Without a new transcontinental rail line 300mph the stimulus package is toast. Why?

[CK_John]

Too bland, nothing to see or watch.

But high speed rail from Boston to LA down the center of the interstate now that's a project.

[Captain Hilts]

1. I really don't want to go 300mph. I want to watch stuff out the window. nt

[here_is_to_hope]

2. Seriously, 300 MPH is a bit fast...n/t

[Astrad]

3. View from TGV in France

This is around 200 mph. You can still see clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCoPglyLyBE

[Hieronymus]

10. Thanks for the video. I love being able to see the countryside while

traveling from the center of one city to the center of the next...No airport waste of time.

[On the Road]

15. Thank You, Astrad, for That Link

I love seeing the countryside in other places through a train window, but had never thought of Youtube as a source.

There is some great stuff there, including this well produced video of a Trans-Siberian railroad trip and a clip from a bus trip through Ecuador.

[sandnsea]

4. You never fly? n/t

[Hieronymus]

5. At 200 mph there's no problem with viewing the scenery. That's one of

the things I enjoy about high speed trains.

[Better Believe It]

6. You can take this train on the slower transcontinental track which runs right next to the supertrain

Leave New York City in early April it will get you to Los Angeles in late May.

You'll see lots of stuff!

[Flying Dream Blues]

17. You can even help shovel the coal...nt

[Better Believe It]

18. OK! I agree that we need a greatly expanded national rail system

including high speed rail.

A federal national rail system would put hundreds of thousands of people to work building it, maintaining it and running it.

A lot of people would use it and abandon plane travel at least on distances of less than a 1,000 miles.

[Flying Dream Blues]

22. Oops, I was just responding to your humor, which I appreciated, not

meaning to say "YOU" can shovel the coal. Just saying, in a poor attempt at humor, that the added benefit of that six week trip would be the exercise. :) Loved the pic.
:hi:
Edited: typo

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. You can see stuff from inside an aeroplane going 650 mph.

It's all a matter of perspective. Keep your gaze set at a point some distance ahead of or behind you and you should be fine. Things will only whiz by in a blur if you look at stuff directly outside your window.

Besides, considering the distance between the east and west coasts, you'll have plenty of opportunity to look at a whole bunch of scenery on the way, at whatever speed you go.

[Captain Hilts]

19. It's easier when you are at 35K ft. nt

[NYC_SKP]

8. Awww, you've seen one square state, you've seen 'em all.

Trains have to slow down through the good parts, the Rockies and Sierra Nevada.

Sorry, Kansas!

[woolldog]

14. you'd still be able to watch stuff out of the window....

you can watch stuff out of the window when you're on an airplane, can't you?

[Captain Hilts]

20. Um, the perspective is VERY different from 35K ft away. nt

[woolldog]

25. LOL, I can't tell if your post is serious?

If it's sarcasm, excuse me for being to dull to get it.

Anyway, you can still look out the window when you're over the runway and about to land the plane can't you? Of course you can. It's only things that are passing really close to you that go by quickly.

I've been on the TGV from Paris to the south of France and you are able to see outside the window and enjoy the scenery. It's a beautiful ride. I'd highly recommend it if you get the chance.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I actually agree with that to some extent.

It would provide a concrete example of how the stimulus has had an impact, whereas much of it is going to be mostly invisible. I think the psychological affects of having something to amazing like that to "oooh" and "aaah" the people would make the days and years following the stimulus rather easy to defend.

[liberalmuse]

11. I'd love that.

I want the US to have a high speed rail that rivals anything in Europe. It would be a project we could be proud of. And I'd sure as hell travel more if we had a 300 mph train, LOL.

[woolldog]

27. Do you think technologically we're there yet?

I'd be wary about using American high speed rail just because of the history of all the train accidents and infrastructure problems in this country.

[GentryDixon]

12. After riding the rails in Europe, I am all for any type of fast transit.

Let's hope it eventually comes to pass.

[Beregond2]

13. The first thing this country should have done after 9-11 was

build a nationwide fast rail system, so we would not be so dependent on airlines and oil. But instead we decided to destroy a country for no apparent reason.

How we've lasted this long is beyond me.

[uponit7771]

16. That would cost Billion and return on investment would be DOUBLE in LESS than a generation...

...but the airlines would get hurt because trains pull a ton 430 miles at 1 gallon of diesel....the airlines could NEVER compete with that but I don't think they have to.

They just have to stop looking at stupid margins and pay their CEO's a 10 times wage.

[karynnj]

21. Most of what I have read, sees high speed rail for

other ways to go MUCH smaller distances. The highest profit routes would be the ones that have a sustained number of people wanting to use rail. They made the case that NYC to DC is one example where it would be just as fast and more comfortable to use high speed rail. (That includes all the people in between those metropolitan areas.) NYC to Boston is another.

Even NYC to Chicago might be good - I know it is about 13 hours by car (from mapquest)- almost all on I80. If the train is 120 miles an hour - that would be 6 and a half hours. In comparison, by plane you can estimate 2 hrs at the airport, 2 1/2 hour flight, 1/2 an hour at the airport - then add a half hour because the airports aren't in the cities proper (though the smaller Chicago airport is. This results in a comparison of about 6 1/2 vs 5 1/2 hours - that hour difference might be too little to cause everyone to choose air. (and it seems a rare day when both Chicage and NYC don't have delays on the planes.)

Now mapquest says driving NYC to LA is 30 hours. Using the same assumptions that would be 15 hours by rail. The air flight would be (I think 4 hours) - making that total time - 7 hours. That is a huge difference.

(I realize that I am making some big assumptions that mileage on train is very highly similar to the mileage by highways.)

[Captain Hilts]

26. NY and DC Chicago is a great overnight train ride. Taking a few hours off the trip would be great.

[karynnj]

28. Thanks -

I have never done that - though I live outside NYC and my parents outside Chicago. I drove once in my first year out of college - but have flown every other time.

I guess I should have waited for someone who had actually had some experience with that trip. We have gone to DC and to Boston and took the car train from VA to FL - with 3 kids 4, 7, and 9 - the 4 and 9 year old kids became friends with the same age kids of a person who vaguely knew my husband from years before.

[high density]

23. I don't think that's the optimal use for rail

BOS to LAX round trip on a 767-300 is under $300 today. There's no way a high speed train could compete with the speed or cost of that. Look for shorter distances.

[ACTION BASTARD]

24. I remember taking the bullet train from Osaka to Tokyo in the mid 80's and wondering

how do we(USA)not have something glorious like this? I still question it.

[Captain Hilts]

29. The overnight train from Moscow to Leningrad didn't generate quite the same impressions...

The first class room was nice, but the bathrooms unusable. If you don't buy the whole compartment, they put you in there with a stranger regardless of sex.

But, in the winter months it's really reliable.