7 hours from East to West Coast. Though it would be smarter to rum them along each coast alone (and still flying acorss the country.)

Trains seem like a waste of money. Seattle's new one is a case-in-point.

I would love a high speed rail between Oregon and BC.

I wonder what happend if that train did hit something in its way

Then why do they work in Europe, Japan, and China? AMtrack needs to be overhauled we need to advance our transportation system not keep something that was innovative in the 50's.

Most of the US isn't as densely populated as western Europe, Japan or eastern China. That said, the NYC subway system is like the eighth wonder of the world. None of our infrastructure today could be that great, if only partially because we're less accepting of projects like that killing so many workers.

Heavy subsidies and higher population density.

Also, flying long distance is a lot cheaper and faster than traveling by train. What would be the point of overhaul?

Well for starters the proposed rates for the high speed rail in CA are cheaper then Air Travel. Also rail travel is faster then air travel after you factor in security and departure and arrival delays and they could drop you in more residential or comerical areas of town then an airport.

The trains they use in Amtrak suck today. It simply isn't worth taking amtrak unless you aregoing less then 100 miles and don't own a car. They are slow and the routes are not that well set for todays businessmen. There are of course exceptions like the Accela line which is tremondously successful and is of course a high speed rail system that amtrak screwed up the trains can't go full speed because we made them too big. That said the train itself si comfortable and can get you from NYC to DC and back in decent time---fast enough for it to the mode of choice for lawyers and politicians over air fare.

I find that extremely hard to believe. Looking at kayak.com just now, I see that the round-trip fare between LA and San Francisco is just shy of $140, for a flight that's 1 hour and 15 minutes long. Add in security and the time to get to the airport and security, and you're looking at 3 hours tops. How long would the proposed train take and what would be the cost? And how much of the cost is supposed to be paid for by the taxpayers?

There is a reason why Acela is so successful - it travels through a very densely populated area. 15% of the entire U.S. population live in the 250 mile stretch between Washington and New York. Add to that the fact that there are major political and business centers along the corridor, and you've got a recipe for a successful high-speed line. This model is not scalable to the rest of the U.S.

Is there a big rail system going from the Bay Area to Tijuana? It'd make an awful lot of sense.

I am not saying building trains across countries, but instead build better lines in the density populated areas like the two coasts and through the midwest. Also need to give amtrack competition or something to get the prices down.

Yeah but the projected cost is 70 dollars(one way about the same with no special times or flights required for that price) to LA from SF with it being slightly cheaper if buy in advance. It is estimated to take 2 hours and 30 minutes by train which sounds slower then a "1 hour and 15 minute" flight but trust me after many flights between SF and LA our main office is in LA I work in SF. That one hour and fifteen minutes is actually around 3.5 hours when you included trip to the airport going through security and waiting for luggage if your bag is to big for carry on.

I have also taken the Accella a few times once between DC and Philadelphia and the other between DC and New York. I would say I would gladly take take a widespeed rail for anything but the most extreme long distance trips over airfare.

Amtrak is useless. there are very few good lines with amtrak, the cost the amount of time it takes to get between two stations are all prohibitive. A train should be faster then driving and less hassle then an airplane. When it costs about 10 times as much to go across country in a train then it does to fly and it takes about 30 times as long it is useless.
A high speed rail is not useless and would certainly fair better then the current system which is horrid.

If this technology is actually available and can be delivered as promised without the use of taxpayer funds, then I'm all for it. Something tells me, though, that it's somebody's wishful thinking, rather than an actual well-thought out plan.


And I would gladly have fun this weekend with Jessica Alba. We all want lots of things; not all of them can be a reality.

What's ironic, is that the Acela example you're giving, actually goes against your general point. It depends on unique geography and demographics of the Mid-Atlantic region. On top of it, it's far costlier than alternatives: a ticket on Acela from Philly to NYC costs over $100. If you walk across the street from 30th Street Station in Philly, you can get on the Bolt Bus, which will take you to NYC for $15 and has free Wi-Fi - something Acela doesn't offer yet. Time wise, it's only 30 minutes longer.

Prices have gone up because on my expense report it says I paid only 60 dollars for my ticket to NYC in August and the receipt says that too. BTW it appears to have gone up.

That said it si stil well worth it and no it isn't fantasy. There only needs ot be specific lines no one is saying a train from NYC to LA but from San Francisco to San Diego Yes or even Chicago outwards. You cant compare the train business because of amtrak which is rteally goofed.

As far as I know the problem with Acela is that it doesnt really go Highspeed. More Intercity speed (by European and Japanese standard). But I think a well build HighSpeedNetwork in New York area and the planed California High Speed could be very sucessful.

There was an article about Obama scoping out the Spanish rail system recently. The only train that covers its costs right now is some train going out of Paris, I think.

But yeah, Northeast corridor would cover its own costs, imo, if it was really worth it. Flying from Boston to New York, or New York to Philly is useless by the time you work your way through airport check-in lines (commuting to the airport itself takes forever here). If you could get a train that goes from Boston to New York in even 2 hours and it was priced cheaper than a plane ticket, every seat would be full every day, I gaurantee it. If it was an hour and a half or less, you could probably just eliminate all air traffic between the two cities. But, our current rails are dreadful.