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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.