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.
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.
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.
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 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."
Or a land area that takes 4 days to get across, but at least we got our jab at SUV owners in.
"Derp de derp."
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
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.
What about L.A. to San Francisco, or to Sacramento? Distancewise, they're pretty comparable to Paris-Lyons, and certainly L.A. and San Francisco have sufficient population densities.
I think it mostly comes down to network effects. The car culture is what perpetuates the car culture.
When you get off the train in Paris, I'm guessing that you can step straight onto the intracity transit system. It's the only thing that makes sense, because all those people flooding in through the train system need somewhere to go. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, everyone drives their own intracity transit system, and few use mass transit because it's not robust enough to handle more than a tiny fraction of the city's transportation needs.
In conclusion, it's not a matter of distances and densities. If it doesn't make sense to build a commuter train between LA and Frisco, it's because once you get off you'll have a hell of a time getting anywhere without a car.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 don't think much of your History teacher!
When do you think the first motorway in Europe was built? More importantly by whom? (1930s Germany)
When you do think the railways were built? 50 or 60 years ago our railways were already 150 years old. Both my grandparents had cars in the fifties.
Goddess knows where you got your ideas of Europe from but they're a bit wrong.