Bullshit! I will believe it when 2/3 or Americans put $1,000 or so deposit towards a high speed rail system.
Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
31–40 of 84 posts
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#32Be weary of statistics asking people what they might do if something were available vs what they actually do when it's there. Because then you have to factor in the schedules, the ticket price, etc. It doesn't cost anything to answer yes to a poll, it's a bit more complicated when it's time to plan a trip and shell the money out.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#33It really kind of fascinates me why people are so obsessed with rail and high speed rail. What are the emotional reasons for it, because there are no rational and reasonable arguments for it that can't be refuted. It makes absolutely no sense and strikes me as another one of those examples of obsessive thoughts and ideal people have these days. It's like all the shitty education we subjected people of roughly <35 years old to are starting to bear shitty rotten and mutated fruits.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#34Years ago I thought the idea of regional high speed rail lines in the US was a great idea, but I think the time for that has come and gone. The future seems to be clearly moving towards autonomous cars (and buses one presumes). Why sink billions into high speed rail when on our current pace it will be only a couple decades before we have all electric cars powered by solar and other clean energy sources that are 90 so…
This completely excludes "walkable cities" out of the equation. If everyone is moving around on their autonomous vehicles that means that the entire city is criss-crossed with wide roads that take up tons of space, instead of dense walkable city centers with big transit corridors. Compare LA and SF to NYC and MTL.
I lived next to a commercial area. You'd think it would have been very walkable with a grocery store across the street, a rec centre just a block away, and tonnes of useful businesses. But the biggest problem I had walking anywhere was the vast amount of surface parking surrounding every business. It was a few minutes just to walk across the grocery store parking lot.
Autonomous vehicles would mean valet parking for everyone, which in turn means that we don't need to surround every business with vast fields of parking spaces. Yeah, the parking needs to still go somewhere, but at least you can put it off in a corner somewhere and most of it can be walkable.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#35My father told me a story about discontinuing a street car line (called an interurban) in a town North of Detroit. There was a hearing at city hall and hundreds of villagers turned out. Dozens of people made the case to keep the line. Finally the street car company's lawyer got up and made the business case for discontinuing the line. He concluded by asking the crowd how many of you used our company's street car to g…
Its also a question of pricing. No point in launch a shiny new transportation tech when its priced using price skimming.
Much better approach (for society) is to launch it with a super low discounted price until its gained some mindshare and people had a chance to evaluate it in the context of their routines.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#36It really kind of fascinates me why people are so obsessed with rail and high speed rail. What are the emotional reasons for it, because there are no rational and reasonable arguments for it that can't be refuted. It makes absolutely no sense and strikes me as another one of those examples of obsessive thoughts and ideal people have these days. It's like all the shitty education we subjected people of roughly <35 yea…
Oh, there have been train fans for a very long time. And IMO rail is a comfortable way to travel for certain distances--especially given what a pain airports can be these days. But HSR is really expensive to build and distances and geography in the US make it hard to justify.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the airline flight took about two to three hours Only if you assume that getting to and from the airport, and getting through security, and boarding, are all instant. Megabus drop and pickup in Manhattan. Acela goes to and from 34th st. Neither require me to play strip tease or watch 45 minutes of idiotic bin-shoving pantomimes. The nearest airport to Manhattan is LGA, it takes 30-40 minutes depending on traffic. J…
Personally, I prefer taking the train in the Northeast Corridor but: 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station 2. Even though the train is more convenient in a number of ways, flying can get me from Boston into Manhattan earlier in the day than the train. Usually doesn't matter, but it may if you have a morning meeting and can't come down the previous night. 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all…
> 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station
There is, but it runs relatively infrequently and you have to switch to the monorail, which is only faster than walking because it has a right of way.
> 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well.
Sure. I cheat by being the smug git in the middle.
But I'd still rather take the train, honestly, from Boston to DC. I hate flying with a radiant intensity that could launch a thousand astronomy PhDs.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#38Truly, the subjunctive tense is dead.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#39I'm always confused by the high-speed rail numbers. Exactly how many trains would it take to get 2/3 of the US population using rail?
Take the average international-sized airport runway. It can land a 747 every couple minutes. That's hundreds of people every minute. A high-speed rail line cannot take even a fraction of that number. The trains cannot run at speed without significant time/distance between them. That's the limit of one-dimension travel (rail) v the three dimensional world of aircraft. It would take dozens of parallel rail lines to replace even a medium sized airport. While we all might want to use rail for some journeys, I don't see it ever competing with air travel in the US market.
Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available
#40Years ago I thought the idea of regional high speed rail lines in the US was a great idea, but I think the time for that has come and gone. The future seems to be clearly moving towards autonomous cars (and buses one presumes). Why sink billions into high speed rail when on our current pace it will be only a couple decades before we have all electric cars powered by solar and other clean energy sources that are 90 so…
I do wonder what would happen if they built a new double lane highway between two cities that is only usable by autonomous vehicles? How fast do we trust autonomous vehicles to go?
In a fairly straight line and in good weather? Very fast (compared to current US highways). 150 mph or more.
The primary factor I can think of in terms of risk, are wild animals crossing and vehicle malfunction (eg tire rupture). Censors/radar, both in the vehicle and along the perimeter, should take care of the animal threat. On the mechanical side, well, the goal would be to get the rate of death down to perhaps airline-like numbers.