6 ms·
Aw geez, not another high-speed-rail argument. The US does not have, and will never have, an effective high-speed-rail network. Nor does it really need one. Yo
by hugh3 16y ago
Aw geez, not another high-speed-rail argument.
The US does not have, and will never have, an effective high-speed-rail network. Nor does it really need one. You can already get from every city to every other city in a slow convenient way (car) or a fast inconvenient way (plane), and there's no real need for a third method intermediate in speed. Have you ever been at a total loss to figure out how to get from one city to another conveniently? I haven't.
The Chinese government can build high speed rail, cuz it doesn't mind ripping up the houses of hundreds of thousands of people to build dead-straight rail lines into the middle of cities. The US, at this stage, has far too much investment in its cities to rip 'em up just so that I can get from San Francisco to Los Angeles in four hours (instead of seven hours, or one hour).
- melling 16y agoLA to San Francisco is about 350 miles. That's a 90 minute train ride. Beijing to Shanghai is about 820 miles. This will take about 4 hours when the trains comes online in June, a year ahead of schedule.
- jat850 16y agoI apologize but I do not understand your post. Are you saying LA to San Francisco is 350 miles and currently a 90 minute train ride (233mph) - contrasted against Beijing to Shanghai (205mph). So the high speed rail in China is slower? I realize I must have misunderstood something here. Also, I don't know California geography very well, nor the existing modes/means of transportation between those two locations. Can you clarify the point of your post here?
- melling 16y agoI was explaining how long it should take using high-speed rail. The person to which I was responding stated that the trip would be 4 hours instead of 7. High-speed rails go around 200mph, however the next gen Chinese will be around 230mph.
- astrodust 16y agoIf fuel prices double again, which they surely will do within ten years, do you really think that the automotive and aviation options are going to continue to be inexpensive? The pressure on fuels will only get worse over time, and unless you have a better idea, high-speed rail, which can be electrified, is a far more efficient method of transport. There are high speed rail systems that don't involve carving up tons of land, either by building on top of existing right of ways or by building it on pylons to elevate it.
- hugh3 16y agoActually it seems to me that electric cars are a more energy-efficient solution than high-speed trains. We're not that far away from the point where this becomes practical. A train might use less electricity per passenger-mile than a car when it's full, but when it's not full its efficiency goes down pretty quick because you're hauling a lot of metal around. Also there's the fundamental inefficiency of trains: they always go from somewhere that isn't exactly where you are to somewhere that isn't exactly where you want to be, on some schedule that probably doesn't exactly match what you want to do.
- tomp 16y agoThe biggest problem of electric cars is the battery (heavy, short range, short life), which is a problem electric trains don't share.
- protomyth 16y agoIf fuel prices double again and we do not have a clear replacement for our liquid fuel / road infrastructure, then food production / transportation is going to be a problem and more rail isn't the solution to that.
- hugh3 16y agoActually, a single doubling of fuel prices probably isn't a big problem for food prices, not in the US, where food is a tiny portion of most folks' budget.
- samfoo 16y agoYes: Seattle/Portland/Vancouver BC via plane take only about 45 minutes of actual flight time, but 2 hours or so of hassle going through airport nonsense (more if you cross the border). The drive is two hours, but a waste of gas and time if you're only going for a weekend. Highspeed rail is the perfect intermediate and at a reasonable price (read: $100 or so round trip) would be well more than enough reason to ditch my car for basically all trips greater than 100 miles. Just because there are some places in the USA where highspeed rail doesn't make sense doesn't mean that argument extends to the whole country.
- hugh3 16y agoActually you're right, there may well be parts of the US where high-speed rail makes sense. On a project-by-project basis it's certainly an option worth considering. What I take issue with is the idea that because other countries have it that the US needs it too. That's a silly argument. Other countries have medieval castles, ubiquitous bidets and abundant kangaroos, but the US doesn't need those either. (And in fact, only four countries in the world have a high-speed rail network worth a damn -- that's France, Germany, Japan and China).
- samfoo 16y agoIf I'm honest: I mostly want high speed rail because it's badass :-) I've been on HSR in France, Japan and China and always feel like I'm in the future.
- melling 16y agoYou forgot Spain. You might want to look at a map of Europe. I think your info is out of date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail
- protomyth 16y agoI wouldn't count on HSR not having the same TSA problems that our airports have now. It seems like that is going to be the next big push by Homeland Security.