Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
13. As others have said.. yes and no.
Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:19 PM
Dec 2016

The fastest 'high-speed rail would, in fact, need to be between sizeable cities only.

But, there could possibly also be trains running on the same lines that travel at similar speeds but make more stops, thus taking longer.

As an example,
I frequently use the Shinkansen when I am in Japan.

When traveling from Kyoto to Tokyo..
The distance is about 275 miles.
There are three speeds of trains on this line-- the Tokaido Line.

The fastest is the Kodama, which makes just 4 stops- Nagoya, Yokohama, Shinagawa and Tokyo Station. --- Secret-- unless you REALLY need to go to Tokyo Station for a transfer or some other reason, get off at Shinagawa. :&gt )) ---

It takes about 2:15 to Shinagawa. and for a reserved seat costs about $120 one way..
The slower trains are cheaper. The slowest train makes about 15 stops and takes some 4 hours. (Driving takes about 6 hours and cost much more due to tolls and petrol.)


PLUS-- you don't have to worry about getting to an airport 2 hours early, standing in lines, security, cramped seats, bad weather, 'equipment' problems ( very, very rarely in Japan, anyway). Getting from the airport to the city... Plus the seats on extremely comfortable...

So, this might be one option to consider... trains with more or less stops.. (BTW, stops on the Shinkansen are FAST... 2-3 minutes. Do not linger.)


So 'high-speed' rail will not 'solve' whatever the problem is in the rural areas of the country, but it certainly would be a boon to a large percentage of the population where it is feasible, which could include smaller urban areas in otherwise 'rural America..






Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

nope....the cost is prohibitive for anything but close to urban centers and most of them beachbum bob Dec 2016 #1
I can fly round-trip from Portland to Sacramento for $97..... Kilgore Dec 2016 #8
Fuck that, it is do able if we want it. Lars39 Dec 2016 #12
How many stops MichMary Dec 2016 #14
Logistics can be worked out. Lars39 Dec 2016 #18
Not defeatism, pragmatism MichMary Dec 2016 #19
So don't even attempt it huh. Lars39 Dec 2016 #20
Not when you try to call it high speed rail dumbcat Dec 2016 #23
I would start with reading reports and studies by transportation engineers and agencies. TransitJohn Dec 2016 #21
I agree... Bernie has been advocating this also, for very good reason. InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #2
We should submit the plan to Drumpf and his Legion of Deplorables. DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2016 #3
No, it wouldn't... Wounded Bear Dec 2016 #4
Well since I live in rural Texas Horse with no Name Dec 2016 #5
"High speed rail" that stops at small towns is not "high speed rail" jberryhill Dec 2016 #9
For myself... Horse with no Name Dec 2016 #11
Too expensive Travis_0004 Dec 2016 #6
Minneapolis St. Paul have light rail lines. MineralMan Dec 2016 #16
I just drive to the airport Travis_0004 Dec 2016 #17
So would a universal draft BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #7
It's the assumption that people living in rural areas actually want to branford Dec 2016 #10
As others have said.. yes and no. pangaia Dec 2016 #13
High speed internet allows most people to work remotely. Hoyt Dec 2016 #15
I foresee 8 yrs of Republicans holding it out as a prospect librechik Dec 2016 #22
Physicial mobility is not the problem this nation is facing. RedWedge Dec 2016 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»High speed rail across th...»Reply #13