It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: JAGStorm
I think the reality is that it would not be a profitable venture, therefore it would require a ridiculous amount of Federal subsidies, relative to the actual percentage of citizens who would use it.
Our culture is not the same as theirs.
originally posted by: JAGStorm
I put this in US political madness because it appears it is politics that is keeping it from happening.
I've watched some documentaries on China and India and I see that even though they are third world countries, they are putting money,
lots of money into transportation. Why on earth isn't the US following suit?
I think about Chicago and their L, and amtrak. It's like it was started, but then just halted, and progress just stopped.
I do not think that trains will replace cars or trains. I think it is a good way to supplement them.
Can you imagine a bullet train that goes from Chicago to California, or New York to Texas?
Florida to Las Vegas?
That's $82 million per mile for true high-speed rail (partly because the California project goes through some mountains) and only $2.4 million for moderate-speed rail. All else being equal, high-speed rail will cost 10 to 12 times more than moderate-speed rail. A true, national high-speed rail network would cost more than half a trillion dollars.
According to the Department of Energy, the average Amtrak train uses about 2,700 British thermal units (BTUs) of energy per passenger mile. This is a little better than cars (about 3,400 BTUs per passenger mile) or airplanes (about 3,300 BTUs per passenger mile). But auto and airline fuel efficiencies are improving by 2 percent to 3 percent per year (for example, a Toyota Prius uses less than 1,700 BTUs per passenger mile).
By contrast, Amtrak's fuel efficiency has increased by just one-tenth of 1 percent per year in the past 10 years.
This means, over the lifetime of an investment in moderate-speed trains, the trains won't save any energy at all. In fact, to achieve higher speeds, moderate-speed trains will require even more energy than conventional trains and probably much more than the average car or airplane 10 or 20 years from now.
originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: WeRpeons
Having lived in both places, how would you compare the US to europe, both in geographics, and in population proximities?
Talk about the U.S. being behind the times
I grew up in Europe, and have to say I miss the train system there.
It was cheap, efficient and went just about everywhere.
originally posted by: caterpillage
originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: WeRpeons
Having lived in both places, how would you compare the US to europe, both in geographics, and in population proximities?
Talk about the U.S. being behind the times
I grew up in Europe, and have to say I miss the train system there.
It was cheap, efficient and went just about everywhere.
Having lived in both areas, how would you compare the US in both geographics, and population densities?
Are the two very similar?