Comments on: The High-Speed Rail Cart Before the Horse

By: Server Farm » The Best Amtrak Route You’ll Never Ride

Server Farm » The Best Amtrak Route You’ll Never Ride — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:48:32 +0000

[...] of Transportation Ray LaHood, and so on) talk up high speed rail and James Howard Kunstler brings us back down to earth, everyone seems to be eager to talk about the success of Amtrak’s Acela Service between New [...]

By: Corey Carroll

Corey Carroll — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:03:44 +0000

I think what JHK is saying is, we don’t have the money for high speed rail, so we might as well settle for 1927 level service.

I don’t know if that’s true or not.

But it is hard to imagine people of today being able to run the trains like they did in 1927 with or without computers. The fact that they did it without computers is impressive.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:25:31 +0000

Why the gratuitous slap at Bush? Why is it more his fault there is no high-speed rail in the US than it is any preceding president’s fault? When 2016 comes and there’s still no high-speed rail, will it then be Obama’s fault?

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:41:02 +0000

“But the additional sad truth, at this point, is that Californians (and US public in general) would benefit tremendously from normal rail service on a par with the standards of 1927, when speeds of 100 miles-per-hour were common and the trains ran absolutely on time (and frequently, too) without computers (imagine that !).”

To bad people like Jim don’t bother doing any research before spouting off. High speed rail is not exactly rocket science. It is proven technology that works fine all around the the world. By the time extra track so passenger trains don’t get stuck waiting behind freight trains, repairs are made to the existing tracks and the line is electrified, you might as well have built a new high speed rail line. As well, we need to more more goods by train instead of truck so it is unlikely that existing lines will have the capacity.

High speed trains are much lighter than freight trains so damage the tracks less and the tracks require less maintenance. As they have their own tracks without freight trains and thus won’t be in collisions with heavier freight trains, high speed trains can built lighter and thus use less energy.

Because they are faster and can thus do a given trip in less time, the staff, operating costs and rolling stock costs are lower per trip. High speed rail is faster so people are willing to pay more for it. As a result of this, many lines can operate without subsidies once they are build.

If there is the demand on a corridor for high speed high, which will likely be the case giving the uncertain future of flying and driving, there is a strong economic and environmental case for building high speed rail instead of settling for incremental improvements to existing lines.

By: Gary Gibson

Gary Gibson — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:17:48 +0000

I am convinced that one day I will snap and punch somebody in the head for talking too loudly on the train.

I’ve had unpleasant encounters over laptop movie noise and the like already.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:23:08 +0000

I detest public transportation. For all the limitless awfulness of the freeways, traffic and so forth, public transportation is still worse. And for one simple reason: people are not socialized for acceptable public conduct. I sound like an old fogey, and maybe that’s what I’ve become, but the rudeness, the stupidity, the impoliteness. . . its everywhere, and it can’t be “corrected”. We’ve lost all sense of public social shame, and that makes spending time in a cramped vehicle with other strangers (and their children) a potentially unbearable experience.

By: Joseph E

Joseph E — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:10:45 +0000

Unfortunately, California’s standard rail network between the Bay Area and LA takes a circuitous, slow route. Basic improvements to reach 100 max speeds would certainly help, but all the curves and the low freight trains along the way would make train travel times uncompetitive with cars, let alone planes.

If we run out of oil without building high-speed rail, buses down I-5 would still be faster than a train up the coast. But HSR could definitely compete with the airlines, even if oil prices stay as low as the current range. So it makes sense to do it, no matter what happens with commodities. Yeah, it’s expensive, but we’re talking $1 per month per Californian over the life of the infrastructure. We can afford that; we’ve built the freeways at even greater cost.

By: Greg Godfrey

Greg Godfrey — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:59:39 +0000

It is never too late.

By: The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition » INFRASTRUCTURIST

The Daily Dig - High Speed Rail Edition » INFRASTRUCTURIST — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:27:36 +0000

[...] restore passenger rail service to the standard we had in 1927 and dispense the “techno grandiosity” of bullet trains, says Jim Kunstler. (Whiskey & [...]

By: denverite

denverite — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:42:25 +0000

Here in Denver the exodus to the exurbs was mandated by the idiotic policy known as “forced busing”. The same leftist idiots who destroyed our individual rights by enforcing busing against urban neighborhoods are the same people who are now lamenting the effects of suburban sprawl. Salvaging the cities destroyed by government mandates will take generations, if ever. What would the New Urbanists do with Detroit????