>> I see no reason why high speed rail wouldn't work in more
>> of the U.S.
>
> I don't understand this kind of viewpoint. It's totally unsupportable,
> given the amount of research that's gone into it that comes up with the
> exact opposite result: there are very few routes in the US that could
> a) justify and b) support a high-speed rail link. You can't just build
> it; you have to get people to use it.
Sure, there are routes that would support high speed rail. California. Los Angeles to Las Vegas. When I say high speed rail, I'm including everything from a Metroliner speed service to a more high speed TGV type train. The L.A. to Vegas route might support a higher speed service because there are lots of people who want to go to Vegas.
>> I can see high speed rail going in between Chicago and Milwaukee
>> and Kansas City and St. Louis. The latter might be more doable
>> than people think.
> Which people? People who have looked at both of these routes and come
> up empty? Maybe it has something to do with this:
Working people in Kansas City who have friends and family and business in St. Louis, and vice versa. I'm not envisioning a TGV here--you are correct that a bullet train wouldn't work--but an upgraded Amtrak along the lines of the Metroliner would be supportable (and not something like the Acela).
> The fact is that no one is going to be crazy enough to build a 250-mile
> long high speed rail line so that you can take it for fun. The ~250
> mile route is roughly equivalent to Paris-Lyon, which y
I wasn't thinking TGV, rather high speed service that is faster than the current service. Dedicated passenger track. Two hours is much better than a four hour trip of billboards and falling asleep.
> Pennsylvania (total trip: about 1000 miles) just to avoid the
> engineering aspects that Penn Central decided to tackle (including one
> of the few 360 degree pieces of track in the US): it paid off, as their
> (non-stop!) train could beat the Penn train on most days, though only
> by ~20 minutes.
The Altoona horseshoe? I've been on that. Pretty impressive.
> 12 hours for a trip that's 3+ in the worst case by air is just silly;
> 19 hours is a laugh riot. For comparison you can fly that route on any
> one of 7 airlines from either of Chicago's two airports (giving you
> flexibility depending on where you're starting from) into any of NYC's
> three major airlines (again, depending on where you are going) for
> about $80. Now that's public transportation!
The problem is that you are assuming that the era of cheap plane travel will continue. Given the state of the airline industry and the spiralling fuel prices, these "short" routes will be too expensive for working class people. Driving will be their alternative, but that will continue to be more expensive as the petroleum runs out.
Chuck