Really? Try sleeping in a car doing 60 - 70 MPH like we did on the way to Aspen.:D

WHen they use concrete and steel ties the gauge can be maintained with greater accuracy so there is nowhere near the rocking as in the old days. I took the TGV from Paris to Rennes and did not notice the old rocking movement.

I'm not slamming rail travel, it is very civilized.

However Ohio alone is 40,950 square miles. The US area, NOT including Alaska, is 3,207,700 square miles. I'd like to hear a useful plan that is superior to automobiles.

China has a couple of big advantages. It's all new, and they don't have to worry about the mating habits of the Chinese Horning Water Buffalo when they build.

And it helps to have monster money. They are building a highway system that connects all cities in China of more than 200K population, at the same time.

Pete

Consider for a moment that France has ~63 million in a country slightly smaller than Texas. High speed rail makes sense there. It probably only makes sense here in the Northeast corridor (which is already served by the quasi-high-speed Acela). Making it a reality for 80% of the American public is a pipe dream.

I wonder what the demographics are regarding where 80% of the population lives? I reckon that you will find they are clustered around major cities. The Bugtussels of this country may well only account for 20% of the population (and they are probably quite happy about that).

One of our problems, especially right here around Charm City, is the isiot population that cuts chain link fences so they can take (often fatal) short cuts across rail lines.

Yes, they are more convenient. And don't get me wrong, I love my vehicles, but, they are a far less efficient mode of transportation for long distance, mass transportation. Airliners are even worse.

And, besides you're not entirely correct. Cars beating rail was not purely a function of the free market. The auto industry (And their lobbyists.) did intentionally damage it. In the sixties, the Democratic Party fought any efforts to deregulate or subsidize privately owned passenger rail and Republicans fought any attempts to nationalize privately owned passenger rail. And with Detroit flush with cash (At the time.) from muscle car era profits, one can only imagine where the lobbying money came from for that..........:rolleyes:


As I see it, we as a nation will eventually be forced to do something about our voracious appetite for petroleum, like it or not. Some would say we're already past that point. Continuing to fill the streets with millions more cars and the sky with ever more and larger jets just because they are "more convenient" will have to become a memory. And don't forget the cost of building and maintaining millions of miles of new and ever wider highways.

We can get the jump on it, or we can continue down the current path. Which is horrendously inefficient, to say the least.

Dave

I heard that the Feds are quietly slowly increasing the ethanol content of gas to see how the national fleet handles it. Unverified.

When I was a kid, my elementary school library had a book on cars of the future. They were nuclear powered.

Pete

But, don't you think an direct East/West Coast Express link or two could be viable? If one could leave say, New York and be in LA 13-15 hours later for 1/2 to 3/4 the price of an airline ticket? Speaking as someone who no longer flies, but really enjoys train travel, the allure would be quite strong. Atlanta to Seattle, anyone?

Dave

And, some flew and/or drove themselves.:rolleyes:

Dave

Obviously, we couldn't use rail to go everywhere, Pete. No one is going to take a train to go get groceries, that's ridiculous. But, between major cities? Inter-coastal travel? I bet if we could (eventually) make it cheaper than flying, the airlines would catch hell.

Dave