Newfie wrote:I’m not going to nit pick your math, close enough. What I will ask is what problem is this fixing?
Newfie wrote:..... any project today should show a life cycle that it reduces the overall carbon footprint. That means high ridership rates. And most of the time that argument means folks are arguing the increased convenience will increase the number of folks traveling.
Newfie wrote:Not saying HSR would not be a nice perk, is it something our environment can afford?
Ibon wrote:There is no need to go anywhere.
The first death involving a Brightline train, which officially launched in January 2018, happened in July 2017 during test runs. Since then, 40 more have been killed — a rate of more than one a month and about one for every 29,000 miles (47,000 kilometers) the trains have traveled, according to an analysis of Federal Railroad Administration data by The Associated Press
Newfie wrote:My company had a minor role in the design of this fiasco.
I was extremely disturbed by some of the Owners attitudes concerning safety to the point where I wrote a memo to my higher ups recommending the company retreat from the project.
On a conference all with the Owners manager I had expressed concerns about the safety approach, or lack there of. I/we were admonished to remember “we are in the hospitality business, not the transport business.” I decided there and then I wanted nothing to do with that job and distanced myself as much as possible.The first death involving a Brightline train, which officially launched in January 2018, happened in July 2017 during test runs. Since then, 40 more have been killed — a rate of more than one a month and about one for every 29,000 miles (47,000 kilometers) the trains have traveled, according to an analysis of Federal Railroad Administration data by The Associated Press
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ric ... ther-in-us
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
You need a lot of SPACE and SECURITY to SAFELY operate such a train (i.e. a high speed "bullet" train), if it's going to go anywhere NEAR pedestrians, traffic, etc.
And doing that is going to be VERY EXPENSIVE, because what good does it do to have high speed trains avoid population centers?
.....
But it's not like large swathes of land are just sitting around ready to use for high speed rail in or near densely populated areas.
Plantagenet wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:
You need a lot of SPACE and SECURITY to SAFELY operate such a train (i.e. a high speed "bullet" train), if it's going to go anywhere NEAR pedestrians, traffic, etc.
And doing that is going to be VERY EXPENSIVE, because what good does it do to have high speed trains avoid population centers?
.....
But it's not like large swathes of land are just sitting around ready to use for high speed rail in or near densely populated areas.
Other countries that are even more densely populated then the US, like Japan, the Netherlands and Britain all successfully operate high speed trains on tracks that go right into major urban centers.
If other countries can do it safely, so can we. All we have to do is learn from them and copy the way they do it. We are decades behind other countries in building out high speed rail in the US. In some ways this is good, because high speed rail is already operating in dozens of countries around the world and many of the "kinks" have already been worked out. All we have to do is copy their successful techniques when we build it out here in the USA.
CHEERS!
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests