• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trans U.S. Maglev Train

Would you ride on the Trans-U.S. maglev train?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 8 80.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Unsure/Don't Know.

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
as it stands now, everyone is already paying for roads, rails, airports and seaports, and all the vehicles that use them. Some are more subsidized than others, but the costs are included in the price of, well, everything.

If governments from the local to the national hadn't spent the last 80 years underwriting automobiles and the trucking industry, as well as the aviation industry, then we'd likely have a reasonable passenger train system and mass transit systems in the US

"Individual choice" for the freedom of the automobile was heavily subsidized and the competitors eliminated, forcing everyone but the very poor to play along. For the urban poor, mostly ineffective mass transit has been underwritten as an afterthought.
Trucks, cars, & planes have great logistical advantages over
trains. Trucks & cars are door to door without intermediate
transfers to other delivery systems. Planes are fast, & have
cost-free routes.
(Although rail freight has bulk hauling cost & energy advantages
when serving dedicated facilities.)
But maglev....it suffers from big disadvantages....
- Expense & difficulty of getting new rights of way.
- High construction cost.
- The route is a single line, which means trouble for intermediate
stops....they must either slow things down, or be eliminated.
This is a problem with passenger rail too, & explains its downfall.

Do the poor need maglev service between major cities?
Nah. They need practical commuting solutions.
 

Suave

Simulated character
Is it really cost effective to spend that kind of money just
to move people around a little faster than rail trains?
Yes, faster is nice. But those of us who don't use it
will have to pay for it. Flying is a cheaper & faster
alternative.

In my environmentally friendly opinion, there should be carbon-free, clean renewable energy propelled, rapid mode alternatives to air travel. Perhaps we could agree with U.S. Representative Seth Moulton's plan to invest a mere $205 billion over the course of 5 years to connect Chicago with Atlanta, and to connect Portland with Vancouver.
A Lawmaker Wants Fast Trains to Rev Up the US Economy

This proposal defines high-speed rail using the international standard of trains traveling at speeds of 186 mph or greater. https://moulton.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL.American High-Speed Rail.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cad9b230-d6ee-4466-98d6-ace142134a4a

There are 1,317 (nonstop) flights between Chicago and Atlanta per week, averaging 188 per day. Cheap Flights from Chicago to Atlanta from $20 | (CHI - ATL) - KAYAK I'm guessing this would equate to about 170,000 passengers per week or approximately 300 million passengers over the course of five years, this based on there being an average of about 130 passengers per flight. If Chicago to Atlanta airline travel were replaced by a comparable amount of high speed rail travel, this cost on a per passenger basis over the course of 35 years (edited) would be $205 billion divided by 300 million passengers, or at a cost of just about $700 per passenger going one way from Chicago to Atlanta by high speed rail. I'm guessing this cost is probable just a few times more than the cost of air travel, but I consider this to be well worth the extra price of saving our planet earth from global warming. (edited) corrected to 35 years from 5 years
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In my environmentally friendly opinion, there should be carbon-free, clean renewable energy propelled, rapid mode alternatives to air travel. Perhaps we could agree with U.S. Representative Seth Moulton's plan to invest a mere $205 billion over the course of 5 years to connect Chicago with Atlanta, and to connect Portland with Vancouver.
A Lawmaker Wants Fast Trains to Rev Up the US Economy

This proposal defines high-speed rail using the international standard of trains traveling at speeds of 186 mph or greater. https://moulton.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FINAL.American High-Speed Rail.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cad9b230-d6ee-4466-98d6-ace142134a4a

There are 1,317 (nonstop) flights between Chicago and Atlanta per week, averaging 188 per day. Cheap Flights from Chicago to Atlanta from $20 | (CHI - ATL) - KAYAK I'm guessing this would equate to about 170,000 passengers per week or approximately 300 million passengers over the course of five years, this based on there being an average of about 130 passengers per flight. If Chicago to Atlanta airline travel were replaced by a comparable amount of high speed rail travel, this cost on a per passenger basis over the course of five years would be $205 billion divided by 300 million passengers, or at a cost of just about $700 per passenger going one way from Chicago to Atlanta by high speed rail. I'm guessing this cost is probable just a few times more than the cost of air travel, but I consider this to be well worth the extra price of saving our planet earth from global warming.
My preference is to cut down on travel. Technology
is helping greatly as more people work remotely.
Flying can improve as biofuels replace fossil fuels.
High speed rail (maglev speeds) doesn't look useful
cross country because sleeper cars would still be
needed, which is a spendy inconvenience.
Autonomous electric cars will be a game changer too,
& might make maglev trains not cost effective.


I watch with interest to see what will happen.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
My preference is to cut down on travel. Technology
is helping greatly as more people work remotely.
Flying can improve as biofuels replace fossil fuels.
High speed rail (maglev speeds) doesn't look useful
cross country because sleeper cars would still be
needed, which is a spendy inconvenience.
Autonomous electric cars will be a game changer too,
& might make maglev trains not cost effective.


I watch with interest to see what will happen.
Despite many routes being long enough/overnight for people to desire places to lay down, such conveniences are only for those who can afford to pay the premium price for such access. Why would trains be required to do any different?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Despite many routes being long enough/overnight for people to desire places to lay down, such conveniences are only for those who can afford to pay the premium price for such access. Why would trains be required to do any different?
I oppose subsidizing maglev trains to any extent greater
than alternatives. Let'm compete on an equal footing,
& see how they fare.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I oppose subsidizing maglev trains to any extent greater
than alternatives. Let'm compete on an equal footing,
& see how they fare.
right! So we stop underwriting the commercial air industry, with governments building and maintaining almost all airports, and the air traffic control system, etc. We don't fund the construction of the rail system; leave it entirely to the industry.

Let's also do that with streets and roads, subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear and so on. Make producers and consumers actually face the costs of their choices, instead of underwriting them with government investments...

I wonder what would happen then?o_O:confused::mad::eek::oops::rolleyes::D
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
right! So we stop underwriting the commercial air industry, with governments building and maintaining almost all airports, and the air traffic control system, etc. We don't fund the construction of the rail system; leave it entirely to the industry.

Let's also do that with streets and roads, subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear and so on. Make producers and consumers actually face the costs of their choices, instead of underwriting them with government investments...

I wonder what would happen then?o_O:confused::mad::eek::oops::rolleyes::D
Industry funding is more practical with air travel.
There are already private airports maintained by owners.
Roads are a vast network over various public properties.
How do you think they could be better financed?
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Industry funding is more practical with air travel.
There are already private airports maintained by owners.
Roads are a vast network over various public properties.
How do you think they could be better financed?
I don't necessarily think they can be; I'm pointing out that prior choices have constrained future decisions about forward-going technology and policy choices. Government has long made policy choices favoring one technology or industry over another. rail drove everything economic and policywise (private railroads were GIVEN publicly owned land to allow them to underwrite the expansion of the system), until a sufficient network of paved highways could be constructed and large trucks developed...competition that did away with the economic viability of lesser rail routes--'this train's got the disappearing railroad blues'--but rail is still going very strong, thank you very much, for certain scales of service, now that the unproductive minor and side lines have mostly been removed.

Yes, there are some private airports...but almost all the major commercial airports are owned and operated by governments, mostly local and state.

In the case of the example of Chicago-Atlanta travel, I see potential value in the introduction of a new competition to fill that demand...but I'll also note that much of the volume of that particular flow of passengers is due to the current heavily subsidized airline system that utilizes running passengers through regional hubs when their destinations are actually at least one additional flight leg further from the big airports.
 
Top