"LJ909" (lj909) 12/02/2019 at 18:03 • Filed to: National high speed rail system

5

67

I’d rather have a national high speed rail system than EV investment. But we cant even get proper investment in charging and charging supporting infrastructure. We’ll probably never see something like this within our lifetime.

For Sweden > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:09

4

A train from Denver to Las Vegas?

I know how that ends

jimz > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:30

3

I agree with you for sure. Unfortunately IIRC the rail lines already built prioritize freight trains so all new rail would have to be built out. not gonna happen.com

For Sweden > jimz 12/02/2019 at 18:31

0

Freight trains are good though

3point8isgreat > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:35

2

It bothers me that they see fit to route through Topeka instead of Wichita.

Discerning > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:36

3

I would love a high speed rail system. It is a shame it will never happen. I despise flying and I hate most all commercial planes. They’ re ugly things that i wish would go away. Which is ironic because I like planes in general. I drive most everywhere but would greatly prefer to take a train from Atlanta to NYC or Daytona or Vegas.

That said, taking a train to Chicago and then vegas would kinda stink.

LJ909 > jimz 12/02/2019 at 18:36

0

This is the other problem. Freight trains have priority . Its one of the problems we have been having here locally with our Metrolink system. The train times suck so bad that a lot of time, depending on your commute, its unusable. And its mainly because of freight lines getting priority . Especially with these trains running the same lines that go to the ports of LA and Long Beach.

jimz > For Sweden 12/02/2019 at 18:38

0

k

LJ909 > 3point8isgreat 12/02/2019 at 18:38

0

Probably has something to do with it being the capital. It would make more sense though trough Chitchat of course population wise.

For Sweden > jimz 12/02/2019 at 18:40

4

LJ909 > Discerning 12/02/2019 at 18:41

1

Yea its all a pie in the sky dream. Most of it is red tape and not wanting to shore up funds. At best, the most we could probably get or see is short stints in state or connecting major metro areas across state lines. I’ m still waiting on our high speed rail system here in California but supposedly its been delayed until ‘30.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:42

5

Hahahaha... you’re not even gonna get a quarter of that system with trains going 220km/h built in our lifetime.

Most likely, you’ll be lucky just to have the current system still in operation and properly maintained.

As for the future, here is reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States#2011_&_2012_Proposals_and_Rejections_of_Funding

The reality is, as long as so many US voters remain low-tax-obsessed Republican supporters, don’t expect anything to get built.

People continuously voting for the ‘low tax’ and ‘tax cut’ politicians, even when they’re lying scumbags, basically guarantees there won’t be money to get any high speed national rail network building.

I would like to tell you it’s mainly old baby boomers that are to blame and it will get better when they all die off, but that’s not the reality I’m seeing. What I see in reality is that the voters I’m talking about are just as likely to be young.

And another thing I’ve observed... many people, like the boomers, start out being Liberal/socialist types. But once they start making their own money and have to start paying some real taxes, they completely sell out their alleged values.

The boomers will, among other things, go down in history as the biggest sellouts to the values they supposedly had when they were young.

Dakotahound > jimz 12/02/2019 at 18:45

1

You are correct, in many areas, freight trains are given priority. In the Northeast Corridor, however, AMTRAK passenger trains have priority, because they own the right-of-way.

One of the advantages of using the current track layout, however, is that the right-of-way is owned by freight companies and not private individuals. AMTRAK could buy or lease the land to build tracks without going through years of eminent domain litigation (like California is facing with their high-speed rail project through the Central Valley).

facw > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:49

1

Topeka is also probably too close to KC to be a good choice for high-speed rail. Amtrak’s plan for the NEC has the fastest trains skipping Baltimore (and also smaller cities) because trains won’t spend enough time at top speed if they have to slow down and stop in Baltimore (though Baltimore’s ancient rail tunnels don’t help matters either)

facw > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:51

0

Legally, Amtrak has priority even on freight lines. However this is both generally not enforced, and Amtrak only has priority if they stay on schedule, which means small slip ups can lead to hours of delays (you’d think this would lead to a greater push to stay on time no matter what...)

BaconSandwich is tasty. > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 18:56

1

1. Become a multi-billionaire

2. Create faster, more efficient tunnel boring machines

3. Start with a short run of track somewhere where the population density can support it, but there’s little or no interference (existing subway lines, political pushback, etc.)

4. Get people behind the idea to invest in it

5. Slowly roll service out to other areas.

facw > jimz 12/02/2019 at 18:56

3

If you want to real high speed rail (186+ mph ), you need to build all new rail anyway (generally 150mph is the limit for trains sharing tracks with freight) . You say it’s not going to happen, but it’s happened in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and most extensively in China (and probably a few other places I’m forgetting) . At the rate China was spending when they built out their network, we could have 220mph trains on the NEC and between SF and LA in three years (despite much higher cons truction costs here), and those would be by far the most expensive segments in a network.

LJ909 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/02/2019 at 18:58

2

This. Most of the nice things we would like but cant have come down to people voting against their own self interest simply over taxes. They want want want, but somehow fail to realize that we have to pay for the things we want. And the end result is these people end up screwing us along with them.

For Sweden > 3point8isgreat 12/02/2019 at 19:00

0

Rail fans hate general a viation

LJ909 > facw 12/02/2019 at 19:01

1

And all that comes back to infrastructure .

Fuckkinja > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 19:06

1

The US will not take trains for cross county travel until the time spent is  the same speed as flying. Plane tickets are cheap.

facw > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 19:10

1

It would be good. Of course we can have both!

I’m not sure you’d build a national network like that though, The red line is pretty suspect, and even the yellow line is iffy. Clearly we need more large cities in the middle of the country. From what I’ve read high speed rail generally doesn’t make sense if the distance between major cities is more than 3 hours. That said, a lot of these would be useful. While obviously the CA and PNW routes would be good given the density already there, I’m particularly enamo red with the idea of something like the white route from DC to Austin here, as a way of opening up the urban prosperity and density of the NEC to a larger chunk of the country. No one (except railfans) would travel the whole length from Boston (or Montreal, if you extended that way as well) would travel the whole way, but the entirely length is dotted with large cities at appropriate distances so it could work out quite well.

wafflesnfalafel > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 19:13

2

I’m not sure if that’s the best use of the investment . More regional rail/light rail/ transit likely would offer much bigger bang for the buck. Distances are just too big - folks will fly for the foreseeable future. But if you can move a few hundred thousand more folks in and out of major metro areas - that’s a big benefit. Or just dump all that money into bright green electric scooters - that’d be good too.

Herr Quattro - Has a 4-motion > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/02/2019 at 19:15

2

Except the tax cuts don’t even benefit the blue collar in any shape or form. It’s so wild to me that the blue collar is willing to vote against their best interest for the benefit of another already absurdly rich individual.

I do understand people’s desire to not pay taxes. But I don’t understand their desire to not have the top 1% pay more. Just wild.

My grandfather is retired, and would only benefit from a tax increase and yet is a staunch Opponent of any tax increase. Like wtf is that logic?

Herr Quattro - Has a 4-motion > facw 12/02/2019 at 19:27

0

China is communist.

If you want a realistic idea of what high speed rail movement would have to deal with, just look at the Keystone Pipeline. People support it until it goes thru their backyard.

PA voted for Trump in 16, and parts of it are still hardcore coal country (even if it’s slowly dying). The environment isnt high priority as it is in say, Cali. Should it be that way? Absolutely.

But reality says it isn’t. I’m from one of the few liberal stronghold s that voted Blue, and yet I still deal with climate change denialist all the time.

Even tho the oil pipeline is arguably good-ish for the environment. At least- until we fully switch over to electric. Even with occasional oil spills.

Overall oil=bad, but transporting it by pipeline is better then thousands of Semi Trucks or hundreds of trains.

People suck at critical thinking. 

LJ909 > BaconSandwich is tasty. 12/02/2019 at 19:30

1

This could easily be done by Jeff Bezos.

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/02/2019 at 19:31

2

Part of it is because, as younger people start to work and see how much goes to taxes, they can’t help but wonder how much better *their* lives could be if they were allowed to keep that tax money. Compound it with property and state taxes and it’s insane. I probably pay 40% of my income in taxes and receive...really no benefits. Roads? I guess? But they’re terrible around me . The schools are so bad you can’t send your kids there. I’d love to completely unfund defense and farm subsidies. So 

facw > Herr Quattro - Has a 4-motion 12/02/2019 at 19:31

1

I wouldn’t call China communist, but as a totalitarian state they certainly have advantages.

But you are right that it’s tricky here, and there would be a lot of NIMBY nonsense, even if the alternative is more highways or more flights overhead (with much more environmental impact). It’s still embarrassing  that so many other countries have pulled this off, while we are so backwards on the infrastructure front.

LJ909 > Fuckkinja 12/02/2019 at 19:32

0

That kind of speed would probably be reached next century. But you’re right. But also, plane tickets aren’ t that cheap. Over a century of air travel under our belts and it still somehow costs me almost $700 bucks to fly round trip from Socal to Houston.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 19:39

1

As long as there is a “Big Air Plane” lobby there will never be high speed rail in the US. I mean you can fly from Seattle to SF in 2 hrs!!! Business travelers are not going to take an 8 hr train ride to travel the same distance. 

M.T. Blake > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 19:54

4

Not without some serious financial, and environmental roadblocks removed.

If we didn’t already have the Interstate Highway System, I don’t think we could get it built in today’s environment and culture. 

LJ909 > wafflesnfalafel 12/02/2019 at 20:04

1

Yea like I mentioned to someone else, high speed rail is probably only going to work in state or connecting metro areas.

TheRealBicycleBuck > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 20:17

4

I’ve had the fortune to work on several high speed rail proposals (New Orleans to Baton Rouge; San Antonio to OKC; part of the LA to SanFran). The biggest challenge isn’t money, it’s right-of-way and local governments. Every dinky little town wants a piece of the pie that comes with a local stop. If they can’t have it, they throw up barriers to acquiring the necessary ROW. Add in the complications caused by actual railroads, existing infrastructure, and any utilities which might be in the way, building out high-speed rail is little more than a really expensive pipe dream.

When we were looking at the New Orleans to Baton Rouge proposal, there were no options for a parallel line, so we were looking at coordinating service on the existing rail line. Besides scheduling issues, we had to deal with nearly 200 at-grade crossings in the Baton Rouge area alone. Without fully-controlled grade separation, speed limits for the trains are really low. Besides, the existing rail runs right through several small towns and none of them want trains blasting through at speed.

While I did say that money isn’t the biggest problem, it’s still a significant barrier. The New Orleans to Baton Rouge rail proposal was $470 million. It’s hard to see how this could happen when the estimated cost for the rail line is 1/3 of Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development budget. Sure, there would be additional federal funding, but even at a 25% cost share, Louisiana would have to come up with another $117 M to match. The annual operating deficit was predicted to be $16.3 M with a ridership over 800k. It would cost the state $18 per person per trip with fare rates averaging $11 per person per trip.

It’s hard to see how an inter-city rail service could be fiscally sound in an area like this.

The only way any of this would work is if they are building elevated lines (expensive) along existing corridors. The cost would be astronomical.

jimz > facw 12/02/2019 at 20:22

2

China gets shit built by not giving a goddamn about who or what is already there. Forest? Fuck it, bulldoze. A village? Fuck it, shoot ‘me.

jimz > Herr Quattro - Has a 4-motion 12/02/2019 at 20:23

1

There has never been an actual communist nation in recorded history.

Fuckkinja > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 20:25

2

We are flirting to AZ from MI for Christmas. Non stop. Round trip. $465 total for 2 seats. 4.5 hours each way

Amtrak is almost $1500 round trip for 2 seats. 66 hours each way.

That leaves a huge cost per hour gap. Certain flights yes can be pricey.

The time gap won’t ever get to be comparable. Air travel doesn’t require as much infrastructure between stops. A whole lot less investment.

Plus jet travel is about to get much faster when we can quietly pass the sound barrier.

On the local level. Trains make huge sense over air travel. Up and down both coasts c ould maybe make sense.

LJ909 > TheRealBicycleBuck 12/02/2019 at 20:34

2

Yea the environmental regs and towns getting a say is a big part. I think that’s what stalling the LA-SF line here. I think its Fresno or some other small town that’s had problems with it. But the sad reality like you pointed out is that the costs would be astronomical. And then you get into the problems of our current state of infrastructure problems not having been dealt with as of yet as well..

But that’s another thing I would have a problem with with something like this. Small towns and such getting a say in things that affect the greater good. Its whats happening here locally with a light rail extension. LA Metro and other local Inland Valley cities have wanted a light rail extension from Pasadena to Montclair for years.

It was finally happening. Until the local county board didn’t wanna shore up the funds and instead wants to invest in existing rail service on the Metrolink line. A move that has everyone pissed, especially the mayors of the local cities who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars these past few years getting ready for riders and potential new residents. The county board consists of cities that aren’t even anywhere near where the line would go, yet they are making decisions affecting residents and riders that have nothing to do with them. It makes no sense.

facw > jimz 12/02/2019 at 20:59

1

But also by spending serious amounts of cash. That wouldn’t go as far here, and one of the reasons is that you’ll have to spend time and money on litigation and eminent domain payouts and litigating eminent domain payouts, but it definitely won’t do much if we are spending 0.1% of what they are spending.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 21:04

1

True. I don’t see him doing it though. He seems to focused on the money. Something like this probably wouldn’t generate much for quite a while.

Unfortunately Bill Gates and Elon Musk are already otherwise financially occupied . Maybe Sergey  Brin?

jimz > facw 12/02/2019 at 21:17

1

We’re too busy spending trillions on a military equipped to fight a WWIII which will likely never come.

TheRealBicycleBuck > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 21:23

1

I’m not familiar with the situation, but the way you describe it sounds like the local board is not willing to invest local dollars into a system that doesn’t benefit local citizens. I have to admit, if that’s the case, I don’t blame them. If they are being asked to forfeit their share of regional funds in favor of a rail system that doesn’t benefit local citizens, again, I have a hard time blaming them.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 22:02

1

With inflation, that cost is cheaper than it has ever been. 

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/02/2019 at 22:15

0

outside of cities amtrak trains alread hit 200km/hr

LJ909 > BaconSandwich is tasty. 12/02/2019 at 22:22

1

I only see Musk doing something with funding something like this. Gates would probably fund a study into the social effects of a good mass transportation system or whatever. Musk however I think is probably stretched thin between Tesla and SpaceX.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 22:28

1

Yeah, I think Musk is stretched a bit thin.

LJ909 > TheRealBicycleBuck 12/02/2019 at 22:31

0

The thing is though its coming down to him wanting to put money into a train system that isn’ t good locally due to scheduling and sharing freight lines. Its $55 million verses $550 million. He has to look past the numbers. Plus LA is paying the majority of the funding. The end result is to link northeastern LA County valley cities with my hometowns international airport via light rail , which is easier closer & cheaper to fly out of than LAX. But I digress. Sorry I got off topic. That was just to show how cities that have nothing to do with certain lines, can have a vote over which was transportation projects go that affect millions of people. 

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > M.T. Blake 12/02/2019 at 22:43

2

It was much easier before suburban sprawl. The population of the neigh boring suburb, more than doubled from 1940 to 1960, and but that happened before they got a chance to connect the highway. For 50 years they waited till the 2009 crash, and with the drop in housing prices we able to make the numbers work to buy out the places to snake a connector road to.      

coqui70 > LJ909 12/02/2019 at 22:47

1

I’ve ridden them in Europe and it’s amazing. For city center to city center travel they are both price and time-competitive. Plus you can watch for a deal on a First Class seat and enjoy the view while sipping champagne and enjoying really good food.

M.T. Blake > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 12/02/2019 at 22:50

0

And when they won’t pay more than they have to - eminent domain. 

pip bip - choose Corrour > LJ909 12/03/2019 at 03:16

1

too many politicians will try and get a train  station in their electorate or try and filibuster it

Thisismydisplayname > Fuckkinja 12/03/2019 at 09:44

1

I would take cross country train travel if it were about double the time of a flight, or a little longer even, if I could load up my car and bring it along.

I saw in motorweek they have a line like this on the I-95 corridor from somewhere up north down to Florida.  I’d use that service if I was near a terminal.  

Fuckkinja > Thisismydisplayname 12/03/2019 at 10:30

1

Loading up a vehicle would tempt me also. That would make for an interesting road trip.

We have a few Lake Michigan car ferries that cut traveling time a bit. 

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind 12/03/2019 at 10:41

0

“I probably pay 40% of my income in taxes and receive...really no benefits”

And you are part of the problem.

You’re one of too many people who think that taxes don’t provide benefits.

You benefit from paying your taxes a number of ways... not just roads. There’s also social security (which you’ll appreciate once you or someone you care about needs it), bridges, police, military, schools/education, environmental protection, securities and other regulation, banking regulation and a whole bunch of other stuff.

And you benefited from it from the day you were born.

Think about it... . You were born in a hospital, no? Your mother saw a doctor at least a few times to make sure everything was good with her pregnancy, no? And you did receive immunization shots (and if you’re one of those dumb anti-vaxxers, it’s best to keep it to yourself... unless you want to be ridiculed for being a moron ). Do you think there is value to regulation of the medical profession? Who do you think is at least partly responsible for a lot of the schooling that enabled the education of those doctors?

To say you don’t directly or indirectly benefit from a lot of this stuff is disingenuous at best... and downright fucking stupid at worst.

As far as unfunding military... that’s never going to happen completely.

Ever.

Every country that wishes to continue to exist needs a military to some degree.

Unfunding the military is one of the things that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. You need to study some history.

Now having said that, there is some military spending that could be reigned in. But a wholesale defunding won’t happen because it’s a terrible idea.

As for farm subsidies... again study your history... particularly the 1930s.

Farm subsidies are not ever going to go away completely. But again, there might be a few areas where some pruning could be done.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Herr Quattro - Has a 4-motion 12/03/2019 at 10:51

0

“It’s so wild to me that the blue collar is willing to vote against their best interest for the benefit of another already absurdly rich individual.”

I agree. But then I remember how I’ve observed many times people fucking up their lives because they’re fucking stupid and make stupid life choices.

One perfect Jalop-related example are the people doing the 96 month loans/leases and shit like that.

So it’s not much of a stretch to believe people would make an u ninformed/dumb vote against their own best interests.

The root issue is too many people have been duped into believing that taxes don’t result in any direct or indirect benefits on a daily basis.

I personally chose to live in Toronto, which has higher taxes compared to the suburbs. And I’m fine with it because the schools are better, the transit is better, the libraries are better, the cultural funding is better, it’s more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, my kids are able to walk to school and I’m not a slave to my car the way I would be in the suburbs.

I pay a bit more, the people I care about and myself get more.

And I say that as someone who has lived both in the city and the suburbs.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 12/03/2019 at 10:57

0

That’s good to know.  But it’s still a far cry from the 220MPH system discussed above... let alone doing any expansions.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > jimz 12/03/2019 at 11:06

0

And Via Rail (the Canadian version of Amtrak) basically has the same problem.

I looked into taking the train from Toronto to Vancouver... and it’s a 4-5 day trip.

And they couldn’t say exactly because of this reason.

And I know I could *drive* that distance over 4 days easily.

Even flying is cheaper (not to mention way faster).

AAAAND... to make matters worse, Via Rail trains are limited to 160km/h even though the rolling stock is capable of 200km/h... and it’s mainly due to the crappy, freight-beated tracks in lots of places.

The only way taking the train from Toronto to Vancouver can make sense is if you’re traveling by yourself and you want to see all the cities the train stops at along the way.

The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City train makes more sense.

For really long distances in North America , flying generally makes the most sense from a cost, time and maybe even from an emissions perspective (given the diesel-electric rolling stock used, compared to the fully electric train sets used in Europe).

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > facw 12/03/2019 at 11:12

0

“You say it’s not going to happen, but it’s happened in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and most extensively in China”

And the reason it happened in those places are two words... “population density”

Those places have enough population density that causes it to be far more feasible, economically speaking.

A second reason is timing.  Much of those rail networks were built up before flying became cheap.

In Canada and the USA, the problem is the lack of population density in most of the middle of the continent.

Tied in with that, the distances are long enough that flying is more economical... in terms of time, cost and maybe even emissions-per-passenger (if the airplane is a modern large passenger jet, is completely full and most or all the seats are economy)

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > LJ909 12/03/2019 at 11:21

1

“It was finally happening. Until the local county board didn’t wanna shore up the funds and instead wants to invest in existing rail service on the Metrolink line.”

Which is why there needs to be a shift where transit planning and spending is taken away from the local towns and moved to the state and/or federal levels.

A similar thing is happening in Ontario now where transit planning and building is being shifted to Metrolinx, a Provincially-controlled agency.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > BaconSandwich is tasty. 12/03/2019 at 11:26

0

I think you just described what Elon Musk is trying to pull off with The Boring Company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > LJ909 12/03/2019 at 11:27

0

Or Elon Musk... who sounds like he’s trying to do exactly that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company

facw > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/03/2019 at 12:07

0

And the reason it happened in those places are two words... “population density” 

We have similar population density in various parts of the country. We don’t need high-speed rail connecting across the vast empty parts.

A second reason is timing. Much of those rail networks were built up before flying became cheap. 

Nope. They’ve pretty much all been built since ‘70s, and most are significantly newer than that.

In Canada and the USA, the problem is the lack of population density in most of the middle of the continent. 

Right, so don’t build high-speed rail there

Tied in with that, the distances are long enough that flying is more economical... in terms of time, cost and maybe even emissions-per-passenger (if the airplane is a modern large passenger jet, is completely full and most or all the seats are economy) 

It’s not even close (for electric trains, diesel trains are not good though):

BaconSandwich is tasty. > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/03/2019 at 13:02

0

To a certain extent, yes. I'd rather see it use traditional trains (or battery operated trains) rather than running cars through the tunnels though.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > facw 12/03/2019 at 14:55

0

“(for electric trains, diesel trains are not good though):”

I’m talking about the North American situation where the trains/tracks are not electrified on long distance routes. So we are comparing the diesel-electric rolling stock you find in North America to flying.

So while your comparison is valid for many places like in the EU with electrified long distance train routes, it’s not reality in North America in the case of long distance routes. I wish it was, but it isn’t.

Also the distances I’m talking about (such as Toronto to Vancouver... or something like NYC to somewhere in California) are much greater than 977km)

So have a look at this:

https://ensia.com/voices/flight-shaming-flying-travel-carbon-co2-emissions-flyless-aviation-cars-trains/

What this tells us is on a per distance basis, passenger rail can be a little worse than the best-case for passenger aircraft.

And what are those situations where flying can be better? Longer distances with large planes full of mostly economy seats... like the Toronto-Vancouver flight I took a while back.

Also, not all airlines are created equal. Have a look at this CO2 ranking of airlines:

https://www.atmosfair.de/wp-content/uploads/aai2018-englischfarbe_final_mn.pdf

From this site:

https://www.atmosfair.de/en/air_travel_and_climate/atmosfair_airline_index/

Like cars/trucks/buses, some airplanes get better fuel economy/CO2 emissions per passenger than others.

So it’s not quite so simple as saying “flying always uses more CO2 emissions”

“We have similar population density in various parts of the country.”

“so don’t build high-speed rail there” (in low density areas)

But what I’m talking about is impediments to making a national high speed rail network in the USA. And in reality, you can’t build a complete national high speed rail network in the USA without doing a lot of network building in low density areas.

That’s reality.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > LJ909 12/03/2019 at 15:02

0

They’ll get on that right after the Missouri Hyperloop.

facw > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/03/2019 at 15:02

0

I think there’s room to greatly expand high-speed rail, but yeah it’s not a replacement for long-haul flights. There’s a lot of room for new rail between what we have now and a complete national high-speed network, so build what makes sense.  

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > BaconSandwich is tasty. 12/03/2019 at 15:27

0

I suspect they’re starting with cars and they’re figuring out what vehicles to use in higher volume situations.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > facw 12/03/2019 at 15:42

0

At current funding levels and with the current political environment , caused by the way people vote in the USA, the most you’ll get is just keeping the current system in service and maintained.

The way to get that changed is to vote for more ‘green’ politicians... which is to say, NOT vote for Republicans (unless there a complete 180-degree attitude change among Republicans when it comes to climate change).

And if the political climate changes enough to support expanded rail, the right way to do it is to change the economics by taxing CO2 emissions... while at the same time, building electrified long distance high speed train routes to give people a lower-CO2 option.

And part of doing it the right way involves laying tracks dedicated to high speed rail that are not to be used/beat up by heavy freight traffic.

Do that would be expensive and time consuming... even for shorter stretches because of all the planning, financial, land ownership and political obstacles.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 12/03/2019 at 18:09

0

I hope that's the case.