Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] high-speed rail: where do we put it?

Expand Messages
  • Jym Dyer
    ... =v= Yeah, but that particular corridor of southerly Pittsburgh always gets the experimental transit stuff, while the north side (my hometown) just gets
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > I'm in Pittsburgh and think that the whole thing is off base.
      > The central part of PA isn't populated. The corporate welfare
      > is way too high of a cost. The benefits are way too low. The
      > proprietary nature does not use off the shelf common sense.

      =v= Yeah, but that particular corridor of southerly Pittsburgh
      always gets the experimental transit stuff, while the north
      side (my hometown) just gets paved over with more highway, a
      corporate welfare project that costs much more than these do.
      I'm less upset about the former than the latter.

      > [H]ow about this: A line from DC's airport that would be
      > turned into a magport (on the subway line) to Pittsburgh
      > airport to Pittsburgh downtown, to Akron/Canton/?? and then
      > Cleveland airport and downtown Cleveland.
      >
      > One could fly to Pittsburgh -- and be in DC in well less than
      > an hour.

      =v= I don't quite get the point of making people fly to
      Pittsburgh as part of the trip; the very use of a plane means
      a large expenditure of fuel over and above the trip's distance.

      =v= What we need truly high-speed rail for (think TGV) is to
      replace airline traffic. Chicago and L.A.'s airports are far
      too busy, and in San Francisco it's so out of hand they're
      planning to fill in the Bay to make more runways. There are so
      many trips from San Fran to L.A. that it's insane *not* to put
      in high-speed rail there. Chicago to the East Coast also comes
      to mind.

      > I think that the high speed east coast [Amtrak] makes good
      > sense. The stops are not that far away. The lines have been
      > proven. Trains there are working.

      =v= Uh, if the stops are not that far away, there's less need
      for speed. There's also smart scheduling going on so that one
      can hop into a sleeper car in the evening and arrive in a city
      in time for a business meeting the next day, which makes the
      journey competitive with the cost and time of flying and staying
      in hotels. (I just did something like that from New York to
      Chicago, but the schedule doesn't work very well in the other
      direction.)

      =v= There's still too much shuttle airline traffic, and all its
      attendant fuel consumption and pollution, along the East Coast.
      The high-speed Acela trains could supplant some of that if only
      they had high-speed tracks to run on. High-speed rail could
      also provide good express service for the cities that are at
      the extremes, e.g. from Boston to Atlanta.
      <_Jym_>
    • J.H. Crawford
      Jim Dyer said: (gee, I was just beginning to think that traffic on the list had almost stopped!) ... Several corridors have long been identified, and all of
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 14, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim Dyer said:

        (gee, I was just beginning to think that traffic on the list
        had almost stopped!)

        >=v= What we need truly high-speed rail for (think TGV) is to
        >replace airline traffic. Chicago and L.A.'s airports are far
        >too busy, and in San Francisco it's so out of hand they're
        >planning to fill in the Bay to make more runways. There are so
        >many trips from San Fran to L.A. that it's insane *not* to put
        >in high-speed rail there. Chicago to the East Coast also comes
        >to mind.

        Several corridors have long been identified, and all of them
        probably make sense. Let's start with SF-LA, where there is
        indeed an outrageous amount of air traffic.

        >=v= Uh, if the stops are not that far away, there's less need
        >for speed.

        I think the meaning was, "the stations are in downtown."
        The distances between cities are just right for high-speed
        service. Accela is still pretty pokey.

        >There's also smart scheduling going on so that one
        >can hop into a sleeper car in the evening and arrive in a city
        >in time for a business meeting the next day, which makes the
        >journey competitive with the cost and time of flying and staying
        >in hotels. (I just did something like that from New York to
        >Chicago, but the schedule doesn't work very well in the other
        >direction.)

        Man, what a way to travel. It's how business was done in the
        US (probably Europe, too) until flying took over. With good
        equipment, it's a fine way to move around. I once took the
        train from Vancouver to Toronto (3.5 days!) and had a great
        trip. Still, that's awfully slow, if incredibly pretty.

        >=v= There's still too much shuttle airline traffic, and all its
        >attendant fuel consumption and pollution, along the East Coast.
        >The high-speed Acela trains could supplant some of that if only
        >they had high-speed tracks to run on. High-speed rail could
        >also provide good express service for the cities that are at
        >the extremes, e.g. from Boston to Atlanta.

        Boston-Atlanta must be nearly 1000 miles. While that's feasible
        at 300 MPH, it's still quite a long trip. I don't really think
        300 MPH is going to be achieved. The fastest trains in service
        in France are 350 KILOMETERS/hour. That's "only" about 220 MPH.
        The French tested a train at about 300 MPH, but I'll be the noise
        was extreme. Even maglev is going to be noisy at that speed,
        just from air turbulence.

        Regards,



        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        postmaster@... Carfree.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.