On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:05:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

our interstate highway system is
crumbling

===

That's a major exaggeration. Some parts are certainly better than
others but most of it is in very good shape. We just completed a
3,000+ mile road trip on some of the most most heavily traveled
interstates on the east coast. Traffic and construction delays are
far more of an issue than road quality.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/2/13 1:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

...can't compete with this:

Japan Railway Comp. (JR Tokai) (TYO:9022) (aka. "The Central Japan
Railway Comp.) is responsible for ferrying close to 400,000
passengers
a day between some of the largest cities in central Japan. While
its
fastest bullet trains can cut the transit time from Tokyo to Osaka
from
about 6 hours by car to about 2 hours and 20 minutes by bullet
train, JR
Tokai is dreaming of a next generation maglev system that could go
even
faster, completing the 500+ kilometer (310+ mile) journey in under
an
hour.



When you don't waste your money on the military, you can have nice
things.

--------------------------------

Funds have been approved to develop high speed rail corridors in
the US
however the Department of Transportation is still working on the
safety
standards that will apply. Right now, the "crash worthiness"
spec for
the trains is more than double (in terms of forces than can be
withstood without frame deformation) than the standards used in
Europe
and Japan's high speed rail systems, i.e. almost 900,000 lbs versus
350,000 lbs.

The cost of designing and manufacturing such trains is a major
impediment, as is the cost of the rail system itself. Right now
there
are Amtrak trains between Boston and Wash DC capable of doing over
200
mph however there are very limited stretches of track that would
allow
speeds of even 150 mph. Plus, even if they could run at high
speed,
they would never be able to sustain the speed very long without
having
to stop at stations along the way. Not enough passenger usage for
"non
stop" tracks.



Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

-------------------------------

We've also had viable options like a network of airports, airlines
and a
love affair with cars.
We are not Europe or Japan and don't necessarily need to emulate
them
just because it works for them.



Most of our airports are obsolete and our interstate highway system is
crumbling, along with our power grid.

------------------------------

I'll betcha if a national poll was taken the majority of people would
prefer spending money on fixing roads and airports in lieu of building
a rail system network and trains capable of travelling 200+ mph.

The power grid isn't as big of a problem as you may think. Demand has
basically flat lined in the past several years and has actually
dropped in some. Smart grids and energy efficient devices have
helped.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:05:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Most of our airports are obsolete and our interstate highway system is
crumbling, along with our power grid.

So spend a few billion fixing the airports and interstates, not a
trillion on trains nobody will ride.

Who told you that no one will ride high speed trains in all of the major
corridors?

BTW I am not sure which airports are obsolete. Ours is brand new and
Florida takes pretty good care of their roads. Maybe that is because
they don't siphon highway tax money off for ill thought out mass
transit schemes.

Funny, highly government airports are okay with you, as are tax dollars
to expand roads to them, but subsidized high speed rail is bad.....

In article , says...

On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

...can't compete with this:

Japan Railway Comp. (JR Tokai) (TYO:9022) (aka. "The Central Japan
Railway Comp.) is responsible for ferrying close to 400,000 passengers
a day between some of the largest cities in central Japan. While its
fastest bullet trains can cut the transit time from Tokyo to Osaka from
about 6 hours by car to about 2 hours and 20 minutes by bullet train, JR
Tokai is dreaming of a next generation maglev system that could go even
faster, completing the 500+ kilometer (310+ mile) journey in under an hour.



When you don't waste your money on the military, you can have nice things.

--------------------------------

Funds have been approved to develop high speed rail corridors in the US
however the Department of Transportation is still working on the safety
standards that will apply. Right now, the "crash worthiness" spec for
the trains is more than double (in terms of forces than can be
withstood without frame deformation) than the standards used in Europe
and Japan's high speed rail systems, i.e. almost 900,000 lbs versus
350,000 lbs.

The cost of designing and manufacturing such trains is a major
impediment, as is the cost of the rail system itself. Right now there
are Amtrak trains between Boston and Wash DC capable of doing over 200
mph however there are very limited stretches of track that would allow
speeds of even 150 mph. Plus, even if they could run at high speed,
they would never be able to sustain the speed very long without having
to stop at stations along the way. Not enough passenger usage for "non
stop" tracks.



Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

If you take a look at the structure of our country it is not conducive to high speed trains.
There is too much money that gets spent on something that may not need the train service in
10 or 20 years. With busses and airplanes you can change the routes based upon changing
demographics in a matter of days without building a new set of rails. Trains have a purpose
and it isn't moving people efficiently. Hell, trains still need truck drivers at each enf of
the rail head.

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:43:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:16:30 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

NIMBY
Would you want a 150 MPH train running by your house?


===

I don't think that's it because there are already plenty of
established right-of-ways that could be utilized. It's probably more
a perception, probably accurate, that most americans would rather
drive if at all possible. When I was living and working in the NYC
area it was almost always easier, and about as fast, to drive to
Philly, DC or Boston even though there are decent rail links. The
only exception was if you were traveling to a downtown location which
was usually not the case. I think it will take a radical change in
fuel prices and/or availability to change that thinking.

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

On 9/3/2013 12:33 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

You still run into that "last 20 (or 40) mile" problem in each city
you get close to.
They may not have a suitable interstate going into the city and that
real estate tends to be curb to curb traffic lane.

Elevating a high speed train? That is just funny.
Cost, additional danger in a derailment, more noise.

I do like your sense of humor tho.

All it would take is a train popping off a track and taking out a
whole row of bumper to bumper commuters in cars on that interstate
below to sink rail in this country for years.


I wonder why the monorail concept never took off?

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

Harry is right, driving into NYC is bad but if you are going to the
burbs, from the burbs, driving it is.

===

Driving into all of the major cities is bad but burbs-to-burbs
describes a lot of what people do.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

Harry is right, driving into NYC is bad but if you are going to the
burbs, from the burbs, driving it is.

===

Driving into all of the major cities is bad but burbs-to-burbs
describes a lot of what people do.

That would be connecting light rail. Another win.

On 9/2/2013 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:16:30 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

NIMBY
Would you want a 150 MPH train running by your house?



It's already there on the whole frekin' shoreline... they got the land,
it's not about land...