|
Posted by on April 3, 2008, 4:33 pm
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:29:19 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT), "hallerb@aol.com"
>>
>>>mag lev can do it at 300 miles per hour, with flight delays etc speed
>>>would be a wash.
>>
>> What is the real average speed? 100? 150? What path will the train have
>> to take? 3500-4000 miles? so it only takes 24 hours. Still not much of
>> an option
>>
>> Who will buy the land? How much do you figure that ticket is going to
>> cost?
>>
>> Trains make sense in urban environments but when you start getting out
>> in the boonies they don't attract many passengers. You can't confuse
>> things that work in Europe where countries are the size of congressional
>> districts here with what works in the US.
>
>
>You don't actually need a maglev train. The TGV travels at 320 km/h (200
>mph), using traditional train tracks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV
>. And they've been running since 1974, the maximum speed they have
>reached was 515 km/hr.
How fast do they really run?
I know the Metroliner DC-NYC always talked about fantastic speeds, it
ran about 70 most of the time.
>
>I'm not denying it would be a major engineering and legislative feat, but
>it wouldn't be any bigger than the U.S. interstate system. Such projects
>have been very beneficient in the past.
You couldn't build the interstate system today. It would never get out
of the environmental impact phase.
>I live in Europe, where traveling by train is an option. I have to travel
>to scientific conferences and such, which is paid by the university. So I
>don't worry about whether the train or the plane is more expensive (It can
>go either way, but only because air travel is so heavily subsidized).
>Train travel uses less energy and less labor to deliver people, so on an
>even playing field, train travel is cheaper.
>
>Now, here is my algorithm for deciding which to take:
>
>0. Can I take a train?
> Obviously I can't take the train everywhere. So if I'm going to
> the US or sardegnia, I fly.
>1. Less than 6 hours by train?
> -take the train. It's less hassle with the security, and for
> works out to be time and energy saving, since I have to add
> arriving 2 hours early at the airport, plus the time to travel to
> the airport, etc. Also the trains are WAY more comfortable than
> planes.
>2. More than 8 hours: Is there an overnight train? Then take the train.
>For travels of 8+ hours on the train, I can get a sleeper car, and wake up
>refreshed at my destination. Usually for the price of a plane ticket.
>
>Otherwise I take the plane.
>
>So even in a world where energy isn't YET massively expensive, the train
>is a valuable alternative to have. Now, if you incorporate the rising
>costs of energy production the train becomes a more and more viable
>alternative.
Trains make sense here where the right of way already exists, the
track is in reasonable condition and the population centers are very
close together. That eliminates about 90% of the US geography.
The reality is the US has a lot more airline infrastructure in place
than railroad infrasructure. I doubt we have really laid any new track
on new right of way since WWII. Except for some passenger rail in the
NE corridor, most of the track in place is the old bolted rail, not
the precision welded rail you need for fast trains. Whenever we have
really tried fast trains they end up crashing and the US citizens have
little tolerance for crashes.
I doubt security would be much different than the airport as soon as
the first guy blows up or derails a train.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap