- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,641
- Reaction score
- 2,829
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Infrastructure facilitates economic activity though it is not dependent.
What do you think?
The problem with a high speed rail system in the US is that we have 2 1/2 coasts where most of the wealth of the country is generated, and then a giant chunk in the middle that on average never goes more then 200 miles from its house. If a highway speed rail system were to be built, it'd necessarily have to exclude most of the geographic middle of the country. Otherwise we're looking at some very expensive lines that nobody uses. HSRs in Europe work because you can go in pretty much every direction and you'll hit a major commercial center every 100-150 miles.
The Trans-Siberian Railway gave a positive boost to Siberian agriculture, facilitating substantial exports to central Russia and Europe. It influenced the territories it connected directly, as well as those connected to it by river transport. For instance, Altai Krai exported wheat to the railway via the Ob River.
The Trans-Siberian line remains the most important transportation link within Russia; around 30% of Russian exports travel on the line. While it attracts many foreign tourists, it gets most of its use from domestic passengers.
Well sure, but HSR could be just as valuable as the interstate system if it was done right.
I think something that a lot of people are missing is that HSR isn't just about passengers. It can also be used to transport freight much more efficiently than by truck or airplane or diesel engine.
The interstate system is largely beneficial for interstate commerce of goods.
That's largely represented in what does the most road damage, OTR trucking and we already have a rail system for goods.
HSR, with the exceptions of place like the North East corridor and maybe California, is wastefully dumb, the proposed lines outside of those areas serve no real purpose.
Part of the primary problem with any mass transit systems is that the government takes money from road maintenance funds, to subsidize those systems.
Causing what we have now, deficient road infrastructure.
btw.. the subway system in NYC sucks. I hate riding the sub in NYC. I would prefer a rail to the subway. I would also prefer a rail system over domestic flights.
Do you understand that HSRs can travel at faster speeds than average semi trucks are legally allowed to drive on the highway?
How do you imagine that rail system functioning in NYC? Would it be underground, would it be elevated or would it be on the surface? Would you tear down buildings or just buy out floors and rip a HSP corridor right through the buildings?
How do you imagine that rail system functioning in NYC? Would it be underground, would it be elevated or would it be on the surface? Would you tear down buildings or just buy out floors and rip a HSP corridor right through the buildings?
Do you understand that HSRs can travel at faster speeds than average semi trucks are legally allowed to drive on the highway?
btw.. the subway system in NYC sucks. I hate riding the sub in NYC. I would prefer a rail to the subway. I would also prefer a rail system over domestic flights.
Trucking can go from point to point, HSR cannot. This means that HSR can only go from terminal to terminal.
The Interstate Highway System creates a very dense network of interconnections and it allows all sorts of vehicles to travel along the routes. HSR only allows one type of vehicle to travel on the HSR system and it doesn't create a dense network. If you displaced all IHS travel onto HSR then you'd get massive congestion at terminals for all of the traffic that was diffused across a wide network of IHS would be concentrated onto a small HSR network and then have to be diffused from the terminals. The terminals would become massive chokepoints in the system.
If it were underground, wouldn't that be the subway?
I'm asking SheWolf to clarify. Perhaps she doesn't like the clankety-clank of subways or the way the cars are designed and a HSR levitated train in their place would make her like subways.
Rail transport is an energy-efficient but capital-intensive, means of mechanized land transport. The tracks provide smooth and hard surfaces on which the wheels of the train can roll with a minimum of friction.
Essentially, resistance differs between vehicle's contact point and surface of roadway. Metal wheels on metal rails have a significant advantage of overcoming resistance compared to rubber-tired wheels on any road surface (railway - 0.001g at 10 mph and 0.024g at 60 mph; truck - 0.009g at 10 mph and 0.090 at 60 mph).
As an example, a typical modern wagon can hold up to 113 tonnes of freight on two four-wheel bogies. The contact area between each wheel and the rail is a strip no more than a few millimetres wide, which minimizes friction. The track distributes the weight of the train evenly, allowing significantly greater loads per axle and wheel than in road transport, leading to less wear and tear on the permanent way. This can save energy compared with other forms of transport, such as road transport, which depends on the friction between rubber tires and the road. Trains have a small frontal area in relation to the load they are carrying, which reduces air resistance and thus energy usage.
A lot of what you are saying could have very well been said about the trans siberian railway. Just like in Siberia, a lot of people may not necessarily live in the middle of the US compared to the coastal regions, but connecting the less densely populated areas of Russia has had affects.
Speed costs money. It takes energy to accelerate a given mass to a set velocity. The faster you want to go the more energy it takes to propel that mass to your desired velocity. Energy equates to money in this calculation. Then there are also the additional engineering costs required to make transportation at higher speeds as safe as transportation at lower speeds. That too costs money.
We're not going to see any increase in efficiency from hauling coal and grain at 400 km/h. There is already an existing transportation infrastructure in place to move high value items rapidly from point to point. The additional costs associated with building out a national HSR network to replace air transport for high value freight will not increase efficiency.
Giving people jobs in the short term will give the economy a swift kick in the pants to get it started again. More people with jobs = more people spending money = more demand = private sector expansion. Also, that long term maintenance also means long term jobs.