Infographic: U.S. clears the track for high-speed rail
- California consults with China about high-speed rail
- Obama creates new jobs by investing in high-speed rail
- Obama to announce high-speed rail plan post-speech
- U.S. looks to Spanish high-speed rail as model
- Clearing the track for high-speed rail
- High-speed debate
- More alternative transportation news
Comments
yup, it's 2012 and what a waste of money that was.
I would love to know where that speed estimate for the Acela came from. I think its *****. The Acela is WAY more expensive and travel times are only minutes less. Im on the NE Corridor all the time and can never justify paying double or triple for a ticket that saves a few minutes.
Philadelphia to Boston on Amtrak, 500km, 5 hours, $211
Tokyo to Osaka on Nozomi train, 500km, 2.5 hours, $143
Here in Europe, we are using high-speed rail (HSR) since 1981, when France introduced the TGV. Later, other countries developed their own systems: the German ICE, Spanish AVE trains and the Eurostar Italia. In the 90s, the first international services were introduced: the TMST to London, Thalys and ICE International. Other countries like the UK, Portugal and Sweden used tilting trains as an alternative.
At present, there are high-speed lines serving Paris, Marseille, Bordeaux, London, Brussels,.... More
When I went to Europe this Summer, i really enjoyed traveling by the high speed trains. For the money, its a good deal, and not that stressful. The only problem is sometimes it was packed, and I couldn't sit next to my family or have to stand for awhile. I think High Speed Trains here would totally be worth the investment, and be good for tourism.
Wishful thinking. Having taken both the Acela and Amtrak's Regional Service, I can personally tell you that the Acela, while more comfortable with newer cars, is not that much different speed-wise than the Regional Service; it just makes less stops which cuts its time down. It also is hampered by its faulty tilt system, which makes it run at lower speeds (.... More
Trains are efficient at transporting large number of people at low cost. Even small cities(about 50000 people) suffer from traffic. Trains are much cheaper than buses and buses are cheaper than airplane rides. if you are traveling less than 500 miles away than buses and trains are cheaper and almost as fast. but it would be cool if there is an option to go from Chicago to New York City by train in less than 4 hours. Right now trains are way too slow and expensive for very long.... More
the most irritating thing here is that states that don't "get" public transportation didn't receive any of the grants...because their plans were so poorly developed....so now they get left further in the dust....which they don't care that much....but those of us who are idiots enough to live in one of these forgotten states...we're going to be the ones caught in traffic for the rest of our adult life.
574 km/h != 340 m/h
get the figures right.
Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks.
=================
iwon
Advanced Technology
It's all well and good trying to create a network of passenger rail from city to city, however this system is fairly useless at the moment as most major metro areas still lack public transit at the local level. Until these "hub" cities develop local rails similar to the L in Chicago or the subway system in NYC cars will remain the economic and convenient method of travel. Why on earth would I take high speed railways to a city if I just have to spend more money than I would have driving.... More
Actually, its the states that could provide the most economic benefit per dollar spent. That's why the plans go along major population centers and major business centers instead of around the north western area.
Connect Las Vegas and Dallas to Albuquerque and I'm sold.
Wish this happened sooner. I could use a train ride between Rochester and Boston that wasn't Amtrak.
Is 110mph in many corridors the current speed or after they built the new system? (I have to assume it's the planned speed, because I never heard of an 220mph train in California). It's just that nobody would call 110mph "high speed" for inter city trains in many parts here in Europe. Anyway, I hope you'll get these soon! "Real" high speed rail is a bliss!
because all anyone is interested in here is cars, cars, cars. The states that got the grants are one that are thinking ahead.
Actually it is probably based on need and most heavily traveled highways. I doubt the midwest is full of congestion and look :O not as many high speed trains.
