Comments on: A Bullet Train from Los Angeles to… New York? http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/ Lizard people dude. Seriously. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ginormousboobs http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17379 ginormousboobs Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:32:20 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17379 Ah, to dream! Ah, to dream!

]]> By: philpalm http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17378 philpalm Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:27:53 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17378 Hauling freight via high speed rail might pay for the costs but you would have to overcome the protest by the truckers. ---------------------- The gap between Las Vegas and parts east is not a financially viable option for passengers. A high speed corridor is populated enough on the east coast but parts west of the Mississippi need to carry freight to make it cost effective. Hauling freight via high speed rail might pay for the costs but you would have to overcome the protest by the truckers.
———————-
The gap between Las Vegas and parts east is not a financially viable option for passengers. A high speed corridor is populated enough on the east coast but parts west of the Mississippi need to carry freight to make it cost effective.

]]> By: marshall http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17377 marshall Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:21:20 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17377 I'm with Jason. I think anyone who's seriously talking about a LA-NY high speed rail network is presuming that Chicago or Kansas City would become a central hub. I'm imagining most of the travel on high speed rail would be regional, but the option of going LA - NY, and ultimately, from any major city in America to any other, on a multi-legged trip would be there. I’m with Jason. I think anyone who’s seriously talking about a LA-NY high speed rail network is presuming that Chicago or Kansas City would become a central hub. I’m imagining most of the travel on high speed rail would be regional, but the option of going LA – NY, and ultimately, from any major city in America to any other, on a multi-legged trip would be there.

]]> By: frazgo http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17376 frazgo Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:41:24 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17376 I like it! WE are long overdue for a comprehensive high speed rail line. After taking Eurostar I've really wanted one here. I like it! WE are long overdue for a comprehensive high speed rail line. After taking Eurostar I’ve really wanted one here.

]]> By: Jason Burns http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17375 Jason Burns Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:28:44 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17375 I should have been more clear. I wasn't necessarily advocating for a direct, non-stop rail route from L.A. to NY. But, I think in the grand scheme of a national rail network, there should definitely be some thought given to connecting the West to the Chicago Hub. Otherwise, it's not really a national network. I should have been more clear. I wasn’t necessarily advocating for a direct, non-stop rail route from L.A. to NY.

But, I think in the grand scheme of a national rail network, there should definitely be some thought given to connecting the West to the Chicago Hub. Otherwise, it’s not really a national network.

]]> By: David Markland http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17374 David Markland Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:40:13 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17374 I think Kedrowss is mostly correct. Making an LA to NY high speed rail a goal is highly impractical for both time and cost reasons. Even the most comfortable of train trips become tiresome after 3 hours. And unless the cost is 50% or 25% of airline fares, there's no way I can picture most people sacrificing 24 hours of their life for the trip, except for the occasional novelty. However, having a central hub, ie Kansas City, as mentioned, seems like a better goal, especially if the hub was a manufacturing center with plenty of convention services, a meeting place no further than a 12 hour ride from just about anywhere in the US. Costs would still have to undercut the airlines by a decent percentage, which will be the main factor in whether this becomes a success or failure. I think Kedrowss is mostly correct. Making an LA to NY high speed rail a goal is highly impractical for both time and cost reasons. Even the most comfortable of train trips become tiresome after 3 hours. And unless the cost is 50% or 25% of airline fares, there’s no way I can picture most people sacrificing 24 hours of their life for the trip, except for the occasional novelty.

However, having a central hub, ie Kansas City, as mentioned, seems like a better goal, especially if the hub was a manufacturing center with plenty of convention services, a meeting place no further than a 12 hour ride from just about anywhere in the US. Costs would still have to undercut the airlines by a decent percentage, which will be the main factor in whether this becomes a success or failure.

]]> By: marshall http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17373 marshall Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:32:00 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17373 I would presume some kind of efficiency of scale on a longer trip. Plane flights don't go up in price relative to the distance involved - at longer distances, the price per mile drops. Trains allow passengers to move serious amounts of baggage without excess fees, an area where airlines are currently gouging the heck out of customers. Trains also have larger seats, more seating options, onboard meal options and other amenities that planes just don't have. You can do much more work on a train out of your laptop if you need to and the cost for putting wireless internet services on trains has got to be way, way cheaper than planes. There are a lot of reasons why train travel is efficient as an alternative to air travel. I would presume some kind of efficiency of scale on a longer trip. Plane flights don’t go up in price relative to the distance involved – at longer distances, the price per mile drops.

Trains allow passengers to move serious amounts of baggage without excess fees, an area where airlines are currently gouging the heck out of customers. Trains also have larger seats, more seating options, onboard meal options and other amenities that planes just don’t have. You can do much more work on a train out of your laptop if you need to and the cost for putting wireless internet services on trains has got to be way, way cheaper than planes. There are a lot of reasons why train travel is efficient as an alternative to air travel.

]]> By: kedrowss http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17372 kedrowss Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:10:42 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17372 They said the LA to SF high-speed train would take two and a half hours and cost $55. If you extrapolate that the increase in time and cost would be proportional to the increased distance, an LA to NY trip would probably be over $500 (for a one-way trip) and take 24 hours. Who would choose to do that rather than fly? Personally I think I'd even rather fly to San Francisco. The train only really makes sense over shorter distances (a 90-minute $30 trip to Vegas would be useful). They said the LA to SF high-speed train would take two and a half hours and cost $55. If you extrapolate that the increase in time and cost would be proportional to the increased distance, an LA to NY trip would probably be over $500 (for a one-way trip) and take 24 hours. Who would choose to do that rather than fly? Personally I think I’d even rather fly to San Francisco. The train only really makes sense over shorter distances (a 90-minute $30 trip to Vegas would be useful).

]]> By: marshall http://blogging.la/2009/04/16/a-bullet-train-from-los-angeles-to-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-17371 marshall Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:05:48 +0000 http://la.metblogs.com/?p=25697#comment-17371 LA to NY by high speed rail? 30 years overdue if it was running tomorrow. Wasn't America where the future actually happened, once upon a time? LA to NY by high speed rail? 30 years overdue if it was running tomorrow. Wasn’t America where the future actually happened, once upon a time?

]]>