Posted on 10/08/2009 1:58:41 PM PDT by Willie Green
PHOENIX (AP) - Congestion in the skies and on the ground may pave the way for bullet train expansion to Phoenix and other western cities.
Regional rail planners from Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno and Salt Lake City have formed the Western High Speed Rail Alliance.
The group says it's goal is to form a network of rapid intercity trains.
Transportation officials plan to cite a study released by the Washington think tank the Brookings Institution. It's expected to show Phoenix to Los Angeles is the third-busiest short-hop air travel corridor, with a distance that would make high-speed rail competitive.
Although it's years away, transportation experts say a typical high-speed train, common in Europe and Asia and costing billions, would get passengers from downtown Phoenix to Los Angeles in just over two hours.
They’ll never build a bullet-train that bypasses the bordellos.
While this is a good idea, we already have private airlines for this... well for now....
Oh crap - more bullet train wet dreams. Geez, I guess we want to be Japanese? Why not highways with speed limits of 150mph? Would’nt that stimualte the economy? Or how about a helicopter in everyones drive way so we don’t need roads? Geez - you get a lunkhead dem in the WH and everyone wants a bullet train. Why don’t we take the money we put into UAW’s auto company and buy Phoenix a bullet train?
If private industry sees it as a good thing, then I am all for it. But let them pay for it, not me.
Is this one of those “high speed” trains that goes 60mph instead of 56mph?
How's that train in New Mexico working out? The wide open spaces, and intercity distances of the Southwest could be good train country actually, if managed right.
I don't know, I haven't read much about any proposal in New Mexico.
But yes, it is very interesting how many different cities are expressing interest. And those cities in the SW are particularly intriguing.
I've become accustomed to explaining the advantages/disadvantages of grade-level rail vs elevated Maglev (Maglev being better suited to difficult, hilly terrain and densely populated areas, while rail is more ideally suitable for crossing the flat, wide open plains.)
But maglev goes a lot faster than high-speed rail. And modern construction methods make blasting a grade-level route through rough Western terrain much easier than back in the old days when the current rail routes were laid out.
So there's a lot of opportunity to go in different directions (literally) with the newer technologies.
I'm very curious to see what the planners come up with. Right now, I don't know which technology I'd prefer for this region.
I think that it would be a great idea if there was money to pay for it. Right now, this country doesn’t have money for anything. I’m betting that Harry Reid’s train to Vegas, which was included in the stimulus bill, will never be built. The Chinese are just not going to finance it.
Posting a study by the Brookings Institution? Shame!
While this is a good idea, we already have private airlines for this... well for now....
So it makes sense to save the oil for longer flights, where there is no available substitute.
On shorter trips less than 500 miles, the newer high-speed trains have much better fuel efficiency. And if powered using electricity, can even be independent of the price of oil.
Only one catch... the new trains will take many years to build. So we need to start now in order to complete as much as we can before the next Oil Crisis hits.
Don’t think so. Our little experiment with our rapid streetcar or what ever they call it is not working out very well here in Phoenix. It’s loosing money, and people seem to always be running into it.;)
Amtrack on the west coast is going to end up just as bad as Amtrack on the eastern coast.
Posting a study by the Brookings Institution? Shame!
It's a pretty strange day today...
even "The Center for Science in the Public Interest" is starting to come around to my POV.
Better late than never, I suppose.
But it would've been nice if they published that report BEFORE NAFTA was crammed down our throats.
Amtrack on the west coast is going to end up just as bad as Amtrack on the eastern coast.Even on the east coast, Amtrak ridership is at an all time high.
We have trains, but most people don’t ride them.
We have relatives in Flagstaff, and they rode the train to Lost Angeles area.
But she said she won’t do it in the future.
What I am saying is for these people, private autos is their preference.
Perhaps if the train took half the time, and gasoline was $7.00 per gal. it might change their minds.
But not for now.
Another environut proposal following the euroweenies. We don’t give tax money to the airlines or truckers why should we do it for the “green” train nuts.
I don’t know why they don’t use helicopters like the Sikorsky S-61 to shuttle passengers those distances. With the money they’d spend on infrastructure for high speed rail, they could subsidize the fuel costs for millions of helicopter trips.
And every one of those Amtrak passengers should send a thank you note to the US taxpayer for without the money stolen from the US tax payer their train rides would not be possible. Amtrak only survives thanks to massive infusions of taxpayer money...just like every other passenger carrying rail service in the USA.
I don’t know why they don’t use helicopters like the Sikorsky S-61 to shuttle passengers those distances.
The Sikorsky S-61L non-amphibious civil transport version can seat up to 30 passengers. So I imagine it has many of the same drawbacks as fixed-wing propeller driven commuter planes of the same capacity.
I don't know how it compares on fuel efficiency. But helicopters are more complex and generally have more costly maintenance requirements.
And then there are the employement costs of hundreds of skilled heliocopter pilots, each only hauling 30 people at a time at most.
Heliocopters are great in special situations, but they're usually not the most efficient way to transport passengers.
And every one of those Amtrak passengers should send a thank you note to the US taxpayer for without the money stolen from the US tax payer their train rides would not be possible.And everybody travelling on the highways and Interstates should send those Amtrak passengers a thank-you note for not adding to traffic congestion and limited parking spaces. And for helping to keep gas prices down by not consuming so much.
I would bet *Socialist* Brookings has envisioned much darker plans
They ALL envision much darker plans.
Cato envisions much darker plans.
The Council on Foreign Relations envisions much darker plans.
PETA envisions much darker plans.
WalMart envisions much darker plans.
The Build-A-Burgers envision much darker plands.
I only pick out the bright spots.
The Disneyland to Las Vegas rail system is estimated to cost 12 billion to build, so you figure on it costing double or triple that amount. So if you used 12 billion to purchase helicopters, parts, etc., you’d still have 12 billion left over, maybe 24 billion. If you took 12 billion, you could subsidize TWELVE MILLION one way trips by $1000.00 each. That’s 360 MILLION flyers.
The point is, there is no way that high speed rail could be economical compared to helicopter or fixed wing transportation.
The Disneyland to Las Vegas rail system is estimated to cost 12 billion to build, so you figure on it costing double or triple that amount.No Jeff, I think that you're getting confused between two different proposals.
But getting back to your heliocopters, Ridership between Vegas and Anaheim is estimated at 40 million passengers annually. That's 20 million in each direction, or roughly 55,000 going each way daily. (Seems reasonable for such a major tourist destination. Afterall, 55K people is about the capacity of an average sports arena.)
Anyway, 55000/30 people per helicopter = 1833 helicopter flights each day. And then another 1833 helicopters going in the other direction.
That's a lot of helicopter flights, Jeff.
If you start flying that many helicopters between Vegas and Disneyland every day, I think that they're going to start bumping into each other and crash.
It's much safer to move that many people on the ground in a train. A train holds a lot more passengers and doesn't have to make as many trips. That's why the helicopters are impractical.
I do admire your *positive*, glass half FULL outlook, though.
Wow! You dramatically overestimate the number of Amtrak riders. Far, far more traffic congestion is relieved by the use of freight trains to carry freight instead of 18 wheelers on the highways. This is not Europe and a European style train system simply does not work here. It's been tried for DECADES and has been very expensive in both lives and treasure and, as such, is a miserable failure. There is really no way you can spin it. Take a look at the numbers some time.
Far, far more traffic congestion is relieved by the use of freight trains to carry freight instead of 18 wheelers on the highways.
So???
That doesn't mean our highways aren't still congested with 18 wheelers.
It'll be a lot safer for people to ride a train then having to dodge 18 wheelers on the Interstate in their little hybrid Obamamobiles.
(You don't seriously think that GM and Chrysler are going to be making any SUVs anymore, do you?)
Traffic congestion is the least of our worries.
There's always going to be some people who live on the fringe of society out in the boonies somewhere. But most populated regions of our continent are experiencing population growth, and require better transportation infrastructure to alleviate congestion.
Not sure what you mean here. Drive through Atlanta or Dallas or LA at rush hour. Look at all the trucks on the road. Removing half of them would be very significant in easing traffic congestion.
It'll be a lot safer for people to ride a train then having to dodge 18 wheelers on the Interstate in their little hybrid Obamamobiles.
The problem with this notion is the major traffic congestion is in and around the cities caused local commuters. I traveled the USA (49 states) over a period of about 18 years with my work as a roving telecom engineer. There isn't that much congestion in between the cities from what I've witnessed unless there is road construction. This intercity travel is where the article is talking about new high speed rail lines.
(You don't seriously think that GM and Chrysler are going to be making any SUVs anymore, do you?)
It doesn't matter one iota to me what GM and Chrysler build. I will never, ever buy or rent a GM or Chrysler product ever. Fight Fascism, buy a Ford!
Put the girls on the trains!
Not to worry, though, the enviros won't let the trains go fast. They must protect the desert tortoise.
There is one hell of a lot of freight that is moved on trucks cross country, coast to coast and regionally. These trucks have to pass through and or around cities. There are indeed rail hubs in virtually all medium and large cities in this country. Medium and large cities are where the traffic congestion problems are worst. By using trains to do long haul and regional freight we would indeed reduce the amount of long haul truck traffic passing through these cities, thus reducing traffic congestion. The rail lines and hubs already exist. There is no added cost. This method is far more cost effective than building multi-billion dollar high speed rail that only carries a few hundred people at a time and has proven to not be financially viable anywhere in the USA. One 18 wheeler takes up the space of 5 average cars. Remove a large portion of the long haul trucks from the interstates that pass through these cities and you would dramatically reduce congestion. Do the math.
There isn't that much congestion in between the cities from what I've witnessed unless there is road construction. This intercity travel is where the article is talking about new high speed rail lines.
Not unless you look up-overhead at the air corridors.
That's why high-speed rail has a big advantage over short-hop air travel.
Our air traffic control system is so outdated it is ridiculous. I am a private pilot and I speak of this with first hand knowledge. I fly myself when my destination is less than say 800 miles away. My little airplane carrys two people and 100 lbs of baggage cruising at 160 mph getting 44 mpg. Unbeatable in terms of efficiency and no speed traps to worry about.
Slight changes in the timing of departures and arrivals of commercial air traffic at the large hubs like Chicago, Atlanta, LAX, etc., would go a long, long way towards relieving air traffic congestion. You simply cannot have every airline trying to take off and land at the same time. This is more of a management issue than it is a volume issue. The airspace over this country really isn't that crowded with the exception of the NE corridor and southern California. The FAA has been promising the "Next Gen" air traffic control system for two decades. Typical of anything the gubmint touches, we're still waiting.....
I am a private pilot and I speak of this with first hand knowledge. I fly myself when my destination is less than say 800 miles away. My little airplane carrys two people and 100 lbs of baggage cruising at 160 mph getting 44 mpg. Unbeatable in terms of efficiency and no speed traps to worry about.
I never got a license for one of those,
but Trade-A-Plane.com indicates that those little flying-caskets cost anywhere from $40K to over $80K or more. (Yeah, there are cheaper ones listed, but I don't trust any bargains unless I actually kick the tires myself.)
Anyway, I can buy a helluva lot of Amtrak tickets for that kind of money, and not have to worry about running into any power lines or thunderstorms or crap like that.
Our air traffic control system is so outdated it is ridiculous.
Yeah... at least with modern high-speed rail and Maglev, passengers don't have to worry about traffic controllers being preoccupied with how to barbecue roadkill for dinner.
$40K - $80K, huh? Pretty much in line with a typical automobile unless you drive an econobox. In regard to aircraft, I built mine and I don't have anywhere near $80K in it. It burns auto fuel and since I built it I am able to do all maintenance and inspections myself and this lowers the costs considerably. I know every inch of my little airplane like the back of my hand. I've been flying more than 30 years with over 9000 hours logged and I've never had any trouble with thunderstorms or power lines. You avoid them, just like you avoid the ditches along side the road in your car. Your comment reminds me of the old saying "If ignorance is bliss how come there aren't more happy people?"
Anyway, I can buy a helluva lot of Amtrak tickets for that kind of money,
You might want to check into the safety record of Amtrak since you seem concerned about thunderstorms and power lines. How many derailments has Amtrak had in the past ten years? Dozens? Then, there's always the possibility of terrorism with mass transit as we have seen played out over and over in recent years. You might not have considered this, but it would be very easy to cause real problems for a high speed train with miles and miles of remote, unprotected tracks. And, unless your destination is somewhere in the city you will need to rent a car when you get there to get around. This doesn't help traffic at all. You are also very limited as to what you can carry with you, just like the airlines.
The record is quite clear. Trains simply do not work here. There is not one single passinger carrying train in this country that does not depend heavily on gubmint subsidies. Not one. Enjoy your train ride, though. (and all the taxes you will pay to support it)
Funny, I was in Chicago in May and I saw lots and lots of trucks on the roads during rush hour.....if you can call what ya'll have up there "roads".....seemed more like an endless collection of tank traps to me.....
In regard to aircraft, I built mine and I don't have anywhere near $80K in it. It burns auto fuel and since I built it I am able to do all maintenance and inspections myself and this lowers the costs considerably. I know every inch of my little airplane like the back of my hand.
No Thanks.
This is what I built:
www.europa-aircraft.com
That is a contraption, not an airplane. I agree. No thanks.....
This is what I built:
www.europa-aircraft.com
That's not an airplane, either.
It's an "aeroplane".
No thanks.
Kewl! Be sure to wave when I go by at 160 mph.....
Kewl! Be sure to wave when I go by at 160 mph.....
By the time the first Maglev train is built in this country and becomes operational I'll have long ago turned to dust and so will you. There is no money to build this because it simply cannot support itself. No one in their right mind in the private sector would attempt to build something like this because of the confiscatory ticket prices they would have to charge in order to service the debt they would incur building it. There certainly isn't any money in the public sector for something like this, either, or have you not noticed the soaring debt and deficits we are experiencing? The gubmint has no money. It's flat broke, but too stupid to realize it.
Flying is much, much cheaper and always will be because you don't have to maintain hundreds of miles of track. Flying is the most efficient means of transportation that there is on the planet. That's why over 70% of the species on this earth fly instead of riding trains......
We arrived late morning and it wasn't too bad. We left in the early evening and there was plenty of traffic at 7:00PM on the interstate between O'hare and downtown. I, for one, am glad there are millions of people willing to live like this......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.