More on the HSR »
The rail that is being suggested it not true high speed rail. It would not be considered high speed any where outside of North America. The North East corridor is going to be one of the sections of the system. The Corridor takes just as long to drive as it does to take the train. If they truly want to put highspeed in they need to do better than this.
One of the reasons why the high speed means even less for us in Canada is that the border crosses are restricting train traffic. The only reason why there is only one train between Seattle and Vancouver is that the borderguards have too many restrictions for the second train to run.
Also it is leaving out the important fact that the majority of traffic on the rails is frieght. So it should be focusing on the major frieght routes and if passengers take trains that run down the tracks that would be fine.
I have a feeling that this will be like the the turbo train which still has the fastest train speed record for North America. It was set in 1967 and is faster than most of the speeds suggested for the new system.
I do love high speed rail, but this will not work.
The California plan is true highspeed rail, though. Don’t they already have the plans in place (which is why California is going to have the first link built).
I still think they should create new trunk lines for high speed rail like they do in Japan.
Yes in theory the high speed line in California will be true high speed, but municipalities that will have the lines run through them are thinking about restricting the speed of the trains. The route planning to go to downtown San Fancisco, sounds good but not really. There is already the Caltrain and the BART system also wants to go along the same route.
The should create trunk lines for high speed rail, but they should be frieght based trunk lines.
