On 4/16/2014 12:05 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 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.
Bull****. I've been on the Acela many times and when it is "train time,"
it is moving a hell of a lot faster than 65 mph. Even the ****ty old
trains running on the ****ty CSX trackage from here to Florida hit 80
mph during "train time" and maintain that pace through each of the seven
million or so unguarded railroad crossings.
The only way high speed rail transit would make sense and be worth the
taking of land by eminent domain and building cost is if the trains
could run at 150+ mph between two or three cities, hours apart along the
route. That's just not economically possible given the population
density in most places and especially along the northeast corridor.
It's been studied and rejected as being viable many times. Yeah, the
buzz words sound great but the reality isn't there.
Flying, as horrible as it is, is the only viable option.