CA has been studying a high-speed rail service from San Diego to Sacramento. I looked at the info on the web (Caltrans website). Looks logical and economically sensible.
I think we should start with north-south line along the West coast (San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Salem, Portland, Seattle). And beef up the existing north-south route on the East coast (Boston, New York, Wash DC, and extend down through mid-Atlantic, Atlanta etc). Those are pretty dense routes. When those are working, extend to Midwest and Southwest.
Yes, the money to build the above is huge. Let's say $20 to 40 BN, just guessing.
That's only a few months's spending on this black hole of a war in Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Start by doing the logical thing - connect "hub" or major cities. A high-speed rail NYC to LA would be a good start. Our Amtrak rail system is a joke by global standards. The only thing that we have that even resembles good rail service is on the DC/NY/Boston corridor (Acela train) and that's pitifully slow by international standards. The technology exists today to build a 300 mph train. That's 10 hours coast-to-coast (2,982 miles from Union Station L.A. to Boston's South Station). Assume a couple of hours' worth of stops along the way (Denver, Chicago, NYC) and make it an even 12. Not quite air travel, but close. One day trip. Pretty much what a smart traveler allots for getting there by air now, especially factoring in all the additional TSA bull***** and a connection (or two) in there for most routes, etc. AND you could launch one of these things every half-hour if need be.
Why aren't we doing this? Is there REALLY no market for it?
I mean, nobody wants to ride coast-to-coast on Amtrak because it'll take you the better part of a week and be stopping every 45 minutes in half the podunk towns in America. If you seriously had a dedicated high-speed line with only quick-turns in major cities, you'd have a very viable transportation system that would ease a lot of congestion at airports, etc. Not to mention the maglev technology uses ELECTRIC power (not fossil fuel) which could be powered by nuclear, solar, whatever. You'd be substituting one or two of these power plants for how many hundreds of millions of gallons of Jet-A a year?
I think the time might be here (or will be shortly) to dust off these ideas and start giving them some serious consideration again. A few years ago it was simpler/easier to just say "aww, screw it - we can just keep going on with 'more of the same old' and we'll be fine", but as oil starts approaching $125, $150, $175 or $200 a barrel, maybe not so much.
|