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?"

Comments

A Good Thing

[Quattro Vezina]

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.

Flying

[comwiz56]

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.

Re:Flying

[Seraphim1982]

Granted a train takes longer, but this is offset by the fact you can work or relax effectively on a train. Seriously, I'd rather take a train than first class air travel any day.

It's also offset by the fact that there is a lot less waiting involved in a train trip. You don't have to deal with security like at the airports, and you don't have as big of a problem with luggage. In addition train station are generally located in the middle of cities, while airports are generally located on the outskirts of cities, so it may be esier to get where your going once you arrive if you take a train.

They don't care.

[Pig Hogger]

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.

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.

Re:They don't care.

[Murphy Murph]

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.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

Re:They don't care.

[An Onerous Coward]

Why live out in the boonies, though? Either you're out there to do something that requires lots of land (farming, mining, being a forest ranger, etc), or to support those who do. Cars make sense when everything is far far away from everything else, but the vast majority of us live in areas where a good mass transit system could replace cars entirely. Nevertheless, we chose cars anyways, and we have to live with the pollution and expense that choice requires.

We chose to build vast tracts of suburbia, whose only purpose was to store people far away from the cities which provided their livelihoods. That choice necessitated that we build roads to make sure these people could use their cars in the cities. That forced sprawl on the cities themselves, since so much room has to be taken up with roads, parking lots and parking garages, gas stations, etc. It also made the lives of pedestrians and cyclists harder. Things are further apart, and much of a pedestrian's commute is spent waiting for their turn to cross the streets.

Every time we make a decision that increases the usefulness of cars at the expense of alternatives, we make it that much harder to give them up down the road.

Trains are best for medium distances

[bluGill]

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 problem is the US gov't.

[slashdot_commentator]

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.

Re:beating the dead horse

[spitzak]

They have cars in Europe, you know. They like them a lot, I seem to remember the Italians and Germans in particular really like cars. Doesn't stop them from having trains, too.

If they vote for it, they will build it.

[I am Jack's username]

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

Economic strength is also important. Finland, Sweden, and Russia are not only poorer but have lower pop. densities, yet have vastly superior rapid train systems.

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.