Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Forward Observer]

Did you know that if congress hadn't killed the idea, we'd have high speed trains like Japan, France, England and the rest of the developed world?

It was 1982 - and Reagan agreed with congress. They killed it.

Let's not play the blame game though, the automobile industry probably had some powerful lobbyists, who knows.



Here's a video (2 part series) from Nova in 1982 that described what was coming. I really thought we were getting them back then.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTV1ij6ST_c

[xingyiman]

High speed rail implemented over the course of a decade would have been a boon to the economy but to have hastily implemented it would have decimated the economy in the 80's 90's wich was in part driven by the auto industry. Now that the industry is in trouble it might be time for such a change. The only thing that I would worry about is price fixing. I mean Amtrak costs about as much as an iarplane flight and takes 5 times longer to get there.

[reactionary]

[xingyiman]

[mistermasan]

a stlouis to KC or stl to chicago bullet train would be great. but there still just ain't enough demand. the population density is just so low.

now an east coast NYC-boston-philly-DC- et al would seem plausible. but the airlines ain't gonna go with a fight.

[ropebreezy]

I thought CA passed prop 1 voting to build one from SF to LA?

[redhed]

I disagree entirely, the united states is not too far flung to make rail travel a huge possibility. In fact virtually every town in the US used to be connected by rail. We could connect every major city in the US in a matter of years, and probably spoke out to all but the smallest of towns within a decade. The major obstacle is convincing Americans that they don't need to drive a huge SUV (or any car) in order to be "independent and unique" members of the flock. This would be no small task. Building and staffing a national network of railroads would replace a solid percentage of the jobs being shed by the dying auto industry, not to mention reduce by huge percentages our energy needs. As to price, one would hope that a large ridership would beget reasonable prices. I have to wonder the amount of money the average american spends in car payments, gas, and maintenance that most folks could probably save some money. Even in they just downgraded to one car per family, as opposed to the 1 per person you see now.

[Rusty Shackleford]

[reactionary]

I for one do not often drive from LA to New York. I wouldn't take high speed rail, either. I would fly.

High speed rail also does not solve the problem of how you get around once you're at your destination. Public transportation is great in NYC and SF. LA and other cities? Not so much.

High speed rail is not going to get rid of cars because cars are not how we generally travel inter-city (except in dense areas like the northeast with many cities clumped together), other than the occasional road trip with friends.

[eamo]

Driving fuel inefficient cars when you don't really need to affects us all.

The pollution and resources associated with carrying just one person around in two tons of steel is plain stupid if you believe at all that car exhaust fumes have any effect on the atmosphere and human health.

I think it's incredibly childish to stick your head in the sand and ignore all the expert advice, just because you like having a big car.


High-speed rail is the way to go. Although I'm not sure coast-to-coast would be feasible in the US.

Trains can go right into the city center. No more shuttles to and from airports. Trains cause much less atmospheric pollution than airplanes.

Also, skies are getting too crowded above certain parts of the world.

[reactionary]

Then we need to improve public transportation within cities. THAT is the problem, not intercity travel.

[chris_J2]

I've seen this same argument, when discussing proposed high speed trains in Australia. The big stumbling blocks are:

1 The population density is not there (cf East Asia / Europe)
2. The huge distances between cities:

Sydney to Brisbane 1,022 km 639 miles
Sydney to Canberra 285 178
Sydney to Melbourne 1,045 653
Sydney to Adelaide 1,568 980
Melbourne to Adelaide 945 591
Adelaide to Perth 3,194 1,996
Adelaide to Alice Springs 1,529 956
Alice Springs to Darwin 1,490 931
Perth to Darwin 4,355 km 2,722 miles

So it's just not economic, or practical. Most people fly. There is not the same degree of attachment to private cars, in Australia, as there is in the US, & public transport is better.

Where high speed rail would work, is in the ne of the US, & possibly on to Toronto in Canada, as well. Governments everywhere really should start planning way ahead, for the days when cheap gas becomes a thing of the past. Oil is a finite resource, & won't last forever.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If high speed rail were such a super-duper, sure fire money maker, someone would have done it already.

[eamo]

[ekul]