BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

KC

On 4/16/2014 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:35:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If open land existed between two remote cities and a high speed train
could actually run at 150 to 200 mph for most of the run it might make
sense and people might use it. But we don't have that space in many
places where people would want to travel and the number of stops between
the cities negates the whole allure of high speed train transportation.

One of the most used Amtrak routes are on the northeast corridor. It
still represents a tiny fraction of the traveling public however. It's
not high speed and will never be high speed. Land doesn't exist and
there are too many required stops.

Exactly right. The Acela boasts of speeds around 130-135 MPH but it
averages more like 60-65 and that is "train time" not the time at the
station parking, checking bags, security, boarding and getting off.

TSA is already talking about going into a full scale "airport" like
security system. We are just one threat away from it and the
government likes to get bigger.

It's a convienience for a few who have the time and money to make it
worth while to use it to commute back and fourth to the city when
necessary...

I used to drop my neighbor off to take the train to the city a couple
times a week to check in with his office but he mostly worked at home in
Essex. Most times if he wasn't the only person on a car, he split it
with a couple riders at most and there were empty cars too. I did have a
limited experience, but I saw a lot of it on the line from Boston to NYC...