High speed rail

Granted there are some areas outwest where the distances are pretty
far to warrant HSR right away, but there are many other cities that it
would work wonders for. Im not going to list them just look at the map
and use yur imagination. I have heard comments about rail not paying
for itself. May I ask this question...who pays for the schools,
freeways, highways, welfare,wtc. etc. If we went on it doesnt pay for
itself idelogy we would virtualy have no transportaion in this nation.
Im not saying take away your right to drive your cars, all Im saying
we should have a alternative from cars and planes. you may say it is
silly, I say it is just smart planning. Do any of you remember 9/11
when the planes wernt moving, and how we were relying on greyhound for
transportation beyond cars. Doesnt this put any lights on in your
head, that perhaps we need a back up form of transportaion. And I do
believe if rail was speed rail, and was convienent for people, it
would get used more, and hence it would begin to pay for itself. Now
it is slow and inconvienent, of course it wont pay for itself.









"pigo" wrote in message ...
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
.. .
David MR wrote:

"Green Hill" wrote in message
m...

I have a little dream too. I dream that the US someday gets their
act
together and seriously invests in high speed rail, something along
the
lines of germany or the Eurorail.
I dream that these rails actually
connect all cities and are actually convient for its users. I dream

Won't happen. Germany, France, and other European counties have
relatively
short distances between cities. Look at a map of the US. Outside
of the
eastern states, most major cities are far apart. I can see high
speed rail
for distances of up to about 400 miles. Distances longer than that
are
better covered by flying, even taking into account the time required
to
check in. While trains going from one end of the country to the
opposite
end may be practical in European countries, a train from one end of
this
country to the other, even at high speeds, would take anywhere from
at least
24 hours.

Given your 400 mile standard there is plenty of space for high speed
rail. Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio in all combinations;
Houston -
New Orleans; Buffalo - Cleveland; Cleveland - Detroit; Cleveland -
Columbus - Cincinnati; Charlotte - Atlanta; Atlanta - Birmingham; etc.

Given his 400 mile standard there are too many to list.
Starting in the west here's a few. San Diego-LA-SF-Eugene
Or. -Portland-Seattle-Vancouver BC.
SF-Reno (mountain speeds) Reno-LV-SLC-Boise-Pheonix-Denver (mountains
again) Denver-everywhere else.

The mentioned Los Angeles - Las Vegas path would do as well.

FFM

"Green Hill" wrote in message
m...
Do any of you remember 9/11
when the planes wernt moving, and how we were relying on greyhound for
transportation beyond cars. Doesnt this put any lights on in your
head, that perhaps we need a back up form of transportaion.

At work (on the West Coast), we had a lot of people on travel on the East
Coast on 9/11. Not a single one rode a bus or train back to the west coast.
They rented cars like most stranded people and drove home.

I don't think there is anywhere near the capacity in busses or trains to get
all the people that had airplane tickets back home. If I remember
correctly, the rental car companies went weeks dealing with all the cross
country rental car trips

We had one pair of people on the east coast that actually made it from D.C
to Silicon Valley in 40 hours by swapping out driving and sleeping. They
stopped at every airport near their route to see if they could get a plane
back.

The road and car system has a lot of redundancy. It will and did work
through the emergency. Bus and rail has very little total capacity and as
far as I know it contributed almost nothing to 9/11 transportation
solutions. There is no financially realistic way we could build a back up
system just for an emergency and let it rot doing nothing but waiting for
that emergency.

And I do
believe if rail was speed rail, and was convienent for people, it
would get used more, and hence it would begin to pay for itself. Now
it is slow and inconvienent, of course it wont pay for itself.

Doubtful. I doubt it could ever be fast enough or efficient enough under
Government operation to compete with the cutthroat competitive airlines.

"Jack May" wrote in message
news:nNwab.384212$Oz4.168178@rwcrnsc54...

We had one pair of people on the east coast that actually made it from D.C
to Silicon Valley in 40 hours by swapping out driving and sleeping. They
stopped at every airport near their route to see if they could get a plane
back.


If they stopped at every airport, there is no physical way they could have
made the trip in 40 hours, in fact, it's highly unlikely even if they didn't
stop. I think they were unmindful of the time or exaggerating. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

alohacyberian wrote:
"Jack May" wrote:
We had one pair of people on the east coast that actually made it from
D.C to Silicon Valley in 40 hours by swapping out driving and sleeping.
They stopped at every airport near their route to see if they could get a
plane back.

If they stopped at every airport, there is no physical way they could have
made the trip in 40 hours, in fact, it's highly unlikely even if they
didn't stop. I think they were unmindful of the time or exaggerating.

I'd have to agree. We drove from Ann Arbor to San Francisco basically
without stopping except to eat (just taking turns behind the wheel) and it
took over 40 hours.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

alohacyberian wrote:

"Jack May" wrote in message
news:nNwab.384212$Oz4.168178@rwcrnsc54...

We had one pair of people on the east coast that actually made it from D.C
to Silicon Valley in 40 hours by swapping out driving and sleeping. They
stopped at every airport near their route to see if they could get a plane
back.


If they stopped at every airport, there is no physical way they could have
made the trip in 40 hours, in fact, it's highly unlikely even if they didn't
stop. I think they were unmindful of the time or exaggerating. KM

It's 2846 miles from DC to San Jose. At 40 hours, that is 71mph if they
go non stop, with re-fueling tanker trucks that drive alongside and
throw donuts to the drivers. Not to mention stopping at the airports,
traffic, cops, etc.

Jacob



--
http://www.GreenFairy.org/
Buy Absinthe online. Only the best Original Absinthe with the highest
Thujone and lowest prices. Order online.
--
http://www.WanderingJacob.com
Personal homepage about my life and adventures. UNIQUE pictures AND
VIDEOS from Japan, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Cross USA, Spain,
Czech, Netherlands

Jacob Fruehling wrote in message ...
alohacyberian wrote:

"Jack May" wrote in message
news:nNwab.384212$Oz4.168178@rwcrnsc54...

We had one pair of people on the east coast that actually made it from D.C
to Silicon Valley in 40 hours by swapping out driving and sleeping. They
stopped at every airport near their route to see if they could get a plane
back.


If they stopped at every airport, there is no physical way they could have
made the trip in 40 hours, in fact, it's highly unlikely even if they didn't
stop. I think they were unmindful of the time or exaggerating. KM

It's 2846 miles from DC to San Jose. At 40 hours, that is 71mph if they
go non stop, with re-fueling tanker trucks that drive alongside and
throw donuts to the drivers. Not to mention stopping at the airports,
traffic, cops, etc.

Jacob

Don'T you remember Vanishing Point? It was a man, a machine (Dodge
Challenger) and some pills to stay awake.

Matthias scharwies

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...

I'd have to agree. We drove from Ann Arbor to San Francisco basically
without stopping except to eat (just taking turns behind the wheel)
and it
took over 40 hours.

That sounds like a long time. A couple of years ago I went Apalachicola
FL to Salt Lake in about 32 hours driving time between over nights.

As an over the road tour guide, with Europeans and girls that needed to
stop at least briefly every 2 hours or so, and general experience living
in the Western US as well, a good rule of thumb for casual car travel is
about 2 hours for 100 miles. Road warriors, of course will do much
better. But over the long run with women, pets, kids, sit down meals,
that's how it averages out.

On that FL trip I did 1000 mi. in 15 hrs. the first day.

pigo

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:55:34 GMT, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Jacob Fruehling" wrote in message
...
alohacyberian wrote:
It's 2846 miles from DC to San Jose. At 40 hours, that is 71mph if they
go non stop, with re-fueling tanker trucks that drive alongside and
throw donuts to the drivers. Not to mention stopping at the airports,
traffic, cops, etc.

The legend may have grown in my mind as legends often do over the years

It may have been 40 something hours maybe even longer. They may have
checked the airports by calling. With those guys even 71 MPH is doable.
They were trying to get back for an important meeting with customers. A 10
minute stop every four hours is not a lot of delay and grabbing fast food is
not a long stop either.

It is quite possible to average 71mph using the Interstates,
including brief refueling stops at stations with mini-marts for
calories. it does require driving at nearly 80mph while en route,
but this is quite feasible, especially west of the Mississippi.

Not that I'd want to actually do it. Back when I was in my 20s,
maybe...

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Jacob Fruehling" wrote in message
...
alohacyberian wrote:
It's 2846 miles from DC to San Jose. At 40 hours, that is 71mph if they
go non stop, with re-fueling tanker trucks that drive alongside and
throw donuts to the drivers. Not to mention stopping at the airports,
traffic, cops, etc.

The legend may have grown in my mind as legends often do over the years

It may have been 40 something hours maybe even longer. They may have
checked the airports by calling. With those guys even 71 MPH is doable.
They were trying to get back for an important meeting with customers. A 10
minute stop every four hours is not a lot of delay and grabbing fast food is
not a long stop either.

On 18 Sep 2003 14:23:35 -0700, (Green Hill)
wrote:

Granted there are some areas outwest where the distances are pretty
far to warrant HSR right away, but there are many other cities that it
would work wonders for.Im not going to list them just look at the map
and use yur imagination.

Why nto. Apparently, you've exercised your imagination.

I have heard comments about rail not paying
for itself. May I ask this question...who pays for the schools,
freeways, highways, welfare,wtc. etc. If we went on it doesnt pay for
itself idelogy we would virtualy have no transportaion in this nation.

Schools and highways are considered social necessities, vital to
the economic well-being of cities, regions, states and countries.
Today this also includes airports. As such it is considered
societally and economically desirable for these to be supported
by government funding, if necessary.

Similarly, transit systems are, in many places, considered
socio-economic necessities, and places like New York, San
Francisco, London, paris, et al, could probably not survive in
their present form were they not to subsidize local transit;
there is simply no better way to get around in their urban areas
at anything resembling a reasonable cost. But this is all open
and above board; San Franciscans do not dispute the need for the
Muni to be subsidized, but only how much the city and county can
afford to lose on it.

I have no quarrel with such governmental subsidies.

I do have a problem with systems like Salt Lake City light rail,
much touted for its success provided you ignore the gazillions of
dollars poured into it by the federal government. Most of the
newer light rail systems are much bragged about by the local
governments, but this is done by ignoring much of the true cost.
Still, if locals want to heavily tax themselves to construct and
support light rail, so be it, as that is their privelege, just as
it is in London or Paris or New York. But I think they're
cheating a bit when a place like Salt Lake City is using MY
federal tax money to do it and then bragging about how THEY built
their wonderful system.

Except in places like the Northeast Corridor it is hard to make
the claim that High Speed Rail is a social necessity. Maybe a
Chicago-New York HSR would also be a good thing; although actual
travel between Chicago and NYC would be better done by air, such
a system could serve well for Chicago-Cleveland, or Cleveland
Philadelphia, etc.

Certainly HSR works well in Europe, providing city center to city
center service (although Europan rail systems are beginning to
feel the heat of newly arriving cut-rate air carriers). Note
though, that one reason it works is because most of the en route
cities actually have city centers. And because they are rather
heavily subsidized.

Train service works well in Europe, too, because the cities
served have very good local and regional transit, linked firmly
to the rail stations. Every train station in London or Paris has
an Underground or Metro station attached. London and Paris have
good regional rail service, allthough Paris' RER seems a bit
neater than the UKs southeast regional lines. Similarly for the
likes of New York.

So, now, on to the proposed California High Speed Rail system.

CalHSR would link San Francisco and Sacramento with Los Angeles
and nearby points. The question is: what makes it a better
service than flying? Will it deliver passengers to points in Los
Angeles from which they can quickly and easily get to Van Nuys or
El Segundo or Huntington Beach or Canoga Park and would it do it
any better than flying into LAX, Ontario, Burbank, or John Wayne?

The airlines curently connecting the SFBay Area with the LA area
frequently post fares of $49; can the CalHSR compete with this?

Much is made by CalHSR and its proponents that they project an
operating profit. But this presumes the tracks and other
infrastructure are already there, presented as a gift to the
operating arm of the service. I don't recall for sure, but it may
even ignore maintenance costs. If your local power company could
ignore the cost of building the power plant and infrastructure
you would be paying around one or two cents a kilowat-thour for
electricity.

Now here's the kicker: the HSR Authority is asking the residents
of the state to pay for the construction costs, which they will
then ignore in the process of pointing with pride at the supposed
operating profit. This will be done by imposing a state-wide
sales tax on all Californians, whether they live in San Fracnisco
or in Bishop on the back side of the Sierra Nevada. They propose
a 1/4% sales tax, and I would be surprised if cost overruns on
the construcction didn't force a doubling of that amount. And I
can almost gurantee that the system will cost at least 2.5 times
the initial estimate, even at constant dollars.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *