Re: [carfree_cities] high-speed rail: where do we put it?
- 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 toSeveral corridors have long been identified, and all of them
>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
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 needI 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 oneMan, what a way to travel. It's how business was done in the
>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
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 itsBoston-Atlanta must be nearly 1000 miles. While that's feasible
>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.
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.
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities