High speed trains or improved highways?

fuzzybuddy

fuzzybuddy

SF VIP
Location
The Sticks, Northeast PA.
Many nations are now building high speed train lines, like the U.K. In Japan and Italy, there is a large, well used, well-liked high-speed rail system. Now, in trips of less than 450 miles, it's quicker to take a non high speed trai or driving than flying, when considering driving time to and from airports and delays in boarding planes. OR would better roads make a good choice.?
High speed trains or improved highways?
 

Last edited:
I think that we should look at things like high speed trains or anything else that will help ease the pain of living without a privately owned vehicle in the years to come.

High speed trains will have a huge impact on where people live, work, play in the years to come.

Maybe a combination of a high speed trains and highways with a system that will allow linking bubble car commuters.šŸ¤”

 
I love the idea between major cities but it looks as though in the US that land acquisition is an issue, especially when the proposed routes cut through and split owners' properties. Maybe it would work if they're routed alongside existing rail or interstate highway routes.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Many nations are now building high speed train lines, like the U.K. In Japan and Italy, there is a large, well used, well-liked high-speed rail system. Now, in trips of less than 450 miles, it's quicker to take a non high speed trai or driving than flying, when considering driving time to and from airports and delays in boarding planes. OR would better roads make a good choice.?
High speed trains or improved highways?
Click to expand...
here it would be High Speed trains.. despite the fact that our train drivers are almost always on strike, and the tickets are chokingly expensive to go anywhere... it still beats a long distance journey by road, because it's not so much the conditions of the roads, altho' some are terrible, it's the sheer volume of traffic now on our roads... horrendous. It's not a pleasure any more to take a road trip here....
 
I'd like to vote for trains, high-speed and otherwise, but I'm a bit cynical that it can be done well in the US.
I've read about the fiasco going on regarding the Ca. High-Speed Rail and Florida What California got Wrong that Florida got Right

There's plenty of other pieces to read...
Still, I've been dismayed for decades by the amount of asphalt and concrete we've laid down
and continue on and on and on...
 
Ted01 said:
I'd like to vote for trains, high-speed and otherwise, but I'm a bit cynical that it can be done well in the US.
I've read about the fiasco going on regarding the Ca. High-Speed Rail and Florida What California got Wrong that Florida got Right

There's plenty of other pieces to read...
Still, I've been dismayed for decades by the amount of asphalt and concrete we've laid down
and continue on and on and on...
Click to expand...
I agree, it will take a transformative federal commitment similar to Eisenhowerā€™s 1956 Federal Highway Program for high speed rail to become a reality.

1752006125431.jpeg
 
I'd rather go for improved highways the problem we have compared to Europe is we are a much bigger country and where you could drive one day in Europe and hit five countries whereas in America you drive for one day and you're lucky to hit two-three states.

If LA is a good example the cost between building a rail line from New York City to Los Angeles is $2,789 MieIs at a rate of 2.1 billion dollars per mile and that's something like 5.80 trillion.

For that much, we could have smooth highways
 
Right of ways for new train routes is no longer practical in most US urban regions because most lands have long ago gone private that then makes widespread land purchase too expensive. Could have worked in 1960 but not today. It can work where old rail lines, highways, and public lands can be repurposed.
 
Train travel offers no savings over flying, at least that's been my experience. I would imagine high speed trains would be more expensive. You can't repurpose old rail lines for high speed if that only amounts to an extra 10 or 15 miles per hour, which is not my understanding of high speed. High speed in China and Japan can regularly operate at 186 mph and can occasionally reach 300 according to google.

But there is no set standard. A fast train in the US could on rare occasion achieve 100 mph, and maybe that's what Amtrak would call high speed and get away with it.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Many nations are now building high speed train lines, like the U.K. In Japan and Italy, there is a large, well used, well-liked high-speed rail system. Now, in trips of less than 450 miles, it's quicker to take a non high speed trai or driving than flying, when considering driving time to and from airports and delays in boarding planes. OR would better roads make a good choice.?
High speed trains or improved highways?
Click to expand...

In the UK - better trains would be my preference.

In the US - better roads.
 
The U.S. government intentionally avoid building public transportation system(bus, subway, trains, high speed train), so to create a gigantic demand for automobiles.
 
Manatee said:
What do you use for transportation after you get off the train?
Click to expand...
In many european cities, you can take trams, buses or subways after you get off the long distance train. But if you live in a remote area, you need a car.
Anyway, it is too late for the U.S. to build a passenger train (or high speed train) system now.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top