Saturday, August 08, 2009
Trains for America?
This is the TGV, the world's fastest and most beautiful train. It can reach speeds of up to 200 mph and those traveling in France would be well advised to take advantage of the convenient and regular train service. (except for the holidays and days when the workers strike for more benefits, more pay, fewer hours and better food.. but I digress).
The U.S. has a fine and usually profitable train service in the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington, and especially in and out of New York). The rest of the country... not so much. The high speed Acela trains can run quite fast, but not nearly as fast as the TGV.
Members of Congress LOVE trains, so despite the fact that Amtrak loses money hand over fist every year, it continues to be heavily subsidized and runs a lot of places where there are very few passengers.
Would high speed rail from San Antonio through Austin and Waco to Dallas make sense? It might reduce the congestion on I-35, but how many people would have to ride it in order to justify the expense?
There are plans to put in high speed rail between Duluth (sounds kind of French, no?) and the Twin Cities of Minnesota (part of the Louisiana purchase, by the way). I'm not so sure this is the best use of taxpayer dollars.
Sure, if we took trains instead of flying or driving, there would be many benefits. But convenience is not one of them with the current infrastructure. Does it make sense to spend billions on more tracks and equipment for trains that we are not even sure anyone will ride?
IPLawguy
Comments:
<< Home
Yes. In your opposition to the proposals, you have picked out two examples that most wouldn't support though.
I don't know anything about the Texas line, though I imagine that if the tracks were right down the middle of the highway, so people could see that beautiful train flying along while they are stuck in traffic, people might give it a try. If it dropped people off downtown, and there were good links to local public transport in each city (the buttery smooth connections between modes of transport in Europe always blows my mind), people might give it a try.
I don't know anything about the Duluth-Twin Cities line. What most people up here in the midwest are talking about it a Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis line. Here the traffic isn't even THAT bad (except reaching into Chicago), but the distances are far enough that people would take it.
Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-LA-San Diego? If I could get from SF to LA in 2-3 hours, for less than a flight (which takes 2-3 hours, including getting to the airport 1+ hour before, etc.), I would think most would do it.
It's investment in infrastructure, in a future.
I don't know anything about the Texas line, though I imagine that if the tracks were right down the middle of the highway, so people could see that beautiful train flying along while they are stuck in traffic, people might give it a try. If it dropped people off downtown, and there were good links to local public transport in each city (the buttery smooth connections between modes of transport in Europe always blows my mind), people might give it a try.
I don't know anything about the Duluth-Twin Cities line. What most people up here in the midwest are talking about it a Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis line. Here the traffic isn't even THAT bad (except reaching into Chicago), but the distances are far enough that people would take it.
Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-LA-San Diego? If I could get from SF to LA in 2-3 hours, for less than a flight (which takes 2-3 hours, including getting to the airport 1+ hour before, etc.), I would think most would do it.
It's investment in infrastructure, in a future.
# posted by 
: 9:02 AM
: 9:02 AM
I like trains. Unformtuantely livimg in Po-dunk. NC (outside of Durham) trains will never factor in my daily life.
I do wish to say, when I fly to Chicago I akways take the 'el' (train) into town. Same with NY. In Europe and Asia I always took the train from the airport into town and my hotel. It was cheapest and fastest and never inconvenient.
I do wish to say, when I fly to Chicago I akways take the 'el' (train) into town. Same with NY. In Europe and Asia I always took the train from the airport into town and my hotel. It was cheapest and fastest and never inconvenient.
I love trains. We had great luck in France (bonjour! irony) and have had good luck in the northeast. I'd like to see a Houston/SA/Austin/Waco/ Dallas high speed line.
Even with trains connecting the major cities in Texas, there would still be the problem of getting around in those cities once you arrive. Texas cities are not generally very walkable. If I took a train from Austin to Houston, what am I going to do when I get there, take Metro buses? No thanks. In other words, the utility of inter-city trains really depends on there being sufficient public transportation available in the target cities. And in Texas, the infrastructure just isn't there.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 4:14 AM
: 4:14 AM << Home
