Travel by car is tedious and your limited by the speed limit.

Is there any sort of feeling that a good, highspeed rail network would be beneficial to the US now?

LtHans · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2001, 07:06:00 AM »

One of the other reasons I bring this up. This might be a good way for airlines to differenciate. Whenever there is an air disaster, they lose buisness. They should have an alternate way to keep afloat.

Still, it does look like government may have to bail them out. Alot of people will be losing their jobs in the meantime.

Hans.

Cabby44 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2001, 09:38:00 AM »

Good point, LtHans.

This probably means the end of Washington National Airport. It is currently closed and all indications are that it will remain so. New rapid transit will have to be constructed in D.C.

The Airlines will lose billions and thousands will lose their jobs. This will ripple throughout the US economy(and thus the world economy)in the coming weeks.

The reponsible, intelligent, and mature governments of the world realize the threat to not only the peace, but to the economic viability of the nations of the Free World from International Terrorism. Enough disasters caused by International Terrorism and the whole world economy could plunge into depression.

And economic depression = starvation, disease, instability, and war. No doubt this would please the Anarchists, Greens, Communists, and other wacko groups, but they are the minority and will be ignored.

The danger is so clear and present that it's a forgone conclusion that terrorist groups and the nations who harbor them are in the crosshairs of the overwhelming majority of the World Community.

We will soon find out which nations have the fortitude to back-up the United States and it's close Allies in the effort about to begin. If the quality of life of the people of this planet is to have a chance to improve, this scourge of International Terrorism must be eradicated.

Cabby

Sandman · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2001, 10:08:00 AM »

Even the current slow railways are inefficient and expensive. I don't see high speed railways as an option.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2001, 10:33:00 AM »

sandman,
maybe if we had highspeed trains people would use them. out here on the west coast you can generaly drive in much less time than the train takes. if i could take a train to seattle or san francisco that could get me there in about 1/2 the driving time i would. especially now that the check in times for airports is going up. fast trains would be competetive time wise with planes especialy on trips under 500 miles or so

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: capt. apathy ]

Fatty · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2001, 10:56:00 AM »

Outside of major population concentrations (new england. Even the west coast is a stretch, but LA-SF-Seattle is at least worthy of discussion) our population is just too spread out for any sort of european style rail network.

I'd love to see it, Amtrak actually does run from here in Austin to Tallahassee, but aside from taking two days it costs twice as much as a plane ticket. Rail travel in the US is unfortunately a money pit, either thru failed businesses or artificially propped up by taxpayers.

john9001 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2001, 11:50:00 AM »

florida has plans for high-speed rail between miami-orlando-tampa

i think there are plans for one in the north east, wash to boston

1776 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2001, 11:55:00 AM »

Railroads will never again be what they were in the first half of the last century.

The American public's faith in air travel has had a temporary setback. Airlines will suffer in the short term, but will be back stronger then ever. We, the people of the USA, will accept no other alternative.

miko2d · « **Reply #8 on:** September 17, 2001, 09:22:00 PM »

The great thing about railroad is that it can be powered by electricity once US public gets it's head out of it's collective bellybutton and resumes building nuclear reactors.

Arriving into the middle of a city instead of the airport far away is another huge bonus.

miko

LtHans · « **Reply #9 on:** September 18, 2001, 05:38:00 AM »

Another good point Miko. Power.

We're at the mercy of foreign powers when it comes to energy. I am happy that the cost of gasoline has not changed one bit.

Still, it would rock some foundations if President Bush remarks in his State of the Union Address comming up that he has suggestions for new nuclear power plants and oil exploration.

It was one of his goals when he was (barely) elected. Now it doesn't seem so bad of an idea to me. I would welcome it actually. The less control over our country the better. I hate having to bow down to countries that hate us to get oil. It is bitting us in the bellybutton big time.

I wouldn't even be opposed to starting a serious and expensive project to explore the possiblity to get fusion power working, and I do mean working in a useful way. That project surely would get support from alot of countries, even those that are not terribly interested in getting involved with the current crisis like Russia. The other benefit of fusion power is they cannot be covertly used to create nuclear bomb material, aka Plutonium or Uranium 235. As I currently understand it if you bomb a fusion power plant, all it does is shut down with no explosion. A fission nuclear reactor has a meltdown and fallout like Chernobyl.

Even if that isn't possible, normal nuclear power plants are looking more promsing to me. I would rather our pains be self inflicted and controlled.

Hans.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #10 on:** September 18, 2001, 01:09:00 PM »

john9001 posted:

Quote

i think there are plans for one in the north east, wash to boston

There already is one, it's called Acela and is run by Amtrak from Boston>NYC>Washington, it makes several stops between each of the major metropolitan areas though so it's not really that much better than taking an airline.

The train runs up to about 130 mph between Boston and NYC, and 110 between NYC and Washington--but it maintains these speeds for very short times because of speed restrictions and station stops.
http://acela.com/

Rude · « **Reply #11 on:** September 18, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »

Heyas Nath...welcome back!

Hope you and your family are all safe.

Nath[BDP] · « **Reply #12 on:** September 18, 2001, 02:14:00 PM »

Thanks Rude, everyone is fine.

Dowding · « **Reply #13 on:** September 18, 2001, 03:40:00 PM »

Lt.Hans,

Firstly, fusion power research has been happening for decades with no real progress. Check out the Joint European Torus project. Fusion has occured, but only for virtually immeasurable instants of time. There has been very little progress in actually making nuclear fusion a viable energy source, despite much investment and effort.

Secondly, nuclear power is far from 'clean' and is very, very expensive to commission. Combined with the long-term problems associated with de-comissioning and the day-to-day process waste, it is far more economical to generate electricity using modern, efficient gas turbines (for example). This might change in the future, but for next few decades (in the UK at least) using natural gas is by far the best option, both economically and environmentally.