USA needs better rail system

I am taking German, and in that class we often hear about the European train system. I can't help but be jealous, because I think that America would profit immensly from a rail system of our own.
there was talk a few years ago about a bullet train between my hometown (Omaha) and Lincoln, NE, but I'm not sure the plan still exists.

so, thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bullet trains would be great. But, there is not a good market like in Japan or Europe. Flying is typically cheaper, because of the greater distances involved in the US between major population centers compared to Europe/Japan. And flying is usually faster.

But, a bullet train would eventually pay for itself if it were fast enough. Say 250 mph between Washington DC and LA, at 3,000 miles, would be some 12 hours transit. That compares OK to flying (5 hours), and would definitely be more comfortable. Such transit would take a good share of the current airline market share.

In the technology section, I started a thread about rapid transit involving an evacuated tube (to eliminate air friction) in which trains might travel at several thousand mph. That would require extensive engineering, but is feasible. The cost would be quite high to develop the system, but once in place, would be very competitive with airlines. Google "pipeline rapid transit" for other articles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, I think the distances between major cities in the US is the main factor. In Germany you have like 10+ cities that all have a population of a million or more and are all within 300 miles of each other or less. In the US the major cities tend to be much more spread out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bullet trains are fine, but we need an upgrade to our present system, which isn't much used for transportation of people.

 

Actually Europes rail system isn't all glory, well at least the English one isn't. From what I remember of the US you could purchase a plot of land near a rail track and gain access to the track, with big businesses you could even have your own siding put in. This is very handy to exploit the low cost for transporting high volumes of materials across long distances.

This is not something so easily exploited in the UK or even Europe because for the most part the area across Europe is already pretty developed. (I guess you can say we have Zoning restrictions)

What could work in the US however is a Rail system that takes the system currently used in the Channel Tunnel, where Car's and Lorries (12-wheelers) can be loaded onto platform carriages. This allows them to be "relayed" between stations while also being able to maintain speeds that aren't usually allowed on roads. (This would actually mean less wear and tear on your car over distance, since you wouldn't actually be driving all the way)

In fact it would even work in Europe further than just the Tunnel. (I think they have plans to extend it)

 

I lived in Europe for several years and greatly enjoyed their public transportation system. There were more places to park bicycles at the train stations than places for cars. There were bike trails along nearly every major road, since bikes were the most common means of transportation for short, mundane trips.

Having said that, a rail system would never work in the United States. All you have to do is look at a population density map of Europe and compare it to a map of the United States.

http://www.geographyalltheway.com/ib_geography/ib_population/representing_popn.htm
shows both.

Let's look at New York City, population 8,363,710. Now compare that to:
New Hampshire population 1,235,786
Hawaii 1,211,537
Rhode Island 1,048,319
Montana 902,195
Delaware 783,600
South Dakota 754,844
North Dakota 642,200
Alaska 626,932
Vermont 608,827
Wyoming 493,782

The total for these 9 states? 8,308,022 or 55,688 less people than New York City.

Los Angeles has 3,833,995 people. The populations for Maine, Idaho, and Nebraska added together tops Los Angeles by 446,144 people.

Chicago's population of 2,853,114 takes care of that 446,144 and the state of West Virginia and still has 598,626 more people.

That's the combined population of 3 cities that beats the combined population of 13 states. Let the residents fly or drive and leave my tax dollars alone!

 

Population density has nothing to do with it. The rail lines are for the most part, already there. Trains are great for the kind of distances involved in the US.

 

Riiight...because why on earth would I want to spend three hours flying from Washington, DC to Dallas, TX when I could spend 24 hours on a train making the same trip?

And that's not even a particularly long trip by US geographical standards...

 

Most trips are far shorter, between two medium sized cities, a couple hundred miles. You get more space, a better view, air, the ability to stop en route, real food, lower cost...

 

Here is an older but still true for today article on Train vs Airplane and the pros and cons of each.I guess it depends on several factors which is better for different needs.One thing is for sure,in a great many instances high speed trains are the best choice.ALL things have to be taken into consideration when it comes time to choose on or the other.

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/aircraft.htm

 

If the economy ever gets back on it's feet they're supposed to build a high speed rail here in California. You could get from LA to San Fransisco in 2.5 hours. That definitely beats the 8+ hour drive and if it's a lot cheaper than a plane ticket (which is about a 1/2 hour to 45 min. flight), it'd be worth it.

 

I think we should just do away with both planes and trains and go straight to Evacuated Tube Transport.Just like the container you use at the bank to send your banking papers back to the teller,so to can we use same for cargo,freight and humans.It's perfect! he he

http://www.et3.com/index.html

PS-If somebody(s) got busy on this would this tube transport work? US to China in 2hrs! Wow....

 

I dunno, all you'd need is an earthquake and you could have damage in the tube, which being a very, very, very long tube, it might be pretty susceptible to that sorta damage, along with your standard corrosion, material degradation, etc.

I'm being a pessimist though, I would love to see a system like that actually work

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Due to the low rural population density, American train systems tend to be focused around urban centers, with the rural train lines being primarily used for freight. Amtrak, the only American national inter-city passenger rail line (I think), is overpriced and too slow compared to air travel, and really doesn't hit alot of smaller U.S. cities with direct routes as I discovered when I tried to find a train route from Kansas City to Oklahoma City a while back. Take a look at this map and find the route you'd have to take (these cities are toward the center of the country).

http://passengertraininfo.com/images/amtrakMap.gif

The Amtrak routes are woefully undeveloped for use in anything but travel between major cities. The more effective cheap inter-city public infrastructure is represented by long-distance coach bus services such as Greyhound and some regional carriers.

However... I think it'd be worth it for national rail lines to get an update. I'm not sure I'd mind a longer travel time (comparable to car travel) in exchange for a lower ticket price and the ability to travel in the comfort a train can afford (proper beds, open space, a bar, etc.). Hell, since weight isn't nearly as big an issue on trains as it is in aircraft, one might be able to carry more luggage on board, including maybe your car in a fashion similar to the chunnel trains between England and France...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

Also, in a world that may be moving away from fossil fuels in the next century, an all-electric-powered train network is going to be much easier to set up then an alternative-energy fleet of airliners. So maybe trains could make a comeback because of this alone?