http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html

BEIJING — Nearly 150 years after American railroads brought in thousands of Chinese laborers to build rail lines across the West, China is poised once again to play a role in American rail construction. But this time, it would be an entirely different role: supplying the technology, equipment and engineers to build high-speed rail lines.

How can socialism work? China is socialist. They are helping the US with infrastructure?

Someone is lieing or failing. China is helping the G.O.A.T. country? with infrastructure?


Time for Science to take over our classrooms without any rebuttals or lip from the right wing.

It is a sad day indeed that a socialist nations needs to teach us a trick on technology!!!

BCSbunk wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html

BEIJING — Nearly 150 years after American railroads brought in thousands of Chinese laborers to build rail lines across the West, China is poised once again to play a role in American rail construction. But this time, it would be an entirely different role: supplying the technology, equipment and engineers to build high-speed rail lines.

How can socialism work? China is socialist. They are helping the US with infrastructure?

Someone is lieing or failing. China is helping the G.O.A.T. country? with infrastructure?


Time for Science to take over our classrooms without any rebuttals or lip from the right wing.

It is a sad day indeed that a socialist nations needs to teach us a trick on technology!!!

Sarcasm?

I think America should worry about people in Applachia getting water lines (as I've mentioned before) rather than worry about high speed railroads.

But, that's practical instead of fantastical.
....................


Cbus, I wouldn't count on it.

I still haven't details (price, schedule, destinations, ect.) that have convinced me that high speed railroads are going to work in our country.

I agree with CenterBHFSFan that we could work on other projects instead of this.

I'm getting sick of the high speed rail talk here in Ohio. Governor Strickland wants to create jobs by producing a rail syatem that no one will use and will bankrupt the state in the end.

High speed rail in the U.S. will be a major fail. Amtrak Mark 2.0. Unless they are planning to have trains that go at least 250-300 MPH, no one is going to bother. Shorter trips can use a car and longer trips will still be quicker by plane.

tk421 wrote: High speed rail in the U.S. will be a major fail. Amtrak Mark 2.0. Unless they are planning to have trains that go at least 250-300 MPH, no one is going to bother. Shorter trips can use a car and longer trips will still be quicker by plane.

exactly, never had a highway system(they are just starting to build one) like we did, thats why rail worked for them. that doesnt mean it will work for us.

I read somewhere that the top speed of the trains will be something like 119 MPH or in that range. First off, that's not exactly high speed. Secondly, once you factor in the time to drive to the station plus stops along the track, not to mention the fact that unless your destination is right by the rail line you still need a car, it will always be quicker to either drive or fly.

1- China. Let's be honest, China has been one gigantic socialist authoritarian state since it's inception. The average Chinese citizen has been little more than a worker bee for 4,000 years, building massive infrastructure projects like the great wall and the largest hydroelectric dam on the planet. Authoritarian governments have a great advantage with that type of stuff.

2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

Al Bundy wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

180mph high speed rail would be great for regional travel, not cross country. Imagine hopping on a train in Columbus and going to the Indians game in Cleveland, you don't have to drive, it costs $30 each, and it takes just over and hour.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

180mph high speed rail would be great for regional travel, not cross country. Imagine hopping on a train in Columbus and going to the Indians game in Cleveland, you don't have to drive, it costs $30 each, and it takes just over and hour.

It might be worth it in that case if you have 1 person going to the game. If you have 4 people going to the game, it would cost $120 for the train. If you drove, the cost for gas and parking would be under $40.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

180mph high speed rail would be great for regional travel, not cross country. Imagine hopping on a train in Columbus and going to the Indians game in Cleveland, you don't have to drive, it costs $30 each, and it takes just over and hour.

It might be worth it in that case if you have 1 person going to the game. If you have 4 people going to the game, it would cost $120 for the train. If you drove, the cost for gas and parking would be under $40.

Yeah but if it's a late game you don't have to worry about a hotel or driving home tired. The cost wouldn't be the big draw, it would be the convenience. I would use it for sure.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

180mph high speed rail would be great for regional travel, not cross country. Imagine hopping on a train in Columbus and going to the Indians game in Cleveland, you don't have to drive, it costs $30 each, and it takes just over and hour.

It might be worth it in that case if you have 1 person going to the game. If you have 4 people going to the game, it would cost $120 for the train. If you drove, the cost for gas and parking would be under $40.

Yeah but if it's a late game you don't have to worry about a hotel or driving home tired. The cost wouldn't be the big draw, it would be the convenience. I would use it for sure.

It would be great if it could be used. I just have my doubts if it would be used enough to justify the cost. I think the cost would be a big disadvantage unless they gave some type of deal (such as monthly pass or group package). I don't see too many families of 4 shelling out $120 when they could drive it and park for less than a 1/3 of the cost.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

180mph high speed rail would be great for regional travel, not cross country. Imagine hopping on a train in Columbus and going to the Indians game in Cleveland, you don't have to drive, it costs $30 each, and it takes just over and hour.

It might be worth it in that case if you have 1 person going to the game. If you have 4 people going to the game, it would cost $120 for the train. If you drove, the cost for gas and parking would be under $40.

Yeah but if it's a late game you don't have to worry about a hotel or driving home tired. The cost wouldn't be the big draw, it would be the convenience. I would use it for sure.

It would be great if it could be used. I just have my doubts if it would be used enough to justify the cost. I think the cost would be a big disadvantage unless they gave some type of deal (such as monthly pass or group package). I don't see too many families of 4 shelling out $120 when they could drive it and park for less than a 1/3 of the cost.

I agree. Outside the NE, which already has a pretty good rail system, I don't know of any part of the country where "high speed" rail would be used enough to justify the massive costs to the taxpayers. Unless it can be guaranteed to sustain itself, I don't think any should be built. The last thing the taxpayers need is to build these massive infrastructures and have to subsidize high speed rail just like Amtrak.

tk421 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: 2- The United States needs to get on the ball with high speed rail. Push the boundaries of current technology. There is no reason, with the center of our country being so gigantic and for the most part flat, we don't have trains cruising at 200mph+ across the plains! It's the god damn plane and car industries killing it though. In Texas, Southwest Airlines' lobbyists put a law into effect that barred a high-speed rail to cover the triangle, well it needs it. So does Florida. It's about damn time.

I am not against high speed rail if it could be useful. Even if we had trains going 200mph+ (I haven't seen estimates even close to that high), it is still much slower than flying. How much cheaper would it be than flying? As stated by someone earlier, most people would still need a car to get to and from the stations.

If the free market can find a way to do it, go for it. I just hate to see tax money used on a train project if people would rather drive or use planes.

180mph high speed rail would be great for regional travel, not cross country. Imagine hopping on a train in Columbus and going to the Indians game in Cleveland, you don't have to drive, it costs $30 each, and it takes just over and hour.

It might be worth it in that case if you have 1 person going to the game. If you have 4 people going to the game, it would cost $120 for the train. If you drove, the cost for gas and parking would be under $40.

Yeah but if it's a late game you don't have to worry about a hotel or driving home tired. The cost wouldn't be the big draw, it would be the convenience. I would use it for sure.

It would be great if it could be used. I just have my doubts if it would be used enough to justify the cost. I think the cost would be a big disadvantage unless they gave some type of deal (such as monthly pass or group package). I don't see too many families of 4 shelling out $120 when they could drive it and park for less than a 1/3 of the cost.

I agree. Outside the NE, which already has a pretty good rail system, I don't know of any part of the country where "high speed" rail would be used enough to justify the massive costs to the taxpayers. Unless it can be guaranteed to sustain itself, I don't think any should be built. The last thing the taxpayers need is to build these massive infrastructures and have to subsidize high speed rail just like Amtrak.

It would be used plenty. Do you know how many people who travel back and forth between dayton, columbus, cincy, and cleveland multiple times on a weekly basis?

If we had regional rail high speed rail, my gf and I would take more weekend trips to see her family in Buffalo NY.

I would travel to more Pittsburgh games

Having used the NE rail system to go from Trenton NJ to NYC multiple times, I feel like it is the way to go for ~300 mile trips.

"I agree. Outside the NE, which already has a pretty good rail system,"

I'd call it more of an ok system, when the Acela works and is on time it is fantastic. When it doesn't I've practically sworn my grandmother's soul to get the train going again while stuck outside an area that could be a scene from "The Wire". Having experienced both, for the $$$ between DC and NYC I'll still fly, and my second choice is driving. I agree with your general point, with technology we'll likely see less business travel which pays the bills for this type of endeavor. Until gas prices get to the point of craziness, rail isn't really an option outside the Boston to DC corridor. It is just too easy to drive.

I expected to hear all of the reasons why it won't work, but so far we have heard precious little on the irony of China showing us how to do it. Of course, if developing high-speed rail were proposed at C-PAC then everyone here would be raving about it.

China isn't socialist anymore, they were destitute when they were. Ever since they allowed private companies to thrive, their economy has exploded. They are pretty much a fascist economy with government backed private monopolies, much like we are. The reason we don't have high speed rail here is because it's use would be limited and it isn't worth the money. It will hemorrhage money, so only the government is willing to run them.

Mag Lev has much more potential IMO.

BCSbunk wrote: Time for Science to take over our classrooms without any rebuttals or lip from the right wing.

Yes that is the problem. LOL.

BCSbunk wrote: It is a sad day indeed that a socialist nations needs to teach us a trick on technology!!!

They don't need to teach us anything. Our nation just has not placed a high importance on this type of rail system. Other nations have. We could do it all if we wanted, but if the state of California is set on doing this, why not eliminate some of the research and development. If the Chinese are willing to show them a few things that will save them some time, so what.

I do agree with Cleveland Buck in that government trying to build and run a successful rail system in this country is likely to result in failure. Just take a close look at Amtrak.

If the U.S. is really serious about being a world leader in high speed train technology, they need to give this a look. I'm no expert by far, but it seems like this would be the ultimate in high speed. Crossing over existing farms and highway systems would be a huge plus.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/magnetrain.html

Just go with a monorail

Al Bundy wrote: Just go with a monorail

We have that in Seattle. It has given us nothing but problems.

Al Bundy wrote: Just go with a monorail

haha i already know what it is without even opening it. monorail...monorail...monorail...mono