<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on In American Midwest, a step closer to high-speed rail ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-19T20:31:15-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[115mph=High speed???]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64635]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We're in 2012, aren't we? High-speed? 115 mph ?? LOOL How about getting a 45 year old French TGV cruising at 200 mph ??? Or a newer one, those cruising at nearly 400 mph ?? Or what about one of those magnetic German or Japanese trains??America is soooo retarded when it comes to public transport, geez...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64635]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[sethlegoauld]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:09:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Express trains.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64495]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What you are describing are the old express trains that used to run non-stop between cities at close to 100 miles an hour.The 1940s era steam train that ran the express run between Boston and NY did it in more than an hour less than Acela does on its best run today.A comprehensive rail plan for the US would have subways or trolleys for local urban routes feeding and being fed by commuter rail (up to 60 mph) for runs out to 50 miles.  Express trains (100 mph) on limited stop intercity routes up to 250 miles and HSR (over 125 mph)  for non-stop intercity routes over 250 miles.The California HSR plan, with stops every 20/30 miles, is a waste of the trains capabilities.  There by, a huge waste of money.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64495]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Impacts]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64455]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In order to have an economic impact (or to survive) transport has to connect two place which people want to travel between,  Hooking Detroit to Chicago at higher speeds only makes sense if there's a market.ANY attempts to build hi-speed rail using existing track w/o rebuilding the ballast and laying track designed for the speeds involved, will result in problems ranging from bumpy rides to derailments.A Midwest  hi-speed route that makes sense is the Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis route which Wisconsin's insane and idiotic Governor decided wasn't worth it based upon a false idea of how maintenance and operation fees work--turning down $8 billion so he could turn around and squeeze the public employees for a tiny fraction of that amount.The Chicago-Minneapolis corridor carries a lot of traffic--both human and freight. The freeway system is overloaded through about 1/2 the route.But the biggest factors affecting mass transit areconvenience and accessibility.To go from Menomonie to Pewaukee was once possible by rail, and possible by bus. Neither is now possible. In either case, an additional 35-50 miles must be covered using some other form of transit at BOTH ENDS.The frequency of transport is very low, trains go through once each way each day, buses are more frequent, but not greatly so.The unfortunate fact is that our transportation system was never designed as a system, but assembled from a hodge-podge of ad-hoc vehicles, largely under the influence of big oil, automobile manufacturers and truckers. What coordinated systems we had were largely disassembled as the freeway network expanded, and has been rebuild slowly in some areas since the 70's.There's no convenient transfers between travel methods.In Chicago, its possible to land at O'Hare, take a short train ride downtown and switch to bus or cab for the last bit of your journey--and it's cheap, too!In Milwaukee, there are cabs and hotel courtesy vehicles as options from the airport. There's no direct and inexpensive transit from the airport into the city, and no rapid intra-urban transport (which is a shame, because 60 years ago Milwaukee had a pretty decent light rail line.)  Chicago=cheap&amp;fast, Milwaukee=expensive &amp; cumbersome.There's a lot of traffic from around the state to Madison, and it's a very long distance from Madison to the shores of Lake Superior. But many government agencies have people constantly driving back and for to meetings. Not only is all this driving wasteful of resources (including people,) but it's dangerous too. It's ~3 hours drive from Menomonie to Madison-200 miles. It's another 150 to Lake Superior ~ 2.25 hours. over 5 hours driving time, which with breaks takes 7-8 hours and leaves people exhausted.Now that we have to arrive 2 hours before departure to fly, the length of the shortest practical flight is much longer than it used to be--in the time it takes to go to the airport, wait in line for some idiot to blow us all up, get checked in, get on, fly and get off, then travel from airport to destination--I can drive 300+ miles.And any day now, requirements for id to pass from State to State will be required.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64455]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wizoddg]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:08:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not quite my point.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64340]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My point was that speeding up the Hiawatha line, whatever the top speed, may be more impactful than doing so to the line between Chicago and Detroit. If you're traveling between those two cities, you're likely going to fly; 3.75 hours from 5.5 won't really make a material difference to that decision. Whereas a 33% reduction between Milwaukee and Chicago makes a daily commute within reach for more people, though the price may very well ruin that advantage.In other words, context matters.Still, we're only talking about passenger rail here. Freight may benefit all the same.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64340]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[andrew.nusca]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:29:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Waste of HSR]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64371]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[- - A better solution might be Milwaukee-Chicago, where a high-speed rail line has been proposed and where the commute is just 1.5 hours on Amtrak???s 79 m.p.h. Hiawatha line. - -HSR at 125 mph is a waste on such a short run.  An express train running at 100 mph could have nearly the same time improvement at half the purchase cost.  Which would keep setup and operating costs down making fares affordable.But HSR supporters only look at cool speed numbers, not cost effective transportation solutions.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-9360-64371]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:17:55 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

