Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So it looks like US is not going to get the highspeed rail anytime soon because of budget cuts. I don't get much of a chance to use it really, but the few times I did I really enjoyed vs driving. I enjoyed the Moscow metro a lot, and I used rail to go from Moscow to Stalingrad and back, I've also gone from San Jose to San Francisco and back. I would love high speed rail from San Diego to LA, and if I was back in Cleveland, I'd love to shoot to NYC.

I just think it's a shame to cut this project that would create jobs, and cut our dependence on oil.

SOOOOOOO. I guess the question is what do people who have and use highspeed rail think. Is it the solution people claim it is, or is it rhetoric? Is it worth the investment?

I think it's a cool concept and everything, but not an effective short term goal. Which is of course all that matters when you need to be reelected every few years.

I'm thinking airships'll be big, since they don't need the road and rail infrastructure.

The USA doesn't have the political will to spend lots of public money on major infrastructure projects like road and rail networks.

I think airships are cool but they don't go very fast. They need infrastructure similar to an airport, but they don't need the interconnections that road and rail transport require. So I don't know their chances of success.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/avd/2011/03/24/02.xml&channel=comm

seems promising. If they "take off" and are the next big thing, you totally owe me a coke.

Bromsy wrote:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/avd/2011/03/24/02.xml&channel=comm

seems promising. If they "take off" and are the next big thing, you totally owe me a coke.

I've been waiting for someone to start investing in these kinds of airships since the demo model in 2006. I think that eventually they will be great for replacing various heavy lift helicopters. If the technology develops and gets cheap enough, it may be possible to replace most HGV's as well (which would be great in the UK as they fill up our roads like crazy).

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA doesn't have the political will to spend lots of public money on major infrastructure projects like road and rail networks.

This makes me sad.

Though I see more steampunk style battle trains racing across the countryside shelling Canada from miles away MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Err, ahem, perhaps I have said to much.

Andrew1975 wrote:SOOOOOOO. I guess the question is what do people who have and use highspeed rail think. Is it the solution people claim it is, or is it rhetoric? Is it worth the investment?

From what I've seen, Rail works best in areas where there are distant cities with dense population centers and centralized industry, commerce, and residential areas. The US doesn't really have this since industrial areas tend to be distant from commercial and industrial areas.

European cities grew up with the idea of central population centers, US cities grew up with a very mobile population, and cities in China are centrally based for a number of reasons, central planning being a big one.

I just don't think high speed rail will ever take off in the US, because the population is too spread out.

biccat wrote:I just don't think high speed rail will ever take off in the US, because the population is too spread out.

+1

The population is so packed in Europe or Japan compared to here its very easy to get lots of the population close access with few terminals. That's just not the case here.

I don't see what the actual benefits of rail in the US are supposed to be. The proposals I see for short distance rail mean a longer commute that I can only make at certain set times that will cost as much or more than my current commute. The proposals I see for longer rail look like spending a bunch of taxpayer money to let me take a train instead of a plane from point a to point b at about the same amount of time and the same price. People seem to say 'well, rail works in Europe' without actually considering that US population isn't nearly as clustered together.

The US population is more highly urbanised (clustered) than the EU or Japan. However the cities are farther apart because the land area is greater. That would seem to argue for suburban rail transport and inter-city air transport.

Except urbanized is a relative term. The greater Houston area is roughly 75 miles long. Dallas/Fort Worth is similar.

That's quite similar to the Greater London Southeast area, or the Kanto plain around Tokyo.

It's not unusual for people in Britain to commute 50 miles to work.

We're going to need some alternative car culture. It can't last.

It works on occasion, but a car is still much more multy purpose.

Lighter vehicles using advanced materials.
More efficient engines.
Alternative fuels, e.g. bio-diesel, alcohol and hydrogen.
Electric power.
Car sharing.

There are lots of ways car transport can be improved.

Trains could work very well in a lot of urban areas. Reducing cost to commute and cutting traffic way down.

My wife used to take the bus & train into the city when she worked in Boston and lived in Medford, before we were married. A friend of mine commonly commutes to work via train into Boston from one of its suburbs. Heck, another friend of mine takes the train three days a week from Portland, Maine to Waltham, Massachusetts. It's a long ride, but he can relax and work on his computer while he does it.

To me it just seams like a great way to travel from city to city for a get away of commute. America is very spread out, but there is usually a large city every couple hundred miles. It would temporarily create a lot of jobs and could create a lot of business opportunity in the rental vehicle market once you get to where you are going.

This is a real noob question, but does the thingy train line still run across the US? The one that goes across the whole country (i think) I should know, i learn't about it in History

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=amtrak+route+map

Kilkrazy wrote:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=amtrak+route+map

If i knew it was called amtrak i could have googled it myself

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=railway+across+USA

rodgers37 wrote:This is a real noob question, but does the thingy train line still run across the US? The one that goes across the whole country (i think) I should know, i learn't about it in History

Well I'm not sure what a "thingy train" is, but it sounds quite gross! Get the images out of my head!



This is the lease objectionable representation I could find.

I'm not sure if this violates a rule so mods feel free to take that down if you have to.

Can't the private sector do it?

Henners91 wrote:Can't the private sector do it?

I don't know how much incentive there is for the private sector to do it. It's such massive project that would require government land it might just be too expensive, the US is pretty big. I think the companies that have the know-how and ability might be the US automakers, plus they could really use the work. Unfortunately they would also have serious reservations about working on any project that makes automobiles less of a necessity.

The US has been exceptionally resistant to infrastrcture projects of any sort. The current generation seems to think its wasted time & money (Yay for the digital generation wanting instant gratification!)

We arent even maintaining our existing highways, bridges, damns, rail roads, electrical grids etc etc. So, maybe when gas does hit 5$ a gsllon, the reduction in traffic will be enough for all those structures to last a bit longer.

High speed rail sounds great, but it hard to justify to all Americans, using that much Federal funding on some thing is only planned to provide high speed rail between certain major cities. A rail line between LA and Las Vegas? Sounds awesome, but it does me no good

Sadly, the US is so deeply invested in its auto culture moving BACK to lower tech but more efficient things like trains would be a tremendous undertaking our overextended budget cannot handle. In the mean time we'll get to watch other public works wear out and collapse and then act surprised and outraged that it happened.

Henners91 wrote:Can't the private sector do it?

Of course they could. They did it during the 1800s. They did it because it made sense economically and the use of the railroads would pay for the investment.

The only reason to have government do it today is because it doesn't make sense economically.

biccat wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Can't the private sector do it?

Of course they could. They did it during the 1800s. They did it because it made sense economically and the use of the railroads would pay for the investment.

The only reason to have government do it today is because it doesn't make sense economically.

They couldn't have build high speed rail in the 1800's, it didn't exist. It might have been high speed for them, but that's a different story. High speed rail is vastly different from the trolley cars we used to have. Those were destroyed thanks to the US automakers. Thanks guys, let me know when you need another bailout!

biccat wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Can't the private sector do it?

Of course they could. They did it during the 1800s. They did it because it made sense economically and the use of the railroads would pay for the investment.

The only reason to have government do it today is because it doesn't make sense economically.

And the government provided extreme incentives for them to do so, involving massive tracts of valuable land beyond what was needed for the rail itself.

biccat wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Can't the private sector do it?

Of course they could. They did it during the 1800s. They did it because it made sense economically and the use of the railroads would pay for the investment.

The only reason to have government do it today is because it doesn't make sense economically.

The Trans-Continental Railroad was supported with 30 year bonds issued by Congress.

Completion substantially accelerated population of the West, promoted the creation of solid telegraph links.

In other words, although the line was thought to make sense economically, it was still impossible to complete without government support. Once completed, it brought benefits outside the originally envisaged ones.

Rails all the way.

My SimCity city is made with 100% rails, and I have almost no pollution and zero traffic.

Perfect.