OTOH, I took the high-speed train in Spain from Barcelona to Valencia, and they x-rayed everyone’s luggage. It was quite a line.
Maybe Spain is more paranoid because they got hit in Madrid by train bombings back in 2004.
Geez. So my complaints I can’t even respond to the objections anymore. I am, as the French say, le swamped.
I beg to differ.
Jumbo Jets are becoming more & more common.
Not for a 200 mile trip. The landing gears aren’t designed for short hops. If you rented one you’d be charged a short-cycle charge.
Who in their right minds flies a mere 200 miles?
You drive, or pay a car/van service, but not fly!
Commuters connecting to hubs. That’s about the distance from my city to Chicago or Pittsburg. Your post on jumbo jets was tied to the idea of 200 mile hops. There is a trend to use smaller aircraft for shorter routes.
I’ve flown rather than drive this before. 156 miles in a straight line, I think the map adequately explains why the journey was quicker, door-to-door, than driving!
Yes, I’d like a high-speed rail option, please 
Wait—there’s roads in East Anglia???
OK, mud tracks until out of Norfolk 
…it’s actually an example of why the discussion shouldn’t be ’OMG HSR is perfect’ vs. ’OMG air travel is perfect’ vs. whatever. An appropriate mix is the only way to find an environmentally acceptable solution, which has flexibility where necessary. Plane/train codeshares work with Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam. Why not in the NE American corridor? Probably because of the fear of putting a state-subsidised business in contact with several pretty-much-bankrupt ones.
D.C. to Pittsburgh is ~250 miles, if one takes I-70 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but it’s a 5-hour drive, and not an easy one. I-70 to I-68 to I-79 might be easier, but it adds 40 minutes to the drive.
Amtrak, with its non-bullet trains, takes 7.5 hours for the trip.
My wife and I are going to Pittsburgh this fall to visit a friend. We’re flying. It’ll take us almost as long, door to door, but we’ll arrive rested.
(If there’s some car/van service we can pay to drive us directly there that would be cheaper than Southwest’s $70/seat, each way, it’s news to me.)
Just as an FYI, I’m not trying to poo poo the idea just because I think a bunch of neo-environmentalists will attack it. The idea gets floated in my local newspaper on a regular basis for a state hi-speed system.
To make it work I think it would have to either replace an existing track or ride next to/above it.
A similar thread from last year: Superfast trains in the U.S. - why not? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
I really tire of these arguments against HSR because it will require subsidies (and it probably will for a long time). Every other form of transport in this country is subsidized or was subsidized in its early stages in one way or another by the government. If you want to make an argument that HSR isn’t economically beneficial, then produce a study. But if your argument is simply that we shouldn’t do it because we’d have to subsidize it, then it’s not an argument that deserves paying attention to.
I addressed this earlier in the thread. Now, you may not agree with my reasoning, but I think it’s a valid argument. To summarize…why exactly should we pay not only a large capital cost up front but also your subsidies to add a system that will be redundant (and probably less used) to our transportation mix?
-XT
Because many airports and air traffic systems are operating at or near their maximum capacity, which will require billions of dollars to handle expected growth; and because parts of a high-speed rail system, such as the stations, already exist but are operating well below their capacity.
In that case, it won’t be high speed rail. Medium speed, at best, making use of tilting trains, and most likely not costing any less.
Cite…and cite? What high speed rail elements exist here in the US? Cite that air traffic control systems are at or near maximum capacity and that it will cost billions to handle expected growth. My understanding was that air travel was down, that several routes aren’t even being used anymore, etc.
Be that as it may, and for the sake of argument, even if it costs billions (assuming we are talking about only a few billions) to upgrade our air traffic control system to meet expected growth, it’s going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to do that than spend hundreds of billions on a HSR system for a couple of reasons. First off, unless you are putting in HSR everywhere you are STILL going to have to upgrade that air traffic system, assuming you are correct about your assertion. So…now we are talking about paying for that AND HSR…again, duplication of effort. Secondly, if you try and make HSR directly compete with our current air infrastructure then we aren’t talking a few hundred billion anymore…we are talking about trillions to put rail systems in between the major US air hubs. Thirdly, people will STILL want to fly for the most part because it’s going to be quicker, no matter how fast you make the trains, unless we are talking about very short hops and trains that go point to point with no stops. It may (MAY) be cheaper to get your ticket, but unless it’s radically cheaper people are going to pick speed over price by and large…or they will simply use their 2nd option and jump in their car and just drive.
Like I said, we already have 3 alternative travel methods in the form of air, car and low speed rail. While I think there is a niche for HSR, I don’t see people spending the kinds of money on it that would warrant it’s deployment on a large scale. Put another way, if it could be done there was a large market for it someone would have done it or be doing it…even taking into account that the government would have to foot a lot of the bill both in capital costs and in subsidies. There is simply not a large body of citizens yearning to have a HSR system, and so there is no big push to put in more than a few niche systems here and there (and as far as I know there isn’t even a serious drive to put ANY in, just a lot of studies and plans for possible future development).
-XT
I’d be willing to spend billions on an air system which could get to places inthe time frame of HSR, and still be good for low-level hops. I figure it’d be a lot easier to upgrade air traffic control and build smaller orbital airports around big ones (for short jumper flights). I have no love for bailing out the airlines, though.
One problem is that passenger rail long ago ceased to be profitable anywhere. I can’t find any profitable passenger services anywhere. Heck, Amtrack is actually one of the most profitable in the world!
When, O when, will someone get on with it and invent a Star Trek-style transporter? 
I think the warp speed thingy would be more useful. Personally, I would just like the female crew to go back to wearing short mini-skirt uniforms…
-XT