You take a high speed train from Downtown Podunk to Downtown

Then what? You meeting is in the suburbs and you have 3 other sales calls to make. Do you rent a car? The local transit system is too slow to do make all your appointments. Should you have driven in the first place? I say if we have high speed lanes on the tollway that people pay extra for to go 100 MPH that might be faster door to door. Todays sports cars can do 140 easy, Heck my Grand Am goes 95 and I have to bring her in check because I dont realise how fast she runs on the flat roads around here. As far as fuel efficiancy it is when cars stand still or go slow that they waste fuel. Somewhere there is a bell curve of a ideal speed. If we want clean air we need to eliminate stop lights in favor or something else like smart traffic control. Imagine if we had a version of cab control for your car were instead of stop lights or speed signs a satilite would send a signal for you to slow down or stop.

Easy solution to your problem:
The one guy who has a meeting in the suburbs and 3 other sales calls to make should not take the train..

Scot

Yup, 100MPH + if...........you had the German Autobahn, AND keep in mind the Autobahns, with few exceptions, do not go to or through city centers. Add to that, at those speeds and mpg, and $4.00 or more / gallon. Plus who's gonna pay for all the death and destruction from accidents at those speeds? Maybe if you live in Montana, but try doing such in NJ!!!

Gimme a good inter-city 100+ mph ave speed rail system any day!!! Don't really need TGV speeds. NYC or (WAS) to CHI in 9 hrs...during daylight...and ability to get to Albany, Buffalo, (Pittsburgh) Cleveland, Toledo, etc all during daylight seems a better idea to me. Then upgrade urban transit to get from downtowns or rail stations to wherever in that urban area....or ..rent a car there or take a cab. Add to that CHI hub to MIL and STL, the NEC out East, and maybe on to Richmond. Hits a lot of population, congested highway corridors, and relatively easy in-city commutes to the burbs.

gearhead wrote:Then what? You meeting is in the suburbs and you have 3 other sales calls to make. Do you rent a car? The local transit system is too slow to do make all your appointments. Should you have driven in the first place? I say if we have high speed lanes on the tollway that people pay extra for to go 100 MPH that might be faster door to door. Todays sports cars can do 140 easy, Heck my Grand Am goes 95 and I have to bring her in check because I dont realise how fast she runs on the flat roads around here. As far as fuel efficiancy it is when cars stand still or go slow that they waste fuel. Somewhere there is a bell curve of a ideal speed. If we want clean air we need to eliminate stop lights in favor or something else like smart traffic control. Imagine if we had a version of cab control for your car were instead of stop lights or speed signs a satilite would send a signal for you to slow down or stop.

If we want clean air then we shouldn't be enhancing the use of cars, we should be making it as inconvenient as possible. Also, 100 MPH? Best MPG is at 55 MPH.

And this goes beyond MPG, it comes down to the fact that the car enables us to use land with no regard to consequences. Cars are wasteful.

The fact that a businessman's appointments are in the suburbs is what the flaw is.

BostonUrbEx wrote: The fact that a businessman's appointments are in the suburbs is what the flaw is.

The flaw is that the "businessman with appointments in the suburbs" is a pointless, meaningless argument..
This one mythical busissman is irrelevant to high speed rail, because he wouldnt take the train anyway..
its like saying "my Grandmother doesnt live near a train station, she doesnt own a car, and she walks to the store..
that means high-speed trains are useless."

Scot

scottychaos wrote:

BostonUrbEx wrote: The fact that a businessman's appointments are in the suburbs is what the flaw is.

The flaw is that the "businessman with appointments in the suburbs" is a pointless, meaningless argument..
This one mythical busissman is irrelevant to high speed rail, because he wouldnt take the train anyway..
its like saying "my Grandmother doesnt live near a train station, she doesnt own a car, and she walks to the store..
that means high-speed trains are useless."

Scot

I disagree, I have multiple sales appointments all the time in the NY metro, and DC metro area. Take the train/s regularly and local rail/light rail transportation from Amtrak station/s. Again, it comes down to do I want to drive miserably for 5 hours each way, or relax and enjoy the train, and a very slight inconvenience of taking Metro North, NJT, LIRR or subways...or MARC, VRE, Metro.

Podunk to Podunk..yeah...but not true for major hubs or areas that have commuter service/s.

Why do businessmen fly then ???

Businessmen, including myself, will fly when the trip via train is more than 2 - 3 hrs. longer, compared with travel via air, INCLUDING the security "wait time" at the airport/s. (at least 1, and many times 2 hrs ahead of scheduled flight) I am based in northern NJ, therefore on the NEC I take the train always. To, say CHI or STL, or further, I fly. Train usually CHI to STL or MIL. Train around LA, San Diego, Santa Barbara and some other Calif. locations. Train Portland to SEA. And many times when going from NY area to other parts of country, fly the long leg, take train/s from other hubs as mentioned above for multiple day trips.

The following high speed rail stations are in the centre of cities:

London St Pancras
Paris Gare du Nord, Gare de Lyon, Gare de l'est
Brussels Midi
Amsterdam
Berlin Hauptbahnhof
etc.

Is the US incapable of arranging something like that?

What i meant was , when businessmen fly , they dont have a car to get to the suburbs , so why is that different from hsr ?

David Benton wrote:What i meant was , when businessmen fly , they dont have a car to get to the suburbs , so why is that different from hsr ?

Gradually cities in the US will change. The "suburbs" will become more expensive to travel from, and less desirable to live in. Business and people will tend to return to the central city. The railway station will attract businesses again. I am assuming that it will not become practicable to run the same number of private cars on post-oil energy.

The whole argument of "people will not use HSR b/c it doesn't take them where they ultimately need to go" is symptomatic of the much wider American tendency to view things in "black and white/all or nothing" terms as well as in static terms. Of course, not everyone will take HSR- many will still drive, others will take the plane, even some will take the bus. HSR will be a valuable alternative (as it already is on the NEC) in corridors where the passenger volumes (and urban/suburban development patterns) warrant it. In addition to the aforementioned NEC, California, Texas T bone, and Midwest out of Chicago are likely viable corridors. And as others have mentioned, a successful HSR line will have a "multiplier" effect of inducing improvement in connnecting services and stimulating development centered around station stops- including businesses which value the convenience it provides to its employees/clients, just like any other good infrastructure improvement.

Let me add: the example of "downtown podunk to downtown"- given that many N. American cities have businesses that are located on the fringes in "business parks", then just have a "parkway" station located near one of these concentrations (preferably near an interstate interchange)- include discounted car rental as part of the HSR ticket, and the multiple client problem is solved. After a hectic day or two meeting clients and fighting urban traffic, a three hour ride home sitting in a wide HSR seat with a glass of your favorite beverage, seems a quite appealing way to de-pressurize, w/o the hassle and stresses of modern US air travel.

kaitoku wrote:The whole argument of "people will not use HSR b/c it doesn't take them where they ultimately need to go" is symptomatic of the much wider American tendency to view things in "black and white/all or nothing" terms as well as in static terms. Of course, not everyone will take HSR- many will still drive, others will take the plane, even some will take the bus. HSR will be a valuable alternative (as it already is on the NEC) in corridors where the passenger volumes (and urban/suburban development patterns) warrant it. In addition to the aforementioned NEC, California, Texas T bone, and Midwest out of Chicago are likely viable corridors. And as others have mentioned, a successful HSR line will have a "multiplier" effect of inducing improvement in connnecting services and stimulating development centered around station stops- including businesses which value the convenience it provides to its employees/clients, just like any other good infrastructure improvement.

Some people have this negative attitude about change. The US was once a "can-do" society and optimistic. It is a pity that for some people at least it's a "can't do" society and pessimism reigns.

Let me add: the example of "downtown podunk to downtown"- given that many N. American cities have businesses that are located on the fringes in "business parks", then just have a "parkway" station located near one of these concentrations (preferably near an interstate interchange)- include discounted car rental as part of the HSR ticket, and the multiple client problem is solved.

A good example of this would be at RT128 station in MA. If the inland corridor ever gets built, a similar arrangement at Worcester could work. Both stations are right on major highways and provide access to the main technology beltways around Boston.