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?"
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.
Err, what's so bad about cars? I'm not trolling, but I feel that cars are a very good mode of transportation. With a car, you are able to go anywhere that you want, when you want, and at reasonable speeds. With a well-built freeway system, I could go up to about 65-70 miles per hour. Many Americans don't take public transportation for a few reasons: it doesn't go everywhere that they need to go (in some neighborhoods, there are no bus stops; you'll need to walk two to three miles to catch a bus, if you're lucky), it is slower than a car in many cases (time needed to wait for the bus, all of the bus stops the bus makes, and traffic on the roads), and in some places (especially urban areas), the buses aren't too safe.
The serious downside of the car, though, is that cars require an energy source. The energy source that most of our cars run on is oil. Unfortunately, there is only a finite amount of oil, and the global demand for that oil is growing each year. Look at all of these people with their big Chevy Suburbans and Hummers in the suburbs, for example. Pretty soon, we'll run out of oil, and if we don't find any alternative sources of energy soon, the world wouldn't be too great of a place to live.
I wish that two things would happen, alternate energy sources are further developed, and that public transportation and other modes of transportation are improved. More people would take public transportation if it went everywhere that people needed to go at a relatively decent speed, at a reasonable price, and with safety. Plus, I wish that motorcycles were a bit more popular. They have all of the speed advantages of a car, but also aren't too much bigger than a bicycle and are pretty efficient. Imagine a hybrid gas-electric motorcycle, for example.
... 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).
Anyway, the point I was making (I'll repeat it one more time, then accept that you're just going to ignore it) was that cars helped spread the population out.
Simply not true, at least if you define "industrial nation" as one where most people are connected to the industrial economy. A century ago, there was plenty of industry, but a good majority of Americans lived either on farms or in small towns that were the centers of the agricultural economy. That remained true up until World War II. Look it up. Jeez, I was explaining how the TGV contributes to denser population nodes, that's all. But if you want you want to talk about getting gouged, let me remind you that the government ain't the only power capable of doing that. Look at how much you spend on your car, in the form of buying the damn thing, insuring it, gassing it up, and paying all the taxes for the gigantic infrastructure that supports it. Not to mention fighting lots of nasty wars to protect those oil sources we need so badly. Even if the French taxpayer is getting ripped off, he not that much worse off than you are. The only difference his his taxes are mostly being spent in France. A good chunk of your car costs are going into the pockets of the Saudi elite.Most people I know go to suburbia because it is where they can afford to live. In cities like Boston, NY, Chicago (one I've lived in), etc - the cost of living in the city itself is outrageous. Living in suburbia and going to the city is much cheaper. So real estate cost is another reason for suburban sprawl.
Lot of catch-22 situations in cities. If they were designed from the start with today's technology I think most of the problems would be easy to solve (and include public transport). Trying to change an existing city to fit some of those things though is a big deal. How do you get enough land to build trains? What kind of cost would it be to build subways? Etc.
In the city, you can make do with only one car, or none at all.
A car will cost $10,000 per year, all inclusive (AAA figures). So, in 20 years (10 years if you have no car at all), you'll spend the same amount for the car as the price difference for a city house. And when you'll retire, the extra money you will have spent in your house will be in your equity, whereas the money you would have spent in a car would simply be gone up in smoke...
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
flying is still one of the cheapest
Provided your time and aggravation are free.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Um I can drive farther faster, than you can take a train. It's also a lot less expensive.
I do agree flying between random points is very expensive, but flying to major points is cheap.
ie from Syracuse, NY to Boston ma is $400 flying takes 3hours including time spent waiting.
Driving takes 5 hours, non-stop
Rail takes 12 hours, price I don't know.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Uh, oh. Data. The death of discussion on /.
Your argument is excellent. Pick some complementary data and it still works, which is a good cross-check:
Low density doesn't work for trains: The train used to be the primary transit link in Australia (2.6 people/km^2). Now air is. On the other hand other high-density countries (India: 318 people/km^2) still depend on rail links, although high-speed ones will be very hard to build.
Your distance metric is quite important too: go to any european rail site (bahn,de, sncf.fr, etc) and try to book a long-distance ticket (e.g. Stockholm-Venice, Paris-Prague etc). There are very few and the trip would take a long time. Flying is cheaper and faster overall. Paris/London is the perfect test: right on the cusp of train/flight tradeoff, and in fact you can chose them both; train is more expensive.
Note that this works on smaller scale: New York (10,238 people/km^2) and Chicago (12,747) both support rich (underground) train networks (as do many European cities of course). LA, with only about 3K/km^2 can't (and that is not even as uniformly distributed as New York's, much less Chicago's) cannot. Oh, and Australia with no effective passenger train network? Sydney and Melbourne have good train networks too.
Sorry folks. I miss the trains too, but they don't work.
But what about railroads? Amtrak you say. Starvation funding has not done that company any good. Nor has the byzantine rules Congress forced the company to follow, such as keeping a certain tongage of coal on hand for it's locomotives.
Even if cross country train travel is no longer relevant, the local trains, particularly high speed trains, can and should compete with airlines. Chicago to St. Louis or Milwaukee or Duluth. Cincinnati to Lexington. Kansas City to Oklahoma City. Houston - Dallas. LA - SanFran. New York - pretty much everywhere in New England.
It's time to bring the true interurban railroads back. We can make them fast and reliable. They are cheaper to operate in terms of fuel than airplanes. And they are much more comfortable.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
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]
I used to live 330 miles from London.
I could fly but it was expensive and you had to add at least an hour on for the messing about at the airport. Also you had to get to the airport in the North, and then you had to get from Heathrow or Gatwick in to the centre of the London (which meant use the shuttle trains in to Paddington or Waterloo).
I could drive but you're looking at 5 hours plus (even at my driving speeds) on a good day. Basically in good weather, clear roads and no works I could average 70mph plus but otherwise it's usually more like 50mph plus. Then you have parking and the like.
Train is cheaper than air tickets (just) and is about four hours. From where I lived it was ironically still useful to get to the airport as you could catch the local metro rail system from there to the central station. From there you step on to an express to London. Which whisks you in to the centre and you can use the Tube from there.
With the modern facilities on high(ish) speed trains in the UK I'd rather use the train than the plane every time. Power sockets, WiFi, phone, tables, nice seats *with legroom* and if you take advantage of the dining car then the food isn't bad either.