Article on high-speed rail in the on-line edition of USA Today. Key point: “The history of transportation shows that we adopt new technologies when they are faster, more convenient, and less expensive than With applying the theory you can guess that it will cheap levitra prescription Source work on the soft muscles of body and heart. The ladies who prescription order viagra without are going through this problem, I am suggesting you to read my previous post and consult Dr. This has led to a growing disbelief in the minds generic cialis pill of the individuals. 2. Smoking causes hardening of blood vessels, while alcohol affects a man’s you could check here viagra 100mg no prescription ability for having a penile erection. the technologies they replace. High-speed rail is slower than flying, less convenient than driving, and far more expensive than either one. As a result, it will never serve more than a few marginal travelers.”
Another County Heard From
Tagged high-speed rail. Bookmark the permalink.
Does Amtrak still carry fewer passengers each day than Portland’s (Trimet’s) toy train, MAX?
Thanks
JK
I wouldn’t knock trains just yet. The older trains can be upgraded at lower cost. If the trains get WiFi and video entertainment, that’s a nicer and more useful way to travel long distances than by car. Airplanes have airphones, but their data capabilities are limited. Using older trains means no need for expensive track upgrades & it would make more sense to electrify routes that need it.
A recent inquiry by a friend revealed that the Acela ??high?? speed rail takes 10.5 hours to go from Boston to Washington DC. By car, the trip takes 8 hours. By plane, it takes 1.5 hours. Train costs $15 more than the plane and takes seven times longer to get there. The Acela is the fastest train in the US, right. Next thought. In France, labor likes to shut down the trains and commuter lines whenever it doesn’t like what the government wants to do, like raise the retirement age to 62.
http://www.euronews.net/2010/10/15/uncertain-situation-over-french-oil-refineries/
Though there is impact on motorists too with gas shortages.
That USA Today article had a typo, understating the miles of Interstates, by a factor of 10 (40,000). I can even envision the editor purposely doing that. Of course that doesn’t change the $/mile.
Oh, HSR doesn’t have a viable chance. Congress & the Legislatures will come to their senses on the huge amount of taxpayer money & it’s terrible value. There is no overall advantage, especially not on the 2 most touted things, energy savings & new economic development.
It’s hilarious how the propaganda for the CA HSR, claim more jobs, beyond the construction. No reason is given.
The fact for about rail is avoided: displacing jobs, building & activity from other areas to near stations.
A similar error is done with purported green jobs.
The net change is avoided. And green jobs are more expensive. Look at what happened in Spain.
That is a good point, Scott. High speed rail is aiming at a niche market. It has to be faster than a car and cheaper than an airline. However, that means that most of the jobs will come at the expense of airlines.
I don’t see why government should try to predict the right balance of cost vs. time for California travelers. High speed rail might be a little more efficient for some travelers, but if those travelers aren’t willing to pay for the capital costs, operating costs and risk, then why should the rest of the public pay for it?
Be honest Scott, HSR is as viable as freeways.
As viable?
Hmmm, I read about more passenger long-distance train routes, over 80 years ago, faster than now, that lost out to competition from grade-separated roads?
Cost per passenger mile?
Somebody hasn’t read any reports.
Does viability include what cars have?: convenience, choice, unlimited destination options, etc.
Highman, you keep forgetting your medication to prevent reversals & ignorance.