High Speed...no need

I found this article and I concur. Being pro-rail doesn't mean being pro-stupid does it?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/china ... 9366122%2F

China's Trains Are Better Than America's, and That's a Good Thing
By BRUCE WATSON Posted 4:55 PM 02/22/10 Technology, Economy
While America is slowly working to get its high-speed rail system under way, China is moving full-speed-ahead with its own: According to The New York Times, 42 high-speed lines either recently opened or are set to open in China within the next two years. As analysts draw comparisons between the two countries' rail efforts, the U.S. seems to be falling behind, with a program that is slower, more diffuse, and taking longer to develop. But these shortcomings may actually reflect America's most valuable resource: a political and economic system that is better developed and more responsive to the needs of its people.

[please include fair-use quote of the story you are linking to - omv]

Sure sounds like someone who doesn't ride trains. I'm glad 29 million of us don't agree with you.

This article isn't specific to New York State, so off to High Speed Rail Forum we go...

-otto-

gee , thats a balanced view . sounds more like a heap of excuses to me .
Did they build the interstate highway system in the USA without forcibly taking even one property ???
and of course , by comparing th China , it totally ignores the sucessful systems in France , Japan etc .

When the public builds a right-of-way, it's public information that they want to buy the land, so of course everyone holds out for a higher price, knowing that they'll want specific pieces of property. When a private entity builds a right-of-way, it can keep that fact a secret. Consequently, nobody knows who has the potential to be a hold-out. Private entities don't need eminent domain; only public entities, and they only need to to build the right-of-way.

One solution to this problem is for public entities to stop building roads, and instead buy them from private entities.

Sorry, David, it *is* possible to run a country peacefully, respecting people's private property rights. It's harder to be peaceful, and easier to run rough-shod over people, sure. But who wants to live in a country where they do that?

that doesnt answer the question , was the interstate highway system built , without using eminent domain , or other ways of forcing people to sell their property ???
In fact , this link , shows the use of eminent domain for a purpose that probably wouldnt be considered in China .
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=3356


I'm not picking on the USA , i'm just showing the use of eminent domain is widespread , and choosing to single out China , is abit misleading . All countries do it , including of course New Zealand .

David Benton wrote:gee , thats a balanced view . sounds more like a heap of excuses to me .
Did they build the interstate highway system in the USA without forcibly taking even one property ???
and of course , by comparing th China , it totally ignores the successful systems in France , Japan etc .

The Inter-state highways were mainly a military project (like the Internet). If Amtrak were part of the military no-one would notice its cost.

I think a modern industrialised state needs passenger rail. Don't compare with Germany or France but with Russia. And they have a high speed line between Moskva and St Peterburg.
(I also think that Russian equipment would be the best choice for US trains as the climate conditions are similar, very cold winters and hot summers.)

I also think that Russian equipment would be the best choice for US trains as the climate conditions are similar, very cold winters and hot summers.

For operations in the upper Midwest, yes. Now California or Florida, that's a different matter

Albeit, any company's competently designed rolling stock should be able to operate in any weather conditions, without being affected by "leaves on the tracks, seawater spray, or sub freezing temperatures". JR East runs HSR all year reliably in weather ranging from 35 degree C. summer heat to subfreezing, high snowfall conditions in Tohoku.

george matthews wrote:

David Benton wrote:That's a balanced view. Sounds more like a heap of excuses to me.
Did they build the interstate highway system in the USA without forcibly taking even one property?
And of course, by comparing to China, it totally ignores the successful systems in France, Japan, etc.

The Interstate highways were mainly a military project (like the Internet). If Amtrak were part of the military, no-one would notice its cost.

I think a modern industrialised state needs passenger rail. Don't compare with Germany or France but with Russia. And they have a high speed line between Moskva and St Peterburg.
(I also think that Russian equipment would be the best choice for US trains as the climate conditions are similar, very cold winters and hot summers.)

There is no dedicated high-speed railway between Moscow and St. Petersburg. The existing line is as fast as the USA's Northeast Corridor, with a 124-mph top speed (fastest trains about 90-mph average speed), but is being upgraded to 155 mph (for a 108-mph average speed).

Furthermore, the 155-mph equipment is not Russian, but the German-built Siemens Velaro, aka the ICE 3 trainsets. They are reputedly the same as their DB cousins and can run at 186 mph.

The interstate highway system was no military project. No military funds went towards its construction.

The interstate highway system was no military project. No military funds went towards its construction.

It's generally recognised as such. Maybe it wasn't on the military budget.

Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

The only military connection was the idea that convoys could cross the country faster on good roads. It was not a military project ... it was a public works project. (Of course, back in the 50's saying something was needed for national defense would help get it funded. There are still a lot of bills with "national defense" tied to the title funding all sorts of things that are non-military.)

justalurker66 wrote:Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

The only military connection was the idea that convoys could cross the country faster on good roads. It was not a military project ... it was a public works project. (Of course, back in the 50's saying something was needed for national defense would help get it funded. There are still a lot of bills with "national defense" tied to the title funding all sorts of things that are non-military.)

Perhaps the same strategy should have been taken with rail in the 80s.

"If the russians attack, high speed rail would help us evacuate the cities faster!