Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
2183 messages, Last post on Nov 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 06, 2008 10:34 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 10:23 am) I think high speed passenger trains would require new tracks anyway, and separation from the freight tracks would be good. That's the European model. Getting the right of way could be a daunting issue. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 10:23 am) I moved from California to Colorado about 15 years ago, so am not as current on the in-state issues as I used to be. I hadn't realized that they were attempting to use existing SP rail lines. Not long after I moved to Colorado, my ex and my son came to visit .. they took the train (California Zephyr, with the observation cars). IIRC, there was a problem in Utah and they were stuck there for many hours, which put them horribly behind schedule. The California Zephyr still runs daily between Chicago and San Francisco, though the original CZ ran between Chicago and LA. EDIT: Nope, I was wrong - the CZ always ran between Chicago and SF. BTW, are there still plans to build a high speed rail line between LA and Vegas? That idea has been kicked around for about 25 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: michaell (Nov 06, 2008 12:57 pm) There sure are, and in fact that one is well on its way as they have a commitment from the train manufacturer to provide all initial trains for free as part of a demonstration project, and in exchange for hefty payback once it is in operation and turning a profit. I think anything that will clear some of the enormous volumes of traffic off of I-5 south of Sacramento and I-15 south of Vegas is welcome and overdue.... |
|
|
Amtrak has a high-speed train called the Acela that runs between DC and Boston. It's capable of speeds in excess of 150 mph except for one little detail...the tracks and the overhead wires. As a result, I think its average speed drops down to something like 80 mph. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has too many twists and turns, limiting the speed. But worse, the tracks themselves were laid too close together, so that limits how far the Acela's cars can tilt. Tilt them over too far, and they'll whack an adjacent slow-moving freight. Also, the overhead lines in many places date back to the Depression era and the old GG-1 locomotives. I believe the overhead wires have too much "bounce" to them, to accommodate a fast-moving electric train. Still, I think it can make it from DC to NYC in about 2 hours and 40 minutes. I doubt if you could drive it that fast, and an airplane ride, while quicker, might not be quicker enough to be worth the hassle. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Nov 06, 2008 9:34 am) You and the proponents are dreaming. There are environmental groups that have already filed lawsuits to block the high speed rail. This is CA man we have regulations for everything and against everything. California High-Speed Rail Project Dead? Not Dead Enough Similarly, the California high-speed rail project surely is founded on bogus projections. The cost is pegged at $40 billion, an unfathomable figure. But based on consistent past experience, the real cost could easily exceed $80 billion, not counting the interest on the bonds. Even more absurd is the ridership projection. To quote REASON Foundation policy analyst Adam Summers, "Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express, which serves the popular Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to New York to Boston, enjoys ridership of less than 3 million passengers per year. It serves a larger market than the planned California system, yet proponents ask us to believe that California's high-speed trains will carry over 100 million passengers a year by 2030." The strategy by rail proponents is what I call the "hole in the ground" ploy. First get the taxpayers to approve a paltry $10 billion bond, leaving open the ultimate cost and the remaining financing. Then, with the project started, proponents figure that the voters will reluctantly approve massive additional expenditures, on the shaky premise that "we can't stop now." http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/09/opinion/rider/20_46_081_8_08.txt Four environmental groups and two cities today filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging the California High Speed Rail Authority's recent decision to lay track over Pacheco Pass, The state will spend the $9 billion on lawsuits and in the end we will have nothing but debt to show for the wasted tax dollars. I will keep driving my car thank you. Or flying. I would imagine when and If this project ever gets going the security to get on the train will be the same as the airlines. More trains have been targeted by terrorists than planes.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 06, 2008 1:24 pm) You ever been on I-5 between SF and LA on a Friday evening? Sunday afternoon? ANY and EVERY public holiday? It's amazing we don't have more fatalities than we do out there, and the stressfulness of driving it makes the whole trip an unpleasant prospect. Flying stinks, and you know it's only going to get worse. Already consumer surveys find that people don't think of any industry in worse terms than the airlines, except for the rare occasions when insurance scores lower. I agree 100% with that sentiment. You wait and wait, and then you wait some more when you fly. You are searched, your belongings are searched, you end up late at your destination (if your flight isn't overbooked or cancelled altogether), and half the time your luggage is misdirected, only to be available to you 24 hours after arrival. With lead times and delays in leaving the airport at the other end, it's a 3-hour-plus job to fly between SF and LA. The train will do it in less. As for your security comments, well I don't know if there have been more terror attacks on trains than on planes (sounds wrong intuitively though), but I do know that more than seven years after 9/11 we still have the very onerous security procedures for plane-boarding, and NONE for trains. Seven years. If it hasn't happened by now, it isn't likely to.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Nov 06, 2008 10:03 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 1:35 pm) Amtrak carried a record 28.7 million people last year, with each of its routes seeing gains, the national passenger railroad said Friday. ... as illustrating the absurdity of the Proposition 1A folks' claim that their high-speed rail system would carry 100 million people a year. He's absolutely right. Amtrak has about 300 trains linking more than 500 destinations in 46 states on 21,000 miles of routes, but we're told to believe that California high-speed rail, with its handful of stops and its smallish trains, would draw vastly more riders. How can they say this stuff with a straight face? But, then again, just about everything in Prop. 1A is made up out of thin air, as I noted in the last item of Sunday's print column. And voters just might buy it, pathetically enough. http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/028193.html |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Nov 06, 2008 9:34 am) Did they just legalize dope in your state? Are you kidding? There was a reason that private rail companies dumped passenger rail 50 years ago...IT WAS A MONEY LOSER. Passenger rail doesn't generate anything but debt. And by the way, those 450,000 new jobs will probably be tax collectors to squeeze the last penny out of CA citizens. 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
