Glory Days wrote:

redfalcon wrote: But imagine the freedom they would provide to that same family. Instead of being cramped up in a car, you can relax in your own space.

have fun stopping along the way when you see a cool landmark, resturant, or a tree that has richard nixon's face on it. nope, your stuck till the end of the ride. i'd rather be cramped in a car, going at my own pace, stopping when and where i want for aslong as i want.

This is true, especially when traveling alone. Yet you don't get to see anything from a plane, and if you have a family, it can be much more relaxing, especially with small children.

Glory Days wrote:

redfalcon wrote: But imagine the freedom they would provide to that same family. Instead of being cramped up in a car, you can relax in your own space.

have fun stopping along the way when you see a cool landmark, resturant, or a tree that has richard nixon's face on it. nope, your stuck till the end of the ride. i'd rather be cramped in a car, going at my own pace, stopping when and where i want for aslong as i want.

For your sake, I understand. You can use that extra time in the car and listen to a "how to spell" book on a CD.

the only regional train service I have ever used is Trenton NJ to NY NY a few times. Tickets were $18 each person 1 way and the ride took about an hour. The best part was I didn't have to find somewhere to park in NY, I just paid $4 for all day secure parking in a garage in Trenton.

If a system come be put into place to have local, regional, and national service I think people would be for it, but just trying to do 1 won't really create the impact that people are looking for.

I think the biggest challenge is to get the infrastructure in place. Due to the cost to make high speed rail a legit means of transportation for the whole country would probably come with a high fare at first. Yet I think if the demand is there more trains will be on the tracks and I hope the price would go down to a Ryanair type pricing system. My friend just flew from London to Berlin last month and the flight was free but it had a $14.99 service fee for roundtrip airfare!

Society wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

redfalcon wrote: But imagine the freedom they would provide to that same family. Instead of being cramped up in a car, you can relax in your own space.

have fun stopping along the way when you see a cool landmark, resturant, or a tree that has richard nixon's face on it. nope, your stuck till the end of the ride. i'd rather be cramped in a car, going at my own pace, stopping when and where i want for aslong as i want.

For your sake, I understand. You can use that extra time in the car and listen to a "how to spell" book on a CD.

what good is a CD going to do when i only have a tape player?

High speed rail is no solution...sounds good though.

I would like to see a high speed rail system with regional hubs that would be connected. I would like to see hubs in the NE (NYC), SE (ATL), Midwest (Indy), and West Coast(Sacramento). From each major hub you could connect to the other major hubs or to the other cities in that region.

joebaseball wrote: I would like to see a high speed rail system with regional hubs that would be connected. I would like to see hubs in the NE (NYC), SE (ATL), Midwest (Indy), and West Coast(Sacramento). From each major hub you could connect to the other major hubs or to the other cities in that region.

Sounds good, especially with New York and Atlanta, but Indy??? How about Chicago?

believer wrote: High speed rail is no solution...sounds good though.

I can see some good points in this article, but I can also see some holes. First, California's rail project will be powered by conventional means, but in a state which is pushing the go green craze, chances are good that they will invest more and more into green power. Also, what about all of the cars it takes off the road?

Second, its fine if you want to compare the costs to France and Japan, but those countries are much smaller, so it only makes sense that there would be less travel distances.

Personally I couldn't care less how many cars it takes off the road, as I've previously stated high-speed rail will never be able to compete with the car, it must compete with the jet. One cannot just build a national system, it would need to be regional first. I think one of the best examples is in Florida--a state based on tourism. Imagine high-speed rail (like the 200mph type) in Florida. An ocean line running from Jacksonille, to Daytona Beach, to Palm Beach, to West Palm Beach, to Miami. Another from Tampa/St. Peterburg to Orlando then connecting into the ocean line. Would you rather drive to Jacksonville from Miami, or ride and get their in a fraction of the time for cheaper the price?

That's correct, you'd need to subsidize high-speed rail to make it cheaper. It cramp people, and it needs to be fast. Extremely fast. Be fasted, cheaper, and more comfortable than a plane and they'd do well once their market share is established.

A Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago line would be nice. A Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Cincinnati would be nice too. Chicago is a key hub, as are the great plains. Kansas City-St. Louis-Chicago line? It would get heavier traffic than you think if the train is going 300% faster than their car and cheaper than a plane.

There's not enough demand in this country to justify the cost.

redfalcon wrote:

joebaseball wrote: I would like to see a high speed rail system with regional hubs that would be connected. I would like to see hubs in the NE (NYC), SE (ATL), Midwest (Indy), and West Coast(Sacramento). From each major hub you could connect to the other major hubs or to the other cities in that region.

Sounds good, especially with New York and Atlanta, but Indy??? How about Chicago?

I was thinking Indy due to location and being able to serve more people more quickly. Indy is pretty centrally located in the Midwest. It is not far from Chicago, Columbus, Cincy, St. Louis, Detroit/Toledo, Louisville, and maybe even Nashville.

Intercity rail transport won't work unless the end-point cities have a good mass transit system taking you from the rail station to outlying points in the area. For medium-distance runs where rail is practical, very few people travel from downtown to downtown.

For the 100-400 hauls where rail is practical, you have to keep travelers out of their cars in the first place. By the time you get in a car, drive 20-30 minutes to the downtown railroad station, ride, and then reverse the process, you lose any time advantage, and large numbers of people are simply going to stay in the car and drive. If reliable (i.e., service at intervals of 60-90 minutes or less all day) public transportation is available, it become a lot more practical.

'Course, when gas goes to ten buck a gallon when the next major international crisis hits, this could change.

After looking at a map I would add a fifth hub in Denver or someplace similar to service the Plains.

Here is what I think it would look like with a little tweaking of course. Map

Major Hubs - Red
West Coast - Purple
Plains - Yellow
South - Light Blue
Midwest- Blue
Northeast- Green

waste of time and money in my opinion.

I love trains.

I would like to see an Ohio "CCC" connection.

The government "could" make it happen, BUT...........I like the suggestion about "free enterprise"!

I just wanna drive one of these high speed trains. (see screen name)

I'd purely love to be able to take a train from my home in Fremont to my job in Findlay. It'd have to be punctual and low cost, $5-7 daily, and the schedule would have to be close to my work schedule. It's unlikely though. We had that system years ago, but the automobile made the electric interurban rail service obsolete around 1930. I don't see a comeback happening.
Now as far as a fast train to NYC, Chicago, or Florida, I might use that. It'd have to compete in cost and time w/ the airlines though.

LocoEngineer66 wrote: I just wanna drive one of these high speed trains. (see screen name)

HEY! Aren't you supposed to pick me up sometime at the Wheeling Junction? ........So I can operate (or just ride) on a normal speed diesel?

iref iump: You sound like you are an old dude like me!!

Cat Food Flambe' wrote: Intercity rail transport won't work unless the end-point cities have a good mass transit system taking you from the rail station to outlying points in the area. For medium-distance runs where rail is practical, very few people travel from downtown to downtown.

For the 100-400 hauls where rail is practical, you have to keep travelers out of their cars in the first place. By the time you get in a car, drive 20-30 minutes to the downtown railroad station, ride, and then reverse the process, you lose any time advantage, and large numbers of people are simply going to stay in the car and drive. If reliable (i.e., service at intervals of 60-90 minutes or less all day) public transportation is available, it become a lot more practical.

'Course, when gas goes to ten buck a gallon when the next major international crisis hits, this could change.

This is exactly my thoughts too. I would love to see high speed rail in the U.S. but the cities that are major stops on the way would have to have a good light rail or bus system. I think there is progress being made in a lot of cities to start a light rail system. Here is a link to maps of all the light rail in the U.S. (scroll to the third post)

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167125&page=8

Light rail is starting to be developed in major cities but it will take time. The lack of rail options in all the C's in Ohio is a major drawback to the 3C project. Yet I know Cincy is looking into a streetcar system but I have no clue what is going on in Columbus.

Denver has done commuter rail/light rail really well with linking it to the suburbs in a dense area where people can do a park n ride into the city. It would be nice if the rest of the country could follow suit however I think there are too many egos and political riff raff that gets in the way.

Cleveland has added two lightrail stations in 60 years to their system, and Cincinnati voted down lightrail by a 2-1 margin about six or seven years ago.

Columbus is looking at a streetcar to run from downtown to campus, and is showing strong potential.

In Cleveland the word light rail is used loosely. Other than Shaker Hts. the route from downtown to the airport is all heavy rail. The city really screwed up the route as they put it through the heart of the industrial valley rather than near dense areas (i.e. Lakewood). Although admittingly the Lakewood light rail would probably be another line and not the red line going to the airport but I still think it could have been configured closer to neighborhoods and not where it is.

Also Cincy voted down an issue in November that would block the development of a streetcar system going through the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood down through Downtown to the riverfront where the new development is under construction.

BRF wrote:

LocoEngineer66 wrote: I just wanna drive one of these high speed trains. (see screen name)

HEY! Aren't you supposed to pick me up sometime at the Wheeling Junction? ........So I can operate (or just ride) on a normal speed diesel?

iref iump: You sound like you are an old dude like me!!

I haven't worked for the W&LE since 99.