<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Continued Ridership Increases; HSR in China; The Right Wants to Invest?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/08/continued-ridership-increases-hsr-in-china-the-right-wants-to-invest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/08/continued-ridership-increases-hsr-in-china-the-right-wants-to-invest/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: thetransportpolitic</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/08/continued-ridership-increases-hsr-in-china-the-right-wants-to-invest/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>thetransportpolitic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=287#comment-56</guid>
		<description>Thanks Loren for the calculations! (Mine were done in about two minutes with no real investigation...)

The numbers you figured out still look bad, though - we&#039;re talking about best-case 132 kph compared to 270.

What&#039;s saddest, though, is that the Boston-NYC route was upgraded, and Acela trains can move at 150 mph for a few short segments in RI and MA... but the section in CT shared with Metro-North is so embarrassingly slow that the rest of the route is slowed down on average.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Loren for the calculations! (Mine were done in about two minutes with no real investigation&#8230;)</p>
<p>The numbers you figured out still look bad, though &#8211; we&#8217;re talking about best-case 132 kph compared to 270.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s saddest, though, is that the Boston-NYC route was upgraded, and Acela trains can move at 150 mph for a few short segments in RI and MA&#8230; but the section in CT shared with Metro-North is so embarrassingly slow that the rest of the route is slowed down on average.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Loren Petrich</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/08/continued-ridership-increases-hsr-in-china-the-right-wants-to-invest/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Loren Petrich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.wordpress.com/?p=287#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Your numbers are a bit off about Amtrak&#039;s NEC; they work out for Boston - DC, not NYC - DC. From Amtrak&#039;s schedules, I&#039;ve obtained the Acela Express&#039;s best times and calculated its average speeds for those times. The Boston - DC time includes a 15-minutes layover in NYC, also part of the schedule.

Boston - NYC: 231 mi / 372 km / 3h 30m / 66 mph / 106 kmh
NYC - DC: 225 mi / 362 km / 2h 45m / 82 mph / 132 kmh
Boston - DC 456 mi / 734 km / 6h 30m / 70 mph / 113 kmh</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your numbers are a bit off about Amtrak&#8217;s NEC; they work out for Boston &#8211; DC, not NYC &#8211; DC. From Amtrak&#8217;s schedules, I&#8217;ve obtained the Acela Express&#8217;s best times and calculated its average speeds for those times. The Boston &#8211; DC time includes a 15-minutes layover in NYC, also part of the schedule.</p>
<p>Boston &#8211; NYC: 231 mi / 372 km / 3h 30m / 66 mph / 106 kmh<br />
NYC &#8211; DC: 225 mi / 362 km / 2h 45m / 82 mph / 132 kmh<br />
Boston &#8211; DC 456 mi / 734 km / 6h 30m / 70 mph / 113 kmh</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

