High Speed Rail

[PolicySpy]

High speed rail is in the news but it's probably just an upgrade of
Amtrak to 90 MPH.

I would avoid the Amtrak routes when possible and build a new self-
contained system cabable of 150 MPH.

The route would be New York, Washington DC, Richmond, Charlotte,
Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson, Dallas, Okalahoma City, St Louis,
Indianapolis, Columbus, Akron, and back to New York.

An obvious spur line would be Indianapolis to Chicago.

The Florida spur line would be Atlanta, Gainsville, and Orlando.

The California spur line would be Oklahoma City, Albuquerque,
Flagstaff, and Los Angeles.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but

Post by PolicySpy
High speed rail is in the news but it's probably just an upgrade of
Amtrak to 90 MPH.
I would avoid the Amtrak routes when possible and build a new self-
contained system cabable of 150 MPH.
The route would be New York, Washington DC, Richmond, Charlotte,
Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson, Dallas, Okalahoma City, St Louis,
Indianapolis, Columbus, Akron, and back to New York.
An obvious spur line would be Indianapolis to Chicago.
The Florida spur line would be Atlanta, Gainsville, and Orlando.
The California spur line would be Oklahoma City, Albuquerque,
Flagstaff, and Los Angeles.

This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money for
stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to get
us out of our cars and into mass transit.

I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would have
the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European model in
lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of the U.S. and
the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a part of our
collective psyches.

I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.


*R* *H*

[robw]

On Feb 28, 3:03 pm, Rockinghorse Winner

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
* It may have been the liquor talking, but

Post by PolicySpy
High speed rail is in the news but it's probably just an upgrade of
Amtrak to 90 MPH.
I would avoid the Amtrak routes when possible and build a new self-
contained system cabable of 150 MPH.
The route would be New York, Washington DC, Richmond, Charlotte,
Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson,  Dallas, Okalahoma City, St Louis,
Indianapolis, Columbus, Akron, and back to New York.
An obvious spur line would be Indianapolis to Chicago.
The Florida spur line would be Atlanta, Gainsville, and Orlando.
The California spur line would be Oklahoma City, Albuquerque,
Flagstaff, and Los Angeles.

This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money for
stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to get
us out of our cars and into mass transit.
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would have
the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European model in
lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of the U.S. and
the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a part of our
collective psyches.
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.
*R* *H*
--
          Powered by Linux              |/     2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
 "No spyware. No viruses. No nags."     |/   2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
       http://www.jamendo.com          |/        
    "Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words."  St. Francis    - Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It's the 21st century.
A great place to visit.
Might want to try it someday.

[Rui Maciel]

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money
for stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to
get us out of our cars and into mass transit.

What's wrong with that?

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would
have the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European
model in lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of
the U.S. and the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a
part of our collective psyches.

The area of the US, and the way the population is spread along the
territory, makes the US even more well suited for not only a high-speed
network but also a decent rail transport network.

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.

Private business can only flourish if there is a decent infrastructure in
place. If private businesses have at their disposal a continental
logistics network which is cheap, fast and reliable then they are able to
expand their business, not only due to the lower costs with logistics but
also because they are suddenly able to tap markets which weren't
accessible before.

Another obvious advantage is that a decent nation-wide logistics network
is a considerable strategic asset.

Finally, private businesses are incapable of building a nation-wide
logistics network that adequately serves the country's best interests.


Rui Maciel

[Rui Maciel]

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money
for stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to
get us out of our cars and into mass transit.

What's wrong with that?

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would
have the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European
model in lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of
the U.S. and the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a
part of our collective psyches.

The area of the US, and the way the population is spread along the
territory, makes the US even more well suited for not only a high-speed
network but also a decent rail transport network.

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.

Private business can only flourish if there is a decent infrastructure in
place. If private businesses have at their disposal a continental
logistics network which is cheap, fast and reliable then they are able to
expand their business, not only due to the lower costs with logistics but
also because they are suddenly able to tap markets which weren't
accessible before.

Another obvious advantage is that a decent nation-wide logistics network
is a considerable strategic asset.


Rui Maciel

[Day Brown]

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money for
stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to get
us out of our cars and into mass transit.
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would have
the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European model in
lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of the U.S. and
the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a part of our
collective psyches.
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.

People dont like living near high speed rail either.

But what would work is a new design, a track wide enuf that you could
drive your car onto it from one side, then off from the other at the end
of the line. Which should run across the Great Plains giving everyone
going from coast to coast, including truckers, a few hours of sleep
while it covers a thousand miles of prairie.

Anywhere it could go across empty agribusiness wheat or corn fields, not
hub to hub, but beltway to beltway on an elevated rail. You dont want to
hit a cow at 300 mph.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Day Brown

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money for
stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to get
us out of our cars and into mass transit.
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would have
the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European model in
lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of the U.S. and
the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a part of our
collective psyches.
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.

People dont like living near high speed rail either.
But what would work is a new design, a track wide enuf that you could
drive your car onto it from one side, then off from the other at the end
of the line. Which should run across the Great Plains giving everyone
going from coast to coast, including truckers, a few hours of sleep
while it covers a thousand miles of prairie.
Anywhere it could go across empty agribusiness wheat or corn fields, not
hub to hub, but beltway to beltway on an elevated rail. You dont want to
hit a cow at 300 mph.

Now, THAT would work! Don't expect to see it happen, however, because
the eco-Nazis don't want you to ues your car anymore.

[Day Brown]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Day Brown

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money for
stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to get
us out of our cars and into mass transit.
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would have
the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European model in
lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of the U.S. and
the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a part of our
collective psyches.
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.

People dont like living near high speed rail either.
But what would work is a new design, a track wide enuf that you could
drive your car onto it from one side, then off from the other at the end
of the line. Which should run across the Great Plains giving everyone
going from coast to coast, including truckers, a few hours of sleep
while it covers a thousand miles of prairie.
Anywhere it could go across empty agribusiness wheat or corn fields, not
hub to hub, but beltway to beltway on an elevated rail. You dont want to
hit a cow at 300 mph.

Now, THAT would work! Don't expect to see it happen, however, because
the eco-Nazis don't want you to ues your car anymore.

Well thanx; not that it matters what we here think. But the Greens could
get behind a standard rail system that did the same with golfcarts-
which have the range to get from the house to the depot and then drive
off a flatcar to the parking ramp. Since urban hub traffic is so slow,
the 25mph top speed of a golfcart would do, and be gonzo easier to park-
where it can get recharged.

But nobody with the power and money to do anything thinks this far
outside the box.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Day Brown

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Day Brown

Post by Rockinghorse Winner
This is just an excuse for the Federal govt to spend more of our money for
stimulus and because the energy conservation activists who have the
President's ear convinced him that this would be a salvo in the fight to get
us out of our cars and into mass transit.
I'm not convinced this incremental and very expensive proposal would have
the intended effect. I don't think the U.S. can follow the European model in
lessening the dependence on cars, mainly because of the size of the U.S. and
the tradition of independent travel by automobile that is a part of our
collective psyches.
I think we should save the money and use it reduce our debt. Let private
business, not govt. spending, be the spark to ignite the recovery.

People dont like living near high speed rail either.
But what would work is a new design, a track wide enuf that you could
drive your car onto it from one side, then off from the other at the end
of the line. Which should run across the Great Plains giving everyone
going from coast to coast, including truckers, a few hours of sleep
while it covers a thousand miles of prairie.
Anywhere it could go across empty agribusiness wheat or corn fields, not
hub to hub, but beltway to beltway on an elevated rail. You dont want to
hit a cow at 300 mph.

Now, THAT would work! Don't expect to see it happen, however, because
the eco-Nazis don't want you to ues your car anymore.

Well thanx; not that it matters what we here think. But the Greens could
get behind a standard rail system that did the same with golfcarts-
which have the range to get from the house to the depot and then drive
off a flatcar to the parking ramp. Since urban hub traffic is so slow,
the 25mph top speed of a golfcart would do, and be gonzo easier to park-
where it can get recharged.
But nobody with the power and money to do anything thinks this far
outside the box.

The trouble with HSR is that it takes you only to fixed locations. If
you have to go further afield, you need a car, not a golf cart!

As presently envisaged and currently implemented in other countries, HSR
is too limited and would be nothing but an expensive boondoggle in the
US.

[Rui Maciel]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
The trouble with HSR is that it takes you only to fixed locations. If
you have to go further afield, you need a car, not a golf cart!

Replace HSR with airplane, ferry, subway, bus or any other means of public
transportation. Then, see if that comment makes sense.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
As presently envisaged and currently implemented in other countries, HSR
is too limited and would be nothing but an expensive boondoggle in the
US.

Replace HSR with airplane, ferry, subway, bus or any other means of public
transportation. Then, see if that comment makes sense.


Rui Maciel

[Day Brown]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Day Brown
But nobody with the power and money to do anything thinks this far
outside the box.

The trouble with HSR is that it takes you only to fixed locations. If
you have to go further afield, you need a car, not a golf cart!
As presently envisaged and currently implemented in other countries, HSR
is too limited and would be nothing but an expensive boondoggle in the
US.

People who work in an urban hub office have the money to afford both.
But I dont expect HSR either. If the price of gas rose so much people
would consider it, that pump price would also crash the economy. End of
problem.

[Rui Maciel]

Post by Day Brown
People dont like living near high speed rail either.

People also don't like living near highways, airports, industrial ports
and the like. Yet, they exist and no one complains that that sort of
infrastructure should not be built. Therefore, it's a non-issue.


<snip/>


Rui Maciel

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article

Post by PolicySpy
High speed rail is in the news but it's probably just an upgrade of
Amtrak to 90 MPH.
I would avoid the Amtrak routes when possible and build a new self-
contained system cabable of 150 MPH.
The route would be New York, Washington DC, Richmond, Charlotte,
Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson, Dallas, Okalahoma City, St Louis,
Indianapolis, Columbus, Akron, and back to New York.
An obvious spur line would be Indianapolis to Chicago.
The Florida spur line would be Atlanta, Gainsville, and Orlando.
The California spur line would be Oklahoma City, Albuquerque,
Flagstaff, and Los Angeles.

"High speed rail" is a 19th Century idea that has been long obsolete.

1. It only takes passengers from points where it goes; it does NOT serve
outlying areas. Let us take Daytona-Tampa, for example.

a. You drive to the rail head, park your car, buy a ticket and wait for
the train.
Time: 15 minutes, to 2 hours.
b. The train takes you to Tampa and dumps you off in Tampa.
Time: 2 hours (with stops in orlando)
c. but you wanted to go to Clearwater!
You either hire a taxi or rent a car (or maybe take the bus).
Time: 30 minutes to 2 hours.

It is easier and faster to drive to Clearwater, even with I-4 traffic.
Time: 2.5 hours, compared to 2.75 hours minimum and the costs of
parking, train fare and cab/bus/car rental.

Trains worked in the 19th Century/early 20th Century, but there is a
REASON that they faded! That reason is CONVENIENCE.

[Rui Maciel]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
"High speed rail" is a 19th Century idea that has been long obsolete.
1. It only takes passengers from points where it goes; it does NOT serve
outlying areas. Let us take Daytona-Tampa, for example.

So do airplanes. So, what's your point?


Rui Maciel