Superfast Bullet Trains Are Finally Coming to the U.S.
January 27, 2010 7:07 AM   Subscribe

This post was deleted for the following reason: Instead of having twin high speed rail threads, maybe let's move this up to the next post over. -- cortex



 
I'll believe it when I see it. Amtrak can't even manage the trains it has now: frequent breakdowns, broken toilets, always having to yield to freight. Even with fixed management, a bullet train system would require a Manhattan Project-level commitment from the public and the government.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:10 AM on January 27, 2010 [2 favorites]


Great, by the time they're done, they'll be able to usher us all from our nursing homes to our days-out at the mall in seconds flat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:13 AM on January 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yay! Only have to wait 15 more years! Oh.
posted by amro at 7:14 AM on January 27, 2010


Kunstler:

To be blunt about it, this is perfectly f*****g stupid. It will require a whole new track network, because high speed trains can't run on the old rights of way with their less forgiving curve ratios and grades. We would be so much better off simply fixing up and reactivating the normal-speed track system that is sitting out there rusting in the rain -- and save our more grandiose visions for a later time.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:15 AM on January 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


(Wow, Wired actually used higher resolutions images and charts in an article. How refreshing.)
posted by smackfu at 7:15 AM on January 27, 2010


Don't worry guys, if Obama is announcing it, it'll never happen.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:18 AM on January 27, 2010


Why are they using high speed trains for local network traffic? Shouldn't the Boston/Chicago/LA links be high speed and the stuff shown on this map remain what it is? (Although obviously upgraded to work and have reasonable prices and so forth.)
posted by DU at 7:18 AM on January 27, 2010


This is so long overdue. An advanced train network would be fantastic. Unfortunately, I looked this up in my Washington D.C. phrasebook:

English - American politispeak phrase dictionary:

"It'll be done in 2025"
----------------------------
"It will have unicorns and it will lay golden eggs and it will cure all your diseases. And your children will pay for most of it. Vote for me!"

Heck, screw high speed trains, I'd like a normal speed train network worthy of a 1st world country. There is one (1) train per day traveling between Albany and Boston, two capitals of neighboring states. But no, by all means, instead of expanding train coverage, let us continue to maintain our wondrous highway system so we can forever be blessed by heavy 18-wheeler traffic.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:23 AM on January 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


save our more grandiose visions for a later time.

Yes. That always works.
posted by dirtdirt at 7:27 AM on January 27, 2010 [2 favorites]


Having ridden the Shinkansen recently, I say kudos to this idea. Fast travel without all the BS you have to go through for a plane ride? Where do I sign up? The only thing I'll be missing at the US stations will be vendors selling me delicious bags of eel spines, but I can live with that. Taking a look at the maps, I'd ride the hell out of the Midwest corridor.

Kunstler: [stuff]

No, this is not a stupid idea. Even if the current rail systems are fixed up and renovated, this won't change the fact that they are painfully slow. I took a train ride on Amtrak from Chicago to Ann Arbor a few years ago, and it would've been faster if I'd just driven the route. What's the point in spending money to prop up an antiquated system that people still won't use? Why not instead spend money to replace the infrastructure with something people will use?
posted by Consonants Without Vowels at 7:27 AM on January 27, 2010


I'm not gonna succumb to temptation here and quote the monorail episode, but this really does sound like a pie-in-the-sky bullshit solution to the problem of upgrading and expanding existing rapid transit systems. I know that's not as sexy, but it would be a great deal more practical and would have the same short term benefits insofar as employment of technicians and construction workers go.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:30 AM on January 27, 2010


« Older Because Sloppy Joes are *such* a culinary...   |   Well since you don't want it any more, here you go... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments