news.discovery.com— Even the hardiest maglev enthusiasts are a bit glum now as the future of the trains appears to have derailed.
Oct 10, 2011View in Crawl 4
FTA: "A planned cargo maglev line for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach was recently canceled after officials went with electric trucks instead."
While a cargo maglev line may have been cool for the two ports, I'm not too surprised they went with electric trucks instead.
In order to be profitable, trains must support a certain population density that is willing to use them instead of cars. That doesn't exist in the US.
Another major factor is the high capital cost for both property and rail construction. I wonder if the profitable examples in Europe and Japan have paid off their initial investment, or whether that is subsidized by the government?
We decided we did not want to pay the outrageous cost for silly locations like Wisconsin, and that the maintenance costs were prohibitive.
Case closed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Whats with all the double posting from multiple accounts I'm seeing? partrow said the same thing. see same stuff in diff threads.
High speed rail is about efficiency and connecting important areas, the problems are that there isnt the political will or money to make it happen and to purchase urban area to lay down rail is a billion dollar endeavur alone.
In NM the Dem.s broke the bank building a high speed from Santa Fe to Albuq. No one would ride it so they forced state employees to take it. Analysis shows it won't pay for itself in 200 years. Thanks Richardson.
Americans are too busy working on being lawyers to sue each other, bankers to make money, boxers or other sports people to "make money", film makers to "make money"...
or other useless professions, to have enough time to build stuff.
Americans spend so much time thinking about money, that they don't realise money doesn't build things. People build things. And people need time and physical resources.
Money is just a measurement. And if everyone spends their time arguing about the measurement (money), they have no time to actually do anything productive.
Trains only work well as a bulk transportation backbone if the stops are tied in with a suitable short and mid-range distribution network and have to compete with other carriers for convenience. In the US they mainly compete with planes for people transport at longer ranges (and turn out to be slower most of the time) and the car for mid-range (where trains lack the follow-up connections to get individuals where they need to be after the train stop).
We decided we did not want to pay the outrageous cost for silly locations like Wisconsin, and that the maintenance costs were prohibitive.
Case closed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Electric cars and trucks for volume and airliners for speed are imminently more practical. I lived in Europe for a time and was distinctly underwhelmed by how good fast rail was.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
biofriendlyblogOct 10, 2011
FTA: "A planned cargo maglev line for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach was recently canceled after officials went with electric trucks instead."
While a cargo maglev line may have been cool for the two ports, I'm not too surprised they went with electric trucks instead.
piyushwadhwaOct 10, 2011
they Ran away
lucaswyrschOct 11, 2011
France and now China have both developed high speed trains successfully!
phillyspeedfreaxOct 11, 2011
This would ruin the oil tycoon's control over our transportation. It would help if we actually had these systems here in the USA.
jjvorsOct 11, 2011
In order to be profitable, trains must support a certain population density that is willing to use them instead of cars. That doesn't exist in the US.
Another major factor is the high capital cost for both property and rail construction. I wonder if the profitable examples in Europe and Japan have paid off their initial investment, or whether that is subsidized by the government?
tvisioOct 11, 2011
Did Warren Buffet have a premature investagasm? I think not.
newshockerOct 10, 2011
We decided we did not want to pay the outrageous cost for silly locations like Wisconsin, and that the maintenance costs were prohibitive.
Case closed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SauntOroloOct 10, 2011
Whats with all the double posting from multiple accounts I'm seeing? partrow said the same thing. see same stuff in diff threads.
High speed rail is about efficiency and connecting important areas, the problems are that there isnt the political will or money to make it happen and to purchase urban area to lay down rail is a billion dollar endeavur alone.
bobd1eOct 10, 2011
Bush.
stevanoskiOct 11, 2011
In NM the Dem.s broke the bank building a high speed from Santa Fe to Albuq. No one would ride it so they forced state employees to take it. Analysis shows it won't pay for itself in 200 years. Thanks Richardson.
IwantUKSocialMediaOct 11, 2011
Americans are too busy working on being lawyers to sue each other, bankers to make money, boxers or other sports people to "make money", film makers to "make money"...
or other useless professions, to have enough time to build stuff.
Americans spend so much time thinking about money, that they don't realise money doesn't build things. People build things. And people need time and physical resources.
Money is just a measurement. And if everyone spends their time arguing about the measurement (money), they have no time to actually do anything productive.
dougnic55Oct 11, 2011
because the us does not own its own rail beds it will never happen...
ninhOct 11, 2011
Trains only work well as a bulk transportation backbone if the stops are tied in with a suitable short and mid-range distribution network and have to compete with other carriers for convenience. In the US they mainly compete with planes for people transport at longer ranges (and turn out to be slower most of the time) and the car for mid-range (where trains lack the follow-up connections to get individuals where they need to be after the train stop).
lucaswyrschOct 11, 2011
France and now China have both developed high speed trains successfully!
jayceecocalOct 11, 2011
ok
pivenOct 10, 2011
Trains lose tons of money and often do not go where you want to go
partrowOct 10, 2011
We decided we did not want to pay the outrageous cost for silly locations like Wisconsin, and that the maintenance costs were prohibitive.
Case closed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrmudgeonOct 11, 2011
Electric cars and trucks for volume and airliners for speed are imminently more practical. I lived in Europe for a time and was distinctly underwhelmed by how good fast rail was.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.