Slashdot Mirror
High-Speed Trains in the US?
demondawn asks: "Countries around the world are researching and adopting high-speed rail systems, but the U.S. seems to be behind the bandwagon. How do Americans feel about the adoption of a high-speed rail system in the U.S.? How do people in nations that have already adopted high-speed rail feel about their services? And how about tourists who have travelled either to or from the U.S. feel about public transportation around the world?"
As someone who is carfree by choice and who has issues with flying, I wish we had a high-speed train system like Japan's.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
In America we have relatively cheap plane travel to anywhere in the continental US. Despite many privacy concerns about the current state of air travel in the US, flying is still one of the cheapest (for the distance) and safest methods of transportation around. Still, competition from the rail industry would likely be a good thing, opening more options up, and eventually lowering prices.
No need to RTFA. Americans love the independence their automobiles give them.
They are very happy squandering more and more money into bigger and bigger trucks so any proposition to do otherwise is viewed as communist. Also, there is an anglo-saxon cultural trait that sees the city as something sinful, bad, evil that should be fled at all cost, hence the popularity of suburbia.
In the same vein, here is a very good explanation of the whole idea of having livable cities.
I am all for it. I have been into maglev stuff since the early 1990's. ;)
Amtrak lost almost half of their federal funding this year thanks to our dear president. Truck subsidies actually went up. I don't think trains will ever catch on in the US as long as we have content soccer moms driving SUV's to get groceries.
" No need to RTFA. Americans love the independence their automobiles give them."
Better mod the above up. We've been conditioned to automobiles. What's the first thing every teenager wants (aside from girls)? Yup, their drivers license. Also most alternatives quite frankly are lacking. Don't go were you want. Don't go when you want? And you end up sharing space with people you normally wouldn't dare. That and retrofitting cities in this "homeland security" era would cost billions.
Its the old population density issue.
Trains work great for medium distances, which describes all of Japan, and any single country in Europe. They do poorly for long distances because a standard airplane goes twice as fast (at worst case), and has no problem with terrin that is hard to get a train through.
When you go between two cities in a single country trains are nice. (often trivially slower than a plane after you factor in all the hastles of flying) This describes Europe, cities are close enough that flying isn't enough faster.
In the US cities are more spread out, except on the coasts. There is a high speed train between NY and Boston. Law prevents it from reaching high speed, but it is high speed otherwise. Well if the law wasn't in the way anyway, IIRC they need a few more upgrades to reach high speeds, but who would pay for that if you won't be able to reach those speed anyway.
I don't know what California doesn't have a high speed train. It would make sense, they have the population to support it. (though perhaps not enough people are going in one direction? I don't know)
For me there is no point in a high speed train. I live in Minneapolis, there is no place for it to go. In the metro area stops would be too frequent, and any other city is far enough away that you fly. Though that may not be true, there is a special case that might make sense. The airport is considering a train to some tiny airport outstate that can handle more planes than they can.
The other problem is plain old ideology. Or maybe culture is a better word. I'm not sure you can separate the two concepts when it comes to American transportation. Which means cars. Cars are our symbols of individuality, our favorite hobby, our main form of self-expression. Cars are the ultimate anti-socialist hyper-libertarian thing: they allow you to go where you want, when you want. None of those commie-fascist train schedules!
So no transportation system that would take money away from cars has a chance of more than token funding. Too bad the cost of this is obscene: freeways that cost millions per mile, traffic casualties that make a world war look like a stubbed toe, and huge payments to overseas oil vendors that are destroying our currency. Not to mention that a good chunk of that oil money gets diverted to the very terrorists we spend billions fighting.
I don't expect these facts to change, or ever for a lot of people to admit that we have a problem. (Car addicts, like any other, are good at denial.) I just couldn't resist a chance to point out that we do have a problem.
I grew up in Europe, where train was the fastest and cheapest way to get from one place to another as long as it wasn't more than about 1500 km away (~900 miles). France is known for their train strikes, and British trains are almost always late, yet the services they offer is with no comparison to that in the US. Amtrak is slow at best. I mean, it takes a train over 3 hours to get from one side of LA to the other, when the same distance is covered by French trains (even on strike) in about 90 minutes! And not with more stops in the US either. I think the blame in this case goes to poor usage, cheap maintenance and Amtrak tries to keep operating costs low, thus running train at low speeds. However, that doesn't make for a useful service at all, I've looked into using it. From Seattle, WA, to Portland, OR, it takes about 3h30 minutes, which is more than the greyhound service! That's preposterous for a train service to be that slow! I mean, if they want to get competitive, then maybe upgrade your train lines and speed them up a bit. Then you'll make enough money to develop high speed train and compete with airlines. Problem is, roadtrips are too engrained in the country. I mean, sure, there's a nice feel, but you spend a huge amount of money on gas, motels, etc. So make trains fun and cheap, and you'll see an increase in use. Also a little bit of advertisement will help.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
"For more than 50 years, the average american has been brainwashed by car and petroleum companies into believing that their car-centric "life" is the best thing since industrial bakeries have invented sliced bread."
Yadda, yadda, blame someone else, yadda, yadda. Look up "vicious cycle" while your putting on your tin foil hat.
"They are very happy squandering more and more money into bigger and bigger trucks so any proposition to do otherwise is viewed as communist. Also, there is an anglo-saxon cultural trait that sees the city as something sinful, bad, evil that should be fled at all cost, hence the popularity of suburbia."
Yadda, yadda, failed history, and sociology, yadda, yadda. oversimplified explaination, yadda, yadda.
after all, wouldn't it make more sense to read first. then write after?
No one's interested in high speed trains because most companies can rent a car, write it off, and drive at well above the speed limit (say, 80 miles/hour or so), and make better time than an Amtrak could... Until intercity train prices come down, it's just not competitive.
In Hudson County, NJ, they're busy on a light rail system. My little sister loves it, and it does seem to be meeting its usage quotas... But it's anything but high speed. My guess is that you'll see more things like this in semi-crowded areas where they can't handle adding more roads but desperately need to reduce car traffic.
[o]_O
I'd say compared to Europe flying in North America is expensive. I mean sure its somewhat comparable for commercial travel but we just don't have the number and selection of discount airlines that Europe has. We don't have the ryanairs, the easyjets and the germanwings that those europeans have.
Sure its a pain in the ass to have to search 20 discount airlines for the one that flies where you want but its well worth your time. I wish we had one way flights for $20 with the taxs here. Sure there are some discount airlines here, but there prices are still expensive relative to what is offered elsewhere and are often linked to bundles.
Of course I'm from Canada so i'm even worse off than you americans as we no longer have discount airlines and only have two national carriers. Now its about the same to fly to Europe as it does to the next province. Well not the same, but pretty close.
First, Air travel is much quicker for the distance. Traveling from coast to coast by plane can be done in 8-10 hours or so. By train, it'd take ages. Secondly, Trains are known to be behind in schedule. Usually, flights are on time 90%-95% of the time, unless there is an issue with the weather (storm system, snow, etc). Third, Air travel is cheap. You can fly anywhere for about $200-$300 (coach class ofcourse). Trains are quite a bit more expensive if you are traveling long distances. Fourth, Trains have inconvenient times to depart. Example, my small city of Toledo ohio only has trains leaving at 4 Am to go to chicago. Why go that early when I can fly on a flight thats more convenient (flights to chicago alomst every hour). Finally, Most major cities in the US are spread far apart, making it hard to get a train to go to all of them. A plane can go where trains can't (over mountains and such). Cities in Europe are much closers together, making it easier to take a train becuase it is quicker then 30 min drive to airport, 2 hours to get on flight, 2 hour flight, then 1 hour to get to where you need to be in the other city.
Kyle
There should be an intelligently subsidized and managed rail system in the US. We dump a ton of taxes into our interstate highway system, and sure as heck, they aren't pay-as-you-go. If we give away billions of dollars to build and maintain highways, why not throw away money on the rail system?
Rails are more fuel efficent for moving freight than paying tons of money on an interstate highway system, and then have 16 wheelers burn all that diesel without significantly subsidizing the roadway. If the rails were more robust in operation, instead of truckers driving across the country, they could move freight from major rail stops, and cut down on the interstate driving. In NYC alone, getting a freight line into Long Island would significantly reduce the volume of trucks across the bridges & highways.
Back in the go-go '90's, there was so much air traffic, major airports like LaGuardia (LGA, NYC) basically had a hazardous airspace from all the planes (still does). High-speed rail would cut out the need for short commuter flights. Not that its such a problem now, and the airlines obvious don't like competition. But again, you burn way more fuel for flying (per pound), than you do for rail.
If you presume that petroleum based fuels will be in short supply, its in the national interest to have a more coherent transporation policy. Also, having a robust rail system give the U.S. redundant system in case one has to go down (i.e. 9/11, bomb threat on a bridge or tunnel).
The reason why this will not happen in the near future is threefold. 1) The stupidity (psychology) of the average American citizen (SUV driver). 2) Special interests such as the airlines and trucking industry, and 3) politicians.
Passenger rail could easily be cost effective. The problem is that Amtrak is a gov't agency, and Congress is loaded with parasites that insist on a rail stop in their district. So instead of stops based on customer usage and efficiency, you end up with rail lines making more stops than needed, so they can get the fiscal vote of support from the local congressman.
Ironically, the short term incompetence of this gov't makes this cluster f**k incredibly insigificant as a problem. There probably should be a slashdot poll on how many people drive SUVs.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
... read this New York Times article (no registration): Anywhere else in the world, a train running 90 seconds late would perhaps be considered on time. But in Japan, 90 seconds would foil commuters who depend on trains' connecting to one another with balletic precision, often with only a couple of minutes to spare... .. Across the country, the accident has already caused much soul-searching over Japan's attention - some would say obsession - with punctuality and efficiency. To many, the driver's single-minded focus on making up the 90 seconds seemed to reveal the weak points of a society where the trains really do run on time, but where people have lost sight of the bigger picture.
"Japanese believe that if they board a train, they'll arrive on time. There is no flexibility in our society; people are not flexible, either. If you go abroad, you find that trains don't necessarily arrive on time," Mr. Sawada said. "This disaster was produced by Japanese civilization and Japanese people." said Yasuyuki Sawada, a 49-year-old railway worker.
The Japanese search for rail perfection is relentless, from the humble commuter train to the country's most famous tracks. In 2004, on the 40th anniversary of the bullet train, there was much hand-wringing over the fact that a year earlier the trains on that line had registered on average a delay - of six seconds...
I mentioned this on my AQFL site.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Britain has apparently had high speed rail since the 70s, in the form of the High Speed Train, and they're good trains, but since privatisation they've only gone above 60mph when they're flying off the rails and into a ditch in a horrific fireball of death.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I'm an Aussie who has lived some years in Europe, and I've come to the conclusion that the take up or otherwise of public transport is largely culture driven.
Here in Australia the rail system is virtually non-existant - high or low speed. But I can see a lot of commonality with the situation in the US.
Population density in Aus is far lower than the US, let alone Europe or Japan. Our population is mainly centered in one large city in each state, with the closest of these being ~900km apart. This makes air travel the only option these days.
But on top of that we have ended up with a very US-style culture when it comes to many things - and car ownership as an expression of individuality is one of them. Even within the big cities, most people drive everywhere (even when that results in being stuck in a huge traffic jam). Building more tollways seems to be the government response to this. Meanwhile much of the public transport infrastructure has been privatised - and we all know private enterprise does not like to spend money without a guaranteed return.
Every so often, a dreamy eyed train lover will propose a high speed rail link along the most trafficed route in the country (Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne) but it never gets off the ground.
I have lived in a few countries in South America. Bolivia, Peru and Surinam have few private cars. People get around within among cities on taxis and buses. These are primarily private, rather than public, operations. They are cheap, and effective. A company willl own a few micro-buses, vans, or even minivans, and each with a semi-fixed route. There are larger companies running inter-city, and even international, buses. Several companies compete on the same routes.
I don't see why (at least in high-density areas) this 'private' publich transportation wouldn't be in the US of A.
we no longer have discount airlines
What about Westjet, Tango or Jazz (not sure of the status of the last two since Air Canada took a dump)
Trolling is a art,
The only place that highspeed trains make sense is in the north east and maybe San Diego, LA, and SF.
Here is an example of some of the problems with it. I live in Florida this year I had to travel to Dallas, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, AZ. Each of these would be Really long train rides even with High speed rail except for Dallas. I drove to Dallas because it was cheaper and I was going to visit family. You can not get around Dallas without a car. So I would have had to rent one for two weeks.
The distances, low population density, and lack of mass transit in many cities just makes high speed rail a none starter for most of the US. Now in the Boston, NY, DC area it makes a lot of sense and is pretty popular when it is running.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I had the privilege of going to France on my dad's money a few years ago, and I'd have to say, the mass transit there was truly impressive. You could take a train from Paris to the suburbs for pretty cheap (the exact rate escapes me, and either way it was in francs), and we went from paris to Caen (normandy) and again to avignon (southern france). Even the low-speed trains were remarkably efficient and cheap, and the high-speed was nothing short of remarkable. As for the problems with sharing space, scheduling, etc, it really wasn't an issue. Anywhere public transit didn't go, you could hop in a cab and go for much less than gas, parking and car would cost you. And Paris cabbies are actually rather talkative, providing you get one that speaks english.
My other Sig is
I think that high speed trains in the US are a lost cause. The population distribution just does not favor such a thing. Even in the areas that are most often cited, say the Wash DC to Boston corridor the long thin shape rather than a single center with outlying cities that you find in Europe (take a look at France for example) is unfavorable. Not to mention that even in these 'dense' areas, the population density is still much greater in Europe.
I've spent time and travelled in Europe via train - and it is very nice compared to a short plane trip. But LA to Portland is a far greater distance than Lyons to Paris. Eurpoeans who think Americans are nuts for not using trains just don't apprciate the scale of the US.
People also forget that the US *used* to have the highest speed train system in the world - prior to mass aviation the steam powered trains running between cities for various rail lines used to compete on time, and win or lose business based on how fast they could do it. Sustained speeds on special runs of 80 mph were common, and peak speeds reached over 100 mph. Names like Zephr, Presidential and Hiawatha recall the glory years of US passenger rail, and unfortunately the geography of the US doesn't seem to allow for use of high speed rain the way it is used in Europe or Japan.
You are forgetting plenty of high travel 500 mile corridors.
St. Louis - Chicago - Milwaukee (this is a big one)
Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Lancaster - Philadelphia
DC - Richmond - Charlotte - Atlanta
Miami - Tampa - Orlando - Jacksonville (this one is perhaps less travelled)
The Texas triangle
All of these corridors are a bit too small for efficient flight, and have enough traffic to support a train system.
There are more people going for shorter distances than there are going for long ones. The trains are supposed to provide exactly that travel which is a bit too long for the car, and a bit too expensive and inefficient when flying.
badness 10000
The brake manufacturer has (literally) tons of spares. Since the entire design is being called into question they are worthless in the current situation.
I get the feeling you'd be complaining if Amtrak knew of the cracked rotors, hadn't pulled the trains from service, and an accident had resulted.
So there you go, build a high speed line from SC, CA to Boston...
That would be so handy for when I want pizza..
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
if you must keep complete spares for 5% of the trains, and it turns out 100% of a fleet of 50 have brake pad defects, you can repair exactly 2.5 trains-- not enough to run a full schedule when you normally have 50
if normal # of trains is 10, then you have enough spares for less than one train, which may have DOZENS of brake pads.....
design defects (like automobile recalls) can affect an ENTIRE FLEET AT ONCE, when stores of non-defective parts are few.
Latly, if it turns out that the DESIGN was bad, having a million spares doesn't do you a damn bit of good....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Amtrack should get NOTHING. A big fat fucking ZERO!!! Ya mod me down. But Amtrak has never been profitable. Just like it die like the wilted industry it is. Why should my tax dollars be funding a failed business???!!
Arrrrgghhhhaaaa!! Stop defending Amtrak, please slashdot, stop defending it!!
Life is not for the lazy.
You forgot one important fact. The rails that Amtrak runs on are privately owned by the freight train companies. The government has little if any control over them.
Amtrak runs according to CSXs schedule, for example in the Northeast. Freight has priority, like you said, so therefore they cannot be competitive because they can't set their own schedule.
Whether there is some sort of "conspiracy", I don't know. But compound this fact with America's love of the automobile and there is no way rail transportation can work over long distances in the USA.
Check out this article at
CNN:
I guess it does boil down to politicians having the balls to do what is good for us not what we want them to.
"We don't have the ryanairs, the easyjets and the germanwings that those europeans have."
No, but we do have the Southwests, the Frontiers, the JetBlues, and a number of other discount airlines.
Remember, flying from LA to NYC is *longer* than London to Moscow.
Even a regional flight like Albuquerque, NM to Denver, CO is 450miles.
Rail transit doesn't make sense with those distances.
There are 2 reasons why Planes are better than trains:
1. Security. Granted if you have one bomb in a plane, it will probably kill all aboard, while one bomb on a high-speed train might only kill a carload. The important aspect of trains is that the bomb can also be on the tracks. It's impossible to monitor 10 bazillion miles of track for sabotage. But, it is possible to do site defense at an airport, albeit with some human-factors difficulties and/or technological conniptions.
2. Economics. Given a constantly shifting travel demand, it's easier to shift where an airplane flies than to build more track. I would wager that the cost of Denver international would be quite comparable to upgrading the Boston-NY-DC track to high-speed-rail quality and upgrading passenger terminals/signals/etc. at those terminii. Granted locomotives and rolling stock is probably significantly cheaper than aircraft, but counting the airports and other infrastructure, I'm thinking the equation tilts in favor of planes being cheaper per passenger mile. I do invite rebuttal on this, though, not being a transportation engineer...
-- Kevin
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
I really think that we need more(and better) public transportation in the US, at least here in Tampa. The public transportation that I've seen in Florida is horrible. It's basically something that no one wants to ride. If we had a better system I would probably just take the bus or the train all the time.
I think that integrating high speed rail would also be wonderful, if I could go from here to Orlando in a half hour I'd do it all the time.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
450 miles isn't all that far...it's like what? 700km?
Granted, you aren't going to interlace the entire continent with high speed rail -- not yet.
But last time I looked, the are very large swaths of dense population in this country that can only be practically traversed by plane for purposes of business trave.
About the only thing that would beat that is ubiquitous, high quality videoconferencing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
50-60 years ago, the US was building up its car infrastructure, and Europe and Japan were building (in the wake of WWII) their train structure. No one had cars in Europe, so inter-city trains made sense.
Reversing the intertia of 50 years is not an overnight thing.
Yeah, around 725km. Though, remember, that's a "regional" flight that's done on a small aircraft (~50 people). Such a route could not support regular high-speed train service (~150 people a day), so it would require infrequent service (e.g. once a day) or high subsidies to make up for the lack of travel. Moreover, even a 300kph train takes two hours to complete what is 45 minutes in the air.
Now try expanding that to LA-NY - it would be a 18+ hour train ride, even with no stops and a 300kph train. That's a far cry from the 5-6 hours it takes by air.
High-speed train service makes sense when there are dense population centers that are close together. In the US, the only place where that exists is Boston-NY-DC. And, as expected, that's the only place in the US where there is high-speed train service (Acela).
Amtrak needs to focus on improving service in the Boston-DC corridor rather than on building out routes that no one will use. Denver-LA service is neither profitable nor necessary.
Including San Francisco to LA. California High-Speed Rail Project is planning a 350kph (217 mph) that will beat a plane flying the same route.
you can go by train almost everywhere there. and people go everywhere by train, even if they need to stay in a train for a week.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
I'd love it, but there are obstacles. The biggest is NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I am logging in from a public hotspot in Spokane, as I layover on Amtrak's Empire Express. I was surprised to find a hotspot I could access from my seat on the train. Rail is great way to travel. It's costing me $125 to cross the USA from Seattle to NYC. in the event of a crash it's only about a foot to ground. Smooth but boring, I will be here for 43 hours. Faster would be better.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Of course the oil supply is a problem. But, with a little effort, energy supplies are interchangeable. The real problem with cars versus mass transit isn't the fact that cars use oil as their form of energy. It's that cars use so much energy to accomplish their function. There's lots of room for efficiency improvements with new technology, but the most obvious way to fix this is to make cars smaller or put more people in each car.
I have a book here that shows a 747 uses about as much energy, per person per mile, as a volkswagon bug. According to the book, a motorcycle is four times more efficient than a beetle (on par with a city bus), and the average car is four times less efficient. This book was written in the late 70s, but (aside from gas/electric hybrids) I'd guess the numbers haven't changed that much.
Hybrid personal vehicle/rail systems are interesting, but even less realistic. "Ginger" was a step in this direction, and it doesn't seem to have panned out. It's hard to compete with Detroit without lots of government help. At least the busses where I live now have bicycle racks.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The thing about trains is that they are really just victorian technology. Modern trains may go faster, but they are still far to limited. High speed trains may work in the states if they could leave the tracks. What I propose is a new road network that has overhead electric lines and is limited to freight and coaches. Freight and coaches could use conventional roads until reaching the new road network. They could then use hybrid electrict motors at high speed, tacking there energy from the grid. Because these roads would be devoid of cars, they could go at high speed.
USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.
Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.
Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.
Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.
Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.
How about a solution that gives us the advantages of trains and cars at the same time?
With trains, every person is at the mercy of the schedule. With cars, every person is at the mercy of the smog and the expense. Is there a way around the trade offs?
Check out skytrans at http://www.skytran.net./
I, for one, would love to see this solution(?) get a chance to put up or shut up, but they need to build a test track and noone will give them the money. After reading all the info, they have a convincing case. Is there something missing? I don't see it.
But it's been milked to death through political corruption, doesn't run on schedule, and is pretty much out of money.
What's sad is that if the train and bus system ran on synchronized schedules, it would be very popular and making money. Presently it's common for the bus to be 1 minute late for the train which is running every 20 minutes except they had to pull the next train for maintenance so now you've got 39 minutes. and now you're late for the next bus that is running once/hour. The administration doesn't have a clue because they are all riding around in transit authority funded SUVs. How the hell do they expect anyone to use a system that requires one to two hours padding if one plans to arrive someplace on time?
For example. My son used the system for his junior year in high school. School was out at 3:15. The bus ran hourly leaving at 3:10. The 4:10 bus arrived at the train station just after the train left so another 20 minutes wait(provided they didn't pull a train), the next bus connection ran hourly and left 4 minutes before the train arrived. On a good day it took him a bit over two hours for a 9 mile ride from school. It got to be so frustrating that he would jog home instead.
As to the gov. subsidise, the only form requiring subsidizes is when
- There is a low ridership, which tends to happen here due to population (low income).
- High installation costs. Light rail train can be high, but tends to be low due to running it on the ground (such as in Denver).
- The operating costs are high. These are always due systems that require lots of manpower to run i.e. not automated. In fact, almost all Light-Rail (which it is not) transit has very high operrating costs due to using rails and mixing with roads.
If we do not wish to subsidize the operations (the most expensive part of it), then we need to move to using elevated/sub-terrain systems. Considering the extreme costs for sunk ones, that really leaves elevated for most of the USA. And due to the high costs of elevated LRT or HRT, that means monorail is the only cheap costs.As to the Feds, staying out of your life, it is more invasive than at any other time in USA history. Most of the high speed roads go through the federal gov taxing. Think of how the Feds. put pressure on Western states to lower our DUI limits by simply cutting off all road support unless they agreed to Federal Limits.
Another one is the supposed repeal of the Death tax. They simply shifted it from being on high-end taxes, to being on capital gains being passed allong (which did not use to get taxed).
You are simply trading one form of control for another.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The airlines are not subsidized. When you board an airplane, there is a tax on the ticket. That is supposed to go to the aviation industry (airport construction/expansion, ATC, etc). In fact, up till recent time, it was not in bad shape. Now the fund is raided to put into the general fund, the same way that the SS has been since the 80's.
Amtrack requires more money to be dumped in it from the USA general fund. If it was done properly, then the Feds would levy a tax on the ticket (effectively doubling the price), or would have the train pay for itself, which doubles it as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
MANY US cities could support highspeed rail systems very effectively. the population density of a city is not THE on important factor but cost/meter/traveler vs price/traveler/trip. any rail should be slightly more than self sufficient to allow 'free' expansion(as in the rail system can afford to build new stops without a tax levy or loan).
:)
!!!!!!!!!!!!those not interested in a long sprawling post, move on now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i now live in a city of just 120,000 and it could support a highspeed rail system for itself and two small communities next to it for a resonable price. something along the lines of the TGV and metro(france) or 'UNDERGROUND'(london). in a town like mine, trains could run as frequently as every 15 minutes and still be self sufficient.
i have work for BNSF and have a good level of knowledge about modern train systems and costs and small US cities can afford trains! a high speed train uses less fuel per meter hour of travel with 4 passenger cars than today's semi-trucks.
ignore the overall cost of rail for a moment as people see $2billion as a lot of money but fail to break down that pricetag to a percity and intracity link prices. each city could build a local transit rail system, then cityies can split the cost of intracity link between the two cities involved and have small towns between pay for the rail and station in or next to that city. just like $1,000,000 is a lot of money except when 1000 put in $1000. it still has a pricetag but it is managable and promotes more intracity travel when the rates are low.
small communites often do not have jobs for the population and a high percentage of the population commute to the larger cities nearby. Rail is cheaper for these people and often faster. the daily commute cost could be reduced by %50 plus the commute time is not spent driving and can be spent in more productive ways, like sleeping!
i once lived in london(hendon!) and used the oyster cards and paid about 100BPounds/month, which is ~$190 but IF this were in america it would be right around $100/month. and though london has a great system, it is old and costly compared to more modern systems like tokyo(i havent been so im going by readings on this!)
ok. ive gone on long enough.
I believe at least one of the reasons we don't have high-speed rail here is that there are additional technical difficulties in the United States that make upgrading to high-speed rail difficult. Specifically, most of the European and Japanese high-speed rail systems have very large minimum turning radiuses for their rails. In the United States, much of our existing rail infrastructure has turns that are way too tight for the types of high-speed trains found in Europe. From what I remember, Amtrak's Acela trains have a lot of additional features that the European/Japanese high-speed trains don't have in order to combat this issue, and still are not able to go as fast. Acela has had plenty of other problems too. (The most recent being problems with premature brake failure that resulted in the entire Acela fleet being taken out of service for a few months.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The automobile was indeed the train killer, not GM. This GM-dismantling-the-railroads story has no credibility whatsoever.
People always point to the Los Angeles case, where the excellent light rail system was bought by a consortium of GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil. But this was not to dismantle it. It was to make sure they were invested in whatever transportation did eventually dominate in a fast growing city. At the time no one knew. In fact they did operate the railroad for many more years, in spite of dwindling ridership. They would have continued, too. But the citizens of Los Angeles were banging down the doors of City Hall, demanding the trolley cars be removed -- because they were blocking traffic.
Read your history. Talk to some long time Los Angeles residents. This is the truth.
Both Sydney and Melbourne have excellent public transportation systems -- a combination of rail, bus, and ferry. In Sydney there are a few "holes" that are underserved, but this is true of London and Paris too. Consider yourself lucky -- it could be a lot worse.
Majore cities in the US have good public transportation. NY, Boston, Chicago, etc., are as good as anywhere. Even LA's is a lot better than people give it credit for. But the rest of the US sucks -- just like Australia!
Perhaps the biggest problem we have in the US is an anti-socialist mentality in high growth areas like the southeast. Red-state rednecks like their trucks, and don't want no gub'mint tellin' 'em what ta do.
There was a $9B bond issue to build the CA high speed rail link between LA and SF, but I don't know what happened to it.
Anaheim to Las Vegas has been talked about a lot too, even as a private venture between Disney and the Vegas casinos. But it's hardly worth it, because it's under a 4 hour drive for most southern CA residents. Why spend an hour going to the train station, another hour messing with ticketing and security, etc., when you could be more than halfway there already? Then there's the cost -- train tickets, paying to park, etc. So it's not worth it for most people. I doubt most tourists have enough money for both Disneyland and Vegas anyway!
I've lived on the east coast, Ohio, and Texas. I've also traveled quite a bit by train through Europe. In the northeast, distances between major cities are relatively short, population density is high, and once at a destination, local public transit is available. The Boston - Washington corridor is ideal for high speed trains and Amtrak has taken some tentative (some would say 'botched') steps in this direction. The Boston - Atlanta corridor might even make sense for high speed rail.
In Ohio, there have been proposals for YEARS about high speed trains connecting Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. It's gotten some support in the legislature, but is unlikely to ever happen. The right of way is not a major problem, as a high speed line could parallel I-71 for most of the distance. Money is an issue, as a long high speed line would be expensive, but the main problem is politics.
The legislators from the 3C cities would support it, but that would not be enough to pass funding. In order to gain support, the line would need to have stops in as many legislative districts as possible. This would assure that 1) costs would become astronomical, and 2) the high speed line would have so many stops that it would no longer be high speed.
In Texas, there was much talk of a line connecting San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas / Fort-Worth. The political problem was somewhat of an issue, but two problems proved insurmountable - opposition from two groups. The first is ranchers whose land would be bisected by the high speed line. They'd gain no benefit and the value of their property would be reduced. But the main problem was that there already is high-speed connections between San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas / Fort Worth. It's provided by a major Texas employer with considerable political clout - Southwest Airlines.
I really have enjoyed rail travel in Europe, and would love to see the US cris-crossed with high speed bullet-train or mag-lev routes. Best of all would be to integrate air and high-speed train travel, by having stops at major airports, and coordinating air and train schedules. Then high speed trains could be used for intermediate distances, and air for long distance travel. I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime, if ever.
[Insert pithy quote here]
www.skywebexpress.com/
SkyWeb Express is very user friendly. Just swipe a prepaid card through a stanchion in front of an empty waiting vehicle, punch in the destination number, take a seat in the vehicle and our computer control system will sweep you non-stop to your destination.
It operates on demand whenever you need it. Empty vehicles wait for you - not the other way around.
The ride is private. You don't share your trip with strangers, just with your family or friends.
The computer control system chooses the fastest way to your destination. You don't stop at any other stations as you travel across the guideway network. Stations are on sidings, so you just bypass ones along the way.
Not least, all of this can be done in a way that is extremely cost effective.
Whether as a short-distance circulator, an area-wide feeder to light rail or buses, or as a complete city-wide system, see what SkyWeb Express can do for you.
Welcome to the 21st century with our simple yet innovative system.
http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/sci.html
I will check around with others who were at the conference in the next few days and see if I can post some accurate information. But the last I heard, High speed rail is not dead in the USA.
Now, I have to say, this is not 300 mph service. We are only talking 120 or 150 mph tops, but it still beats the heck out of driving.
Peter, The Peter Files
http://thepeterfiles.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-too- can-enter-world-of-internet.html/
you should use skyscanner.net
it trawls all the cheap airlines for you and gives you plots of prices over time so you can see when to fly in the month and even in the day
and it doesnt work simply because of geography.
trains are not cost efficent for widespread regular use.
the geography makes it difficult.
and loved it. It is perfect for short to medium distance travel (300-700 miles) and goes places planes don't. My parents live in southeastern Iowa and I'm in Chicago. It's a 7-8 hour drive (Chicago traffic) and the closest airport is about 2 hours away and quite expensive because it's a small market (Des Moines). The AmTrak dropped me off about 45 minutes from their house in less than 5 hours. I didn't have the hassle of driving, gas, wear and tear on my car, stress, etc. They serve real food, you can drink, the lounge played current DVD's (The Incredibles), and there's tons of leg room. I think they really need to advertise more in order to get more passengers. Without the passengers there's no money to upgrade the trains and tracks. The current track system isn't designed to handle high speed trains and we'd end up with wrecks every month which would put them even further in debt. Anyhow, I'm all for the AmTrak although it does need an update.
Why are so many folks enamored of this 19th century technology that exists, for passenger purposes anyway, only with massive subsidies?
What next? Turbo-jet propelled Frigates?
Freight rail may be going great guns without subsidy.
But passenger rail is another story. The restrictions on equipment require that passenger cars be so overbuilt as to be absurd. It is the equivalent of forcing Honda to build the Civic on a 40 foot straight truck chassis.
The space required for people far exceeds that for freight. Freight can be packed tightly, box against box, in bulk carriers for grain or liquids, etc.
You can't do that with humans, except in socialist dream states, like China, Sov. Russia and 1930's Germany.
If it can not exist without forced subsidy, it should not exist. Take away the subsidies and remove the restrictions. If it survives by meeting the needs of customers that choose it voluntarily, fine.
and cell phones...
Think about it. We push off decent transit long enough we may just adopt the "second generation" transit system.
Now what is the second generation transit system you ask? I see that it as an intelligent system of pods that use the existing road ways and surface streets.
I'm not saying its the smartest path, but who chastises third world countries for bypassing Telegraph and Telephone to jump right into JustInTime production and Internet.
Don't sweat the small stuff. We'll get there when we get there. You think transit is needed, how about peddling old folks around in bicycle based cabs in retirement communities? Better yet, start a rikshaw service in your downtown neighborhood. Start it locally.
I'm starting one next week. Ya believe me don't ya?
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
I live in San Jose, California, and had a job out in Redwood City(spitting distance south of San Francisco). There's a train(CalTrain) that runs from South of San Jose(Gilroy to be exact), up to San Francisco, but I chose to drive to work instead of take the train for one simple reason: My car works after midnight. The job required overtime that went passed midnight, and there was no way for me to get home if I wanted to take the train. This is by far the biggest reason that people drive cars instead of take public transit, to save time. I used to take public transit everywhere, and didn't buy a car until I was 25 years old, Having to spend 45 minutes to an hour-and-a-half travelling somewhere by bus/lightrail, that you could goto in under 15 minutes by car, makes the car far more desirable. I wouldn't mind takeing public transit again, and with gas prices going up I just might do so, but the car will always be more convenient for where I live.
high travel 500 mile corridors.
[snip]
All of these corridors are a bit too small for efficient flight, and have enough traffic to support a train system.
There are more people going for shorter distances than there are going for long ones. The trains are supposed to provide exactly that travel which is a bit too long for the car, and a bit too expensive and inefficient when flying.
Part of the problem here is one of economics. I don't really dispute that there is sufficient traffic to support these not-quite-local distance travellers. However, there's only enough traffic to support these people in one (or maybe two) travel methods, but not in three.
Car, train, plane. Pick any 2.
You can have either a good interstate system, a good rail system, or a good air travel system, but not all three. Highways cost a lot of money, rail systems cost a lot of money, and airports cost a lot of money. Supporting all three just isn't going to happen.
You're pretty much forced to have a decent airport. You can see where the choice is.
The Europeans chose rail and air, and the public roads there mostly suck. The US chose car and air, and the rail system sucks.
Also, if you look at air travel, most of the major US air carriers would be bleeding even more red ink if they were only around for long-haul business. Think what air travel prices would be if they had to make up their costs just with coast to coast flights, and no regional jet service.
The other problem (related to Americans' love affair with the car, admittedly) is that most cities have absolutely awful local public transit systems. If you are doing regional travel and need to rent a car anyway... You may as well drive.
I have that as a issue with some personal travel. I routinely travel 400 miles (each way) for a weekend. It takes about 6.5 hours to drive, and I need a vehicle there anyway, so I'd be renting if I didn't drive. I can't fly directly, I have to go through a hub city.
By time, it's about equal... Arrive at airport an hour early, an hour to the hub, wait an hour, an hour to the destination, 30 minutes for baggage claim... assuming my bags make it on 2 regional hops with Delta. And that puts me an hour away from my actual destination. That's 5.5 hours instead of 6.5, and I have to deal with airport security.
A train? Where I am, and where I'm going, I'd be going through a train hub anyway, and doing even more miles.
I'll drive.
And, since I need to drive anyway, and I don't like the funding options for air travel or interstates if a rail system picks up... I'm actually against having a rail system.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I am in an opposite scenario. The closest airport that has more than 1 flight a day is 1.5 hours by car. And my flight from there would still require a hub connection. The one that does make a flight a day, for my destination requires a 6 hour layover.
As a student I can not afford to have a car, nor do I have any desire (or ability -- I will fall asleep) to drive for 8 hours.
The train takes 8 hours too, but it gets me from start to finish in one sitting, plus I can take the night one and sleep while travelling.
In my opinion, airports are disfunctional for small distances, as they typically require 2 flights if both your cities are non-hub. And if the airlines have too much trouble getting money to run their flights, so be it. Let them go bankrupt. I am surprised how much the government is willing to tolerate them. What company can declare a bankruptcy, only to get a 500 million dollar loan the next day? What kind of company gets to use a public resource created just for them (a hub airport) for practically free.
Given that I am of libertarian nature, I am all for eliminating subsidies for all airlines, and letting them go completely bankrupt. Let the consumers see what costs what. The 200 dollar flight to california. That would be $5000 please. That will put things into perspective, and will really say which technology is really more effective.
But those long flights are needed, and those people who need them will pay for them. Local flights are even bigger drain on resources, as the only reason air companies can keep them is because they pay very little for regional airports, and they absolutely struggle to get anyone who wants to get on to the long distance flight.I say let them go bankrupt. It will give more money to amtrak / other railroads, and the people will start heading to the hub airports using them, and not the tiny planes that cost the most money for airlines. Not every city can support a passenger airport, so why does each city need one.
I am all for eliminating many of the airlines. Their debts per year alone are bigger than Amtrak's yearly budget. And these debts are paid out of my taxes, and I do not even fly planes, and the airlines still do not work well for the places I am going frequently, and cost four times as much. Silly use of govt's money if you ask me.
badness 10000
I just need to watch out for Mr Glass.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
HSR to connect the two cities would run at about $18 billion and that is for 217mph trains. And oh by the way, Fresno, Bakersfield and the entire California Central Valley would then be less than 1h30 minutes away from LA and San Francisco. Considering that the Central Valley has a real problem with unemployment (~11%), this would be a big win for that part of California.
Running trains at 110 mph for many origin/destination cities in other parts of the country would be adequate.
Final thought here is something to think about Morocco, China, Russia, and other countries that we consider 'backward' are all planning on or are constructing HSR. Only the egotistical (spelling!) US is still stuck in a car/plane only world.
Add it up across everything. That rail between SF and LA doesn't get to you Denver any faster. While the airport expansion serves not only the SF-LA planes, but also SF to Denver, at no extra cost. Consider the cost of putting high speed rail city to city when you have several cities. Even if you could build LA-Denver and SF-Denver rail for $20 billion (with the mountains in the way? I don't think so), expanding all 3 airports comes in cheaper.
IF you only run 1 train an hour, those rails spend most of their time empty. A runway with one plane per hour doing the LA-SF run spends the rest of the hour dealing with things like SF-NY, SF-MSP, SF-London... (add in any other city around the work you want to get to). Don't forget that you need the runway anyway, because a train from SF to New Zealand is not a possibility, so it would be correct to say you can install a high speed rail for $18 billion, or do nothing. (because you need the airport anyway, so those costs are sunk)
Just like an airport people need to go to the train station. The train can make a few stops along the way, but that slows the route down, which can make the airport (including arrive 1 hour early) faster even if you have to go by the train station.
Now LA and SF are fairly close to gether, and one presumes that many people do want to get between the two cities. It might make perfect sense to install this particular route with high speed rail. I have not done the studies, so I don't know. They are close enough that enough people might ride it to make it worth the cost. (remember to factor in load taken from the airport and roads)
Transportation is complex. Most forms of transit makes sense for something. Trains are not the solution to all problems. They have many downsides, and they are not cheap.
What you all are forgetting is "Peak Oil" The trains are coming it is only a matter of time.
Check Paris-Marseille by train (in france), takes about 3h (with no checkin) for roughly this distance.
Now of course travels such as LA-NYC by train would be plain stupid and inefficient, but high speed bullet train such as Shinkansen of TGV is an alternative worth considering for travels up to 1000 to 1500km.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Also keep in mind that a SFO's peak capacity is 60 planes/hr * 200 people/plane = 12,000 people/hr (assuming SFO handles nothing but LA/San Diego traffic) With no ability to handle intermediate markets (too time and fuel intensive)
Compare that to an HSR train system: 20 trains/hr/track * 2 tracks * 500-1000 people/train = 20000 - 40000 people/hr. With much ability to handle intermediate markets ( a 6 minute time penalty per station stop, marginal energy effect.)
Each has a place. Trains 100-600 miles. Planes >600miles or across water. Mountain ranges are manageable - HSR can handle >3.5% slopes (All-wheel drive, lightweight and a running start) After all we are talking trains that can go > 186mph.
Look at the financial information on the ATA website. The U.S. airline net profit from 1934-2002 = $0 (including direct subsidies but not indirect) Examples of indirect subsidies: Air Traffic Control, Airports, no taxes on fuel, and foreign flagged airlines are not allowed to fly between two U.S. cities.
Car users only pay about 2/3's of the direct costs of maintaining the road system. Some indirect costs: that free parking at work, on the street in front of your house, at the McDonalds. Of course in Silicon Valley we subsidize the cars in other ways -- like $750K condo's (parking lots cannot be used for homes, so less homes). Take a look at this satelite photo of silicon valley to see how much land we devote to cars.