Slashdot Mirror
Japan Tests New Bullet Train
dmolavi writes "
Japan's largest railway company began a test run for a new bullet train that it eventually aims to operate at a record-breaking 223 miles per hour -- faster than many propeller airplanes -- according to recent news reports.
"
One of the odd points about this train (other than the retractable cat ears) is that it isn't symmetrical. One end is a completely different shape than the other. Apparently this is just for testing purposes. The US airforce calls it a "flyoff", where two designs are built and tested head to head. In this case it seems they are having trouble determining what the best nose shape is. Normally this is a fairly simple problem, but Japan has a lot of tunnels, and diving into a tunnel at 360kph is a rather difficult aerodynamic problem. Nothing like a full-scale model. For much more detailed information, see this press release. (Japanese press releases have a habit of actually being informative, unlike their North American counterparts.)
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Only in Japan would a train's noses look like manga characters!
Trains like this are becoming more and more prevalent in mainland Europe. Indeed, they are smashing the national boundaries in ways that are almost unimaginable. I know people in Germany who are able to work in Italy, and only have a 45 minute train commute each way!
When I visited the US I noticed that there were almost no passenger trains. Indeed, I wish there were, because I far prefer trains to planes and driving.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Is riding on one of these trians much cheaper then flying? Seems like it would be just about as dangerous...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
What's the advantage of super-fast trains over airplanes?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
can it stop?
Can't wait for Terminal.....
..Jeff Keegan
seven syllables explain TiVo: kee gan dot org slash ti vo
A joke comes to mind that has to do with a gun for firing birds at high speed trains to test thier wind shields and has the punchline of thaw the chicken..........
Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
Japan Tests New Bullet Train
Meanwhile, in other news...
North Korea Tests New Bullet
As someone who has ridden the shinkansen (spelling?) and also watched as the faster ones I couldn't afford traveled by a station, they are an awesome sight!!!!
These trains create far less pollution than flying. But that is because they also you far less fuel, and the fuel they do use burns far more efficiently than jet fuel. The lower fuel consumtion leads to them being far cheaper, as well. In some areas of Japan you can get a unlimited-use monthly train pass for the equivalent of US$120. That's the cost of a one-way plane ticket between very close destinations.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Try getting around the UK by train. It's about the equivalent of Sri Lanka in that respect, only not as cheerful.
It's really France and Germany who are of just the right size for train travel and with lots of money to put into it (and, in Germany at least, an unwillingness to cover the entire country in tarmac as the UK is doing).
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
and has the added benefits of killing off all the various fauna that mill around under the elevated track.
A bullet train doesn't have to compromise areodynamics to stay in the air. Much more efficient.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Saying that the 200+mph speed is 'faster then many propeller planes' is an awfully strange comparison. Most single engine general aviation aircraft (eg, Cessnas, Pipers, etc) typically cruise around 100-120mph, so that comparison applies to some of the existing bullet trains already.
If, on the other hand, the submitter is comparing it to Turboprop commuter airplanes (to suggest that the train is faster then the plane you might otherwise use), then those typically have cruise speeds of 250-350mph, so...
Finally, I'm guessing we can appreciate the cruise speed on its own merits. There's probably no need to give the unladen speed of the next flying whatchamacality in 'mpa' (many propeller airplanes). "Ah yes, the Rotamo air car flies at 1.5mpa!" It'll be the new LoC measurement for speed.
Seems like it would be just about as dangerous...
Which means, far less dangerous than a car or bike. You're still more likely to die in car ride to the airport or train station, terrorists be damned.
....but the cost of builting these are just too high for the population density here.
You don't get much chance to ride on the ground at that speed. The price of the ticket probably going to cost similar to a plane ticket, but I will definite try it when I go to Tokyo.
The technical aspert certainly sound interesting too, I remember reading a japanese comic about a teenage who live in a neightbodhood that are ruinned by the noise of a bullet train. So from my understanding Japanese might not be too happy about the bullet train situation in their homeland. The speed actually isn't what I most interested in. I wonder what kind of noise these would make when it is on surface!
That's almost 360km/h - pretty fast for a train.
The new Bullet Rickshaw
Credit to the Daily Show writers for that one
Train travel tends to be slightly cheaper than planes, but a whole lot safer and more convenient. For visitors, it is definitely your cheapest option to travel by train because you can buy an all-purpose train pass to travel on any lines run by Japan Rail which is basically a monopoly. Even a cross-country train can generally be caught every hour while airplane schedules in Japan are far less convenient for most locations.
The german ICE can do this speed since 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE
I hate to be a skeptic, but this train seems pretty damn scary. The idea of going that fast on land just doesn't seem to be too safe. So while reading the article and looking for some clues to its safety, I stumble across a quote that the train "has cat ear-shaped air-brakes that pop up from the rooftops to help slow the train in an emergency." Is it just me, or in an emergency situation, wouldn't you like to have something a little more reassuring than cat ear-shaped air brakes?
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Of course, any airplane (sans no-fly zones) has the ability to go directly from A to B, whereas the train--with all its speed--must still go around geological obstacles...
"I'm a philosophy major. That means I can think deep thoughts about being unemployed." -- Bruce Lee
There has never been a fatality (in 40+ years) due to accident on a Shinkansen (bullet train.)
They are also much cheaper than flying and rail stations tend to be right downtown.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
They also don't have to refuel and load luggage (at least, far less since they are intended for commuters largely). That gives them a faster turn around time. Add in that they can stop at any point along the track completely safely if given enough warning and you have a much more convenient system of travel.
Never confuse volume with power.
The airlines will take a bunch of that money the federal government gives them (in subsidies) and use it to lobby legislators to prevent just such a thing from happening. God bless America!
-- $SIGNATURE
It's much cheaper because it can go directly from one downtown to another, whereas most airports are located somewhat far away from cities.
On top of this, boarding is a lot lot faster (no need to be there 1 hour before departure).
No-one has ever died in a bullet-train accident. In fact, there have been no derailments in 40 years of service -- except one last year when an earthquake struck exactly below a speeding train (in Niigata prefecture). The train jumped the tracks at 200kph, but no-one was injured.
In Korea bullet trains are for old people.
According to Wikipedia the I.C.E. 3 train already reaches 350 km/h (^= 217 mph). And it's been around for some years now.
I'm only mildly impressed.
IAAL
...meanwhile, in the U.S., alternatives to driving continue to shrivel up and die. All hail the almighty automobile. As someone who cannot get a DL, living here in the U.S. is becoming more sucky every day. Public transportation funding getting cut despite everyone and their brother bitching about traffic gridlock. Amtrak dying slower than BSD. ;) Airlines going bankrupt yet still charging ridiculous fares. A word of advice, if you can't drive, never ever move to the Midwest. You'll regret it.
Oh yeah, it'd be cool to ride on one of these trains though.
Maybe the Japanese, with their famously polite society can make this kind of thing work, but it's doomed here in America.
sigh
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Faster than you, too.
Given the fact that Amtrak is supposed to compete against airplanes and that Amtrak is covering great distances, it should be using bullet trains exclusively.
Amtrak has been a money-losing operation since day #1. For some reason, the American politicians just cannot determine why Amtrak remains unprofitable. How can anyone be so ignorant that he cannot see the reason? No one wants to ride a train for 2 or 3 days when you can take an airplane for equivalent cost to the same destination in less than a day.
Does any American politician even know the phrase, "Japanese bullet train"? The answer to Amtrak's problems is staring the American government in the face, and no one is adovating the right solution. I almost think that the lobbyists for the commercial aviation industry (i.e. Boeing & Airbus) want to ensure that Amtrak is not allowed to use bullet trains.
Don't like the transit people pushing people into the train during rush-hour in Japan, though. Sure it's efficient, but it's also extremely uncomfortable. If you're visiting, do yourself a favor and ride the rails during off-peak hours.
AnimeNEXT anime convention
While Japan Rail is indeed a ubiquitous state controlled company, the actual system is quite clever. Private enterprise is free to create rail lines on a route they think will be profitable, e.g. the toyoko-sen. Then, the government builds slow trains on the little routes that private enterprise doesn't want, to ensure that all areas are covered. Thus, everyone has rail service, and the most important routes are kept effective by competition. It also means that major factories and (in the past) stores could arrange their own private rail links for their own particular traffic needs. I think many other countries could learn a lot from this system, although like everything else in Japan it's getting a bit grubby now.
The bullet trains are an exception -- they're all-govt because, well, two competing bullet trains side by side would be silly.
Specially if they had cat ears.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Seems like it would be just about as dangerous...
As far as I know, flying on a commercial jet was always safer than any other type of public transportation.
The population density is a factor, but not the big one. We're a car obsessed culture and we'll spend billions on highways (the interstate system?) before we put a penny into public transportation. It could be done, but we're more concerned about building bigger roads. But the population density in the north east is just as high as anywhere else in the world. Canada is considering a high speed train for the toronto to montreal corridor. If we can feasibly make a case for it, then surely the US can do better than those greyhound busses they have.
Cheapness varies, in western europe or japan it's usually worth considering, especially since you don't have any kind of check ins or anything, just jump into the train and you're done (if you have your ticket already, that is).
And it's much less dangerous, you can't even compare bullet train danger with planes danger (one of the factor being that if the engines fail the tain just stops...)
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
most people don't like trains, don't want them around, and they certainly don't want the extra noise that would result from more, and faster trains.
"The train is expected to make the 360 mile trip between Tokyo and Aomori --about the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles -- within three hours, half of the amount of time it currently takes."
A train that can do over 200 mph, and they're planning to run it just over 120 mph. Any ideas why? Are there lots of stops?
Bullet trains require something Amtrak will never have: lots of straight, well-built track to get up to that speed.
Besides, where is Amtrak going to get that money? They're struggling to maintain what they already have... What you're talking about is a HUGE investment.
The Acelas on the Northeast Corridor (one of the most important pieces of track Amtrak owns) were intended to provide higher-speed trains on conventional track by leaning into the turns. They generally do provide faster service when they're running, but of course the Acelas haven't been without their problems.
Japan is only 145,883 square miles... by the time the train hits 223 miles per hour, it's almost time to stop!
i njirushi-2_lg.jpg
Besides, there's something green that travels faster, hotter, and leaves the customer feeling completely exhilarated. See the picture below: http://www.quickspice.com/scstore/images/wasabi-k
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
- This train can make a few stops along the way; something rather impractical for an aircraft. You can even have it pick up passengers at a few stations in the same town, then accelerate to the top speed for the long haul.
- You can board the train right in town (or even in a choice of towns, see previous point). Compare that to airports that usually are a hundred miles from nowhere.
- No 2-hour check in procedure. Go to the station, bring your ticket, board the train. That's all... at least in my experience on the Eurostar and the Shinkansen.
- Usually you get better seating, more to see along the way, more opportunity to walk around, and if you're lucky the bar car will have actual food instead of airplane meals made from unclaimed luggage.
So yes, it has a number of good advantages. The main thing with flying is that it would be great if it was just flying, and didn't include the stressy stuff like getting to the airport, baggage check and claiming, passport control, checking in, security checks, etc.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
It's a train... it's a duck... let's call it a TRUCK
The TFA also mentions TGV which runs at 216 mph.
Error: No error occurred
The article says that "French company Alstom SA's TGV, or Train a Grande Vitesse, is currently the world's fastest train, operating at a top speed of 218 mph.", but it corresponds to nothing; the current record for a train (not maglev) is 320.2mph (515.3kph) and not 218mph (350.83kph) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV. The current record in daily use is Japan's Nozomi bullet train with ~163mph (261.8kph) over 192km (119.31mi)
High-speed trains are quite popular in Japan and Europe, and many Americans scratch their heads and ask why?, especially when they cost almost as much as flying.
There are a few key reasons why they are so great:
1. Central terminals: trains tend to depart and arrive near the center of cities, while airports tend to be located outside the city. When I take the Eurostar train from London to Paris, I knock off 1/2 hour travel time at each end just because of the location.
2. No airports: flying in America (and to a lesser extent other places) is painful. You're asked to arrive a few hours early and treated like a criminal. I traveled in Japan on the bullet trains, and we had to arrive before the train left (they are famous for being on time) but that was it. No body cavity search, no x-rays, no checking in a few hours early. No only did I leave and arrive right in the middle of the respective cities (saving time) I did so according to the actual travel schedule, not according to some ridiculous security schedule.
3. Comfort: trains are the most comfortable way to travel. They are quieter than planes, roomier, have bigger windows and nice views (when flying I sometimes get a nice view out the window, but usually just see clouds or the dude sitting next to me), the air is normal pressure, you can walk around at any time, etc. You also have your luggage right there in the car with you so you can get to it at any time. A recent train ride I took from London to Edinburgh took half the time driving takes, each seat had power outlets, and there was WiFi access available as well as a full meal car.
4. Distances: when traveling in Europe and Japan, travel time isn't dominated as much by the distance. The end-to-end time is often better on trains when traveling between major cities (with good rail links). You arrive at the centrally located station a few minutes before the train leaves, enjoy a (relatively) comfortable ride, then step off at the other end with your bags (no waiting for baggage claim) and walk out into the center of your destination city. The timing may not work quite as well for New York to Los Angeles, but for London to Paris or Brussels, or for Los Angeles to San Francisco, a good train line makes a lot of sense.
- Russ
The article says the French TGV reach 218 mph
I think a major problem with Amtrak is the rail system is rather old and out-dated. They don't have the money to operate let alone to upgrade.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
In 'What Planet Are You From?'.
'They're a hundred years behind us. They haven't even figured out the ground is the fastest way to fly.'
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
which is a good thing when this thing derails
this sig has been discontinued.
Superman is confused as hell. "I can't remember if I'm faster than a speeding train and more powerful than a bullet, or the other way around," the superhero said in an interview Monday. "I mean, I guess it's really both, but now that bullets ARE trains, I'm all confused."
The U.S. rail network is huge, with tens of thousands of level crossings, and millions of miles of unfenced track. It simply isn't practical to run at more than about 130 kph on such lines.
Years ago, the U.S. decided to pour infrastructure money into the interstate highway system, not rail lines. I'm ambivalent about whether or not that was the right choice. We all love to hate cars and trucks, and they are less efficient than trains, but building fenced lines with elevated crossings would be an astronomical expense.
Canada ran the "Turbo" in the Montreal-Toronto corridor for many years. It simply took out too many animals and cars and trucks, in addition to being stopped too often for rail maintenance. And it was only a 200 kph train, I think.
does it make "Nyaaaa!" when stopping?
=^_^=
When I think of where I live (Canada), I think of large distances of sparsely populated areas. It seems to me there would be a nightmare keeping the tracks free of animals. That's a lot of fences that need to be kept in good shape. What would happen to a train travelling at 350 km/h when it hits a large male moose? Or maybe a localised snow squall that dumps a metre of snow drift across the tracks. I guess it would only be practical between Detroit and Montreal, or Toronto and NYC. Sorry, I can't really speak for the west (e.g. Calgary to Edmonton?).
Amtrak has been a money-losing operation since day #1. For some reason, the American politicians just cannot determine why Amtrak remains unprofitable. How can anyone be so ignorant that he cannot see the reason? No one wants to ride a train for 2 or 3 days when you can take an airplane for equivalent cost to the same destination in less than a day.
Amtrak was the governments attempt to rescue the failing rail industry from certain death. All that was done was that existing rails were combined under one company, and tracks were reallocated for *both* passenger and freight routes. Almost no new tracks have gone down since Amtrak was created.
Unfortunately, neither the government or the US population takes trains seriously. As far as we're concerned, our air travel and highway systems are far better suited to freight and passenger service. Now that trains are beginning to reach speeds of over 200 mph, a bullet train from NY to CA could be almost as fast as a plane. But then you have political problems. Who's going to fund the infrastructure? A Federal program? Which states would be assigned that program? How could it be ensured that all those states manage to produce the same level of workmanship on the raised tracks and tunnels? How would such a proposal impact existing lands?
There are a lot of complex questions that are difficult to answer *because* of the US's "collection of countries" design. As the technology improves in other countries you may see some answers that might make a bullet train possible. My only hope is that it is not lumped under the generally mismanaged Amtrak program.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
More dangerous.
When a plane fails, they can dump it into the ocean or a low poputation area.
When a train fails, it either grides to a stop, or jumps track and takes out people, houses, and businesses.
Pretty Pictures!
Hey; they put cat-ears on their anime-girls all the time, why not on their bullet trains?
And those anime-girls seem to have no problems surviving 300-mph crashes, so, those cat-ears must work!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Simple: Blame Detroit.
... except for the people who stand to lose the most money on it.
Call it conspiracy theory or anything you like, but we have aviation and auto industries that have and would scream "end of the world" if there were more public funds applied to anything but freight railway systems.
Our freight railway systems are pretty good I hear. Not fast like the bullet, but they don't have to be.
With all these concerns about energy and all that, I think it's more than past time to check into this as a way to save energy spending. New highways are constantly being built and it takes a DAMNED long time out here to build. (I think they get paid by the hour...) Railways are far more efficient with the use of land and can carry more people... people who would be more than glad to give up their cars for an easier ride to work. Heck, where I work, there are LOTS of people opting for the bus and trains in the Dallas area. They work and are steadily increasing in popularity.
So, in short, it would seem the "times" are ready for it and the people want it. It would be far more convenient than air travel (unless they put all kinds of ridiculous restrictions on boarding and stuff to mirror the airlines) cheaper and cleaner. It would address so many of today's concerns for convenience, safety, *COMPETITION* and energy economy that it would seem everyone wants this
Yeah, if you go through the wrong line-up in a train station I doubt it causes this! Ciao, Dcobbler
Superman is sitting next to some guy in a jail cell... So why are you in here? Some hooker made a crack about me being faster than a speeding bullet train so I ripped her in half.
I am in the England, and have to commute to work and back on the trains.
My record is leave work at 16:30 and finally get home at 21:30 - 5 hours to travel 25 miles - average 5 miles per hour
Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it, Japan.
There's a huge hurdle in terms of infrastructure there. You don't just slap a bullet train onto existing freight lines and let 'er go.
You'd need to lay all-new rail lines, with banked curves and so forth, and they'd be different, all the way around, from the rail used elsewhere in US. Since, AFAIK, the Amtrak lines closest to profitability are actually the shorter ones up in the northeast (connecting, say, DC, Boston, and NYC), it's not particularly effective to put in a bullet train there, where you'll get more traffic, but not gain anything much in speed (despite incurring huge cost to do it).
Canthros
Most of Amtrak operates on shared tracks with freight trains.
These tracks are not built to handle high-speed trains. Also, this shared use favors the freight trains; Amtrak trains have to move over if a freight train is coming. This means that if a freight train is leaving a station 1 hour ahead of the Amtrak's current position, and there's a pullover spot right there but no others for the rest of that 1 hour stretch, the Amtrak must get out of the way and wait for an hour at a dead stop, until the freight train goes by.
I once used Amtrak to travel from Kansas City to St. Louis. That train continues on to Chicago, and the return train does the opposite: Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City. KC->St. Louis took me over 6 hours. It'd have been a little more than twice as fast just to drive the damn thing. On the return trip, the train from Chicago was a little less than two hours late arriving at the St. Louis station. We had about another 1.5-2 hours worth of delays again from St. Louis to Kansas City, so that one was late as hell, too.
Amtrak sucks the devil's ass. I'll never use them again.
There has never been a fatality (in 40+ years) due to accident on a Shinkansen (bullet train.)
It seems that there have been fatalities where the Shinkansen have been involved. See here and here.
> Amtrak is the inter-state railway system in the USA and is supposed to be equivalent to the inter-prefecture system in Japan. Yet, why does Amtrak refuse to use bullet trains?
No money, bigger country. Japan's rail corridor is practically a straight line. Once you get off Honshu, there's some truly remote back-country you're taking dirt roads to get to.
France has TGV, but that's considered a big boondoggle to everyone but commuters.
The Shinkansen is cheaper than flying? Since when?
Last time I checked the cost of a trip from Tokyo to Oosaka, flying was conciderably cheaper and faster.
This certainly surprised me, as I had assumed the bullet train would have been a better deal, but such was not the case.
The northeast corridor (DC to Boston) is one of Amtrak's few profitable routes. They did have a high speed Acela train that could go 100mph on good sections of track, but it was pulled from service after they found cracks in the brakes. It might be back in service by this summer.
Are the Acelas running yet? Last I heard they found cracks in the brake rotors and stopped all service. I was driving through Philadelphia yesterday and noticed a few Acela trains just sitting there in the yard.
Amtrak doesn't own the rails. The rails are owned by different railroads in different places. In my town, an Amtrak train runs on rails owned by CSX, as do commuter rail trains and freight trains. Sure, Amtrak may own rails in some places.
Rails in the US are essentailly analogous to private toll roads. In most places, they're owned by the dominant user
stop Arnold in Ca from pushing new rules for hybrids. Not sure , just vaguely remember this.
Detroit basically cried and said thats not fair.
In contrast, most of the high-speed train track is well away from populated areas. The passengers are at risk if something goes wrong, but no one else is (excluding disasters with chemical freight trains). And if you happen to be in a train which crashes at high speed, your chances of survival are still better than a crashing airplane.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Youmight have heard: Japanese are not afraid of technology - they embrace it and like it. I could see that in so many aspects, and am sure they will have the first commercial fusion plant. They might not develop the core tech, but they will use it, you can bet on that. (and I wouldn't the least be surprised if, once built, will be operated by bipedal robots).
Sigged!
last Autumn, there were several earthquakes in the Chuetsu area on the back-side of Honshu. The largest of these earthquakes caused a crash for the bullet train, which rocked off its tracks and scraped along for 2 kilometers. No one was seriously injured, but that is really out of blind luck-- the train happened to be on a raised track, with cement walls on either side-- other places the track has only chain-link fence separating it from other trains or open fields.
In short, JR dodged a disaster. They don't want to press their luck. If a train could rapidly decelerate, then perhaps the risk of a crash could be reduced.
Then again, maybe someone watched Totoro once too many times.
davejenkins.com |
This train is too fast, imagine the havoc that terrorists could cause with it.
For the love of god will somebody please think of the children.
More the passenger rail industry than the freight rail industry. While the freight rail was in decline, Amtrak has done little to help it. Mostly it was saved by the switch to using shipping containers and hauling semi trailers. Freight rail is now doing just fine, though rails are still disappearing as the new business model relies on trucks for local access instead of trains leaving cars at individual warehouses.
There's a 2-year old article on Amtrak at the Christian Science Monitor's site that discusses this question in depth.
for the flying car.
And it's five years late already.
aims to operate at a record-breaking 223 miles per hour -- faster than many propeller airplanes
The train only needs to be fast enough to outrun Godzilla the next time he decides to stomp Tokyo. Of course, they'd need some kind of shielding to protect against his breath which they can't outrun. I don't think those really cute Hello Kitty ears really help with aerodynamics.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
The rest is all conversion.
Granted it can get pretty ridiculous (decifathoms/year or parsecs/picosecond) and rounding errors introduce some imprecision but its all calculatable.
All you need is a conversion chart when you write your code.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Is it supposed to look like that dragon from DBZ? I have expected to see Goku standing on it, riding it.
That post has to be the best example of why trains will NEVER take hold in the US. Irrational fear, mixed with ignorance and lame cultural mockery. Stick to your 4 hour, 100km commute by car, yanks, that way you will be "safe" as the rest of the world can pass you by in style.
Amtrak doesn't own the rails.
That was the original concept. In actual practice, Amtrak ended up owning the Northwest Corridor and several other key rails that they then rent out to freight services.
I did misspeak, though. My intention was to say that Amtrak combined existing rail lines (e.g. passenger services) under a single company. The President fully expected Amtrak to disappear within a few years. Unfortunately, it has hung on for dear life, and somehow manages to continue service to this day.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Japan doesn't have much freight railroad infrastructure because almost every city is just a few hours from a major port. Pretty much all US rail is used by freight, so Amtrak has to run on the same lines as freight. Do you want to hit a freight train at 200mph?
In order to operate a high-speed rail service, you must have lots of high population density cities near each other. Japan fits this bill, as do many areas of Europe. The US only has this in the DC/Philly/NYC/Boston area.
If we didn't have such an extensive interstate freeway system, trains would be more profitable because it would be a pain to drive. Since trains aren't really faster or cheaper than flying and they aren't faster or cheaper than driving, the only people who would take trains are those who can't/won't drive or fly. That doesn't make for a very profitable business.
dom
They stopped all service. Amtrak is such a disaster. (1) To take accela turns the philly->boston ticket from a $174 friday/sunday
fare to a $300 fair. (2) The plane ticket prices between those two cities on a friday/sunday are $100 round. Admittedly you have to plan a bit ahead for that (2 weeks) price but its not even an option with amtrak. I really want amtrak to succeed but they either need to give the same subsidies that they do for roads and airports or just kill the thing off; because its too over specialized for people just doing dc/philly/ny in 1->2 hr hops. For everything else planes are now much cheaper, faster and busses cheaper still.
Besides, where is Amtrak going to get that money? They're struggling to maintain what they already have... What you're talking about is a HUGE investment.
Same place we got the money for the war in Iraq. Why is it our government can invest in conquering another country half a world away, but when it comes to investing in some infrastructure here at home we just can't afford it?
Find coupons in Greeley
I agree 100% with your post- I am also biased- I am a huge fan of railroading and love trains, so that is my caveat.
The major problem with translating some European/Asian models of transportation to the US is pure distance. Please don't forget that a country like Germany (I have visited there a couple times and find that Germans, like most Europeans are a great and friendly people) would fit into Texas, one of the 50 us states, twice. So when Japan creates a bullet network, it is more akin, area wise, to putting a rail network into one of the 50 US states. Obviously people wise, it is very different. But as far as track miles in the US it would be a huge number. Everything would have to be regraded, turns banked, track relaid etc. to allow for high speed running. Also, don't forget, almost nothing infastructure wise is from beofre WWII, wheareas much of the rail in the US is well over 60 years old, some much older. And the grades and rights of way here in the states are from the 1800's in many sections.
If one could travel at 223 mph accross the US that would be incredible- I could be from here in Ohio to California in what, 12-14 hours? That would almost make it feasible to board a train after work on Friday, have a nice dinner aboard, catch a show on board, go to sleep, and wake up near the West coast- It would almost make it feasible (Moneyt aside) to take a weekend trip to California (arrive Sat early afternoon, leave Sunday Early afternoon...) Of course this will never happen for many assorted reasons, however I can dream can't I?
Imagine if these bullet trains copuld be made zero emmision- don't forget that planes are awful polluters (why I can't stand a hollywood star who drives a Prius telling me she is green, the jumping into a Gulfstream and jetting accross the country...)
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Have you factored in the cost of transportation to/from city centers? Time it takes to get to their respective airports?
Haneda is at best, from Otemachi, 45 min train ride. Ditto for Osaka International to the business centers. Taking the Shinkansen, however, you're taking the train from either Tokyo station or Shinagawa, and you're dropped off at Shin-Osaka, which is a stone's throw from downtown.
Plus you don't have to go through all the hassles associated with air travel.
I think we can all settle for the following measure:
air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
Good points.
Pretty Pictures!
First one ran in the late '60s for the Olympics.
:)
It's still online....
I was on a platform, on the bullet line, one time, outside Tokyo, about 1/4 mile from a tunnel entrance/exit. The tracks leading to the station platform were canted so the train could bank into the turn. You could feel the ion change in the air that preceded the train as it exploded out of the tunnel and blasted past the platform...the locals had one hand on the newspaper and the other wrapped around the nearest pole to counter the terrific buffering as the 1,000 seat wonder blew past. Inside, there are LCDs showing live telemetry - it's very hard to tell how fast you're really moving, since the ride is so smooth and quiet.
I saw a video on TV one time, showing how they run field tests of various sorts...one segment showed a technician putting on an old leather flying helmet and goggles. He climbed a small ladder and slid open a hatch in the roof and stuck his head out...while the train was hurtling along at full speed in the dark of night.
The trains shut down automatically if a quake threatens...they have to keep the lines a significant distance from buildings and roads, so when one of them goes down, it takes a portable bridge crew to get to them. They clean ice off the boggies with high-pressure steam cleaners mounted on bridges when the weather turns cold. Color cameras are mounted everywhere, so that the crew and central control can do visual checks at will.
When the bullets pull into Tokyo Station, the stews inside are just like on a 747, with a replacement crew lined up along the platform, waiting for shift change. All neat as a pin. The 'pilots' are dressed just like commercial airline staff, and draw huge crowds, with autograph seekers and train groupies galore. I had my photo taken with one, and he even let me wear his hat
They have a mini-shinkansen that goes up into the mountains for weekend ski trips that is the best looking...all smoked glass and dark gun-metal gray, with green pinstripes. The mega-shinkansen is a double-decker design, that looks a bit ungainly, yet it still manages speeds high enough to match domestic airline travel times.
You have to ride on one of these beasts to appreciate them.
I don't care about the shape of the breaks.
-- "Usefulness arises from what is not there" - Daoism saying
It's actually a little more interesting than that. Amtrack owns (almost?) no track - they run pretty much entirely on track owned by the standard commercial railroads. Building new track is almost impossible, because of the right of way requirements (trains aren't sexy any more so you can't get the government to sieze it for you via emminent domain). The guys who actually own the right of way and the tracks are commercial railroads, who don't (and can't) provide passenger service and have no interest in laying out millions to upgrade track. Amtrack is legally prohibited from carrying signifigant freight, and doesn't have the passenger base to fund track improvements, even if the track owners were willing to upgrade (a lot of commercial rail guys hate Amtrack and would refuse to upgrade just on principle). Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
Except 100% of the tracks for the Tokaido Shinkansen line are elevated dedicated right-of-way tracks surrounded by concrete walls designed to contain the damage.
Plus, in the 40+ years of operating all the shinkansen lines, there were only one derailment, and that was caused by a freak earthquake that happened just below a speeding train.
The advantage that trains currently dont have security check was rudely shaken by last years 3-11 bombing in Spain. Its just that the countries with high speed trains haven't been high priority targets yet.
The problem is population density. Japan is said to have half the population of the United States crammed into an area the size of California. Much of Europe is also densely populated, though not as much as Japan. High-speed rail lines are expensive, per km, to build and maintain. Pavement is less so. This is the same reason that subways serve the center of a city, streetcars the outlying areas, and buses the suburbs and some rural areas.
The Acela train is Amtrak's grasping attempt at high-speed rail. The fare is still too expensive: For instance, I can get a bus ticket from Boston to New York for $12, but, last time I checked, Acela was $80. If someone else is paying (i.e. it's a business trip) then it's more sensible to fly. Acela is stuck in a difficult middle-market.
Personally, I think that the problem with public transit in the US is that it interfaces poorly with the automotive system. Here in Boston, commuter lots at suburban train stations fill up quickly, and in many cases are quite expensive. They are also have security problems. Often, stations are in the middle of villages, where there is not the room for parking lot expansion and building a garage would adversly effect the character of the village. There needs to be more funding of vast garages built where high speed rail systems interface to the interstate highway system. The garages need to be inexpensive (no more than $5 a day), secure, 24 hour, and have sufficient bandwidth for rush hour. There should be a number of non-stop, high speed trains to/from the center of the city. These stations should also serve the interstate and local bus lines in the area, with shuttle buses to the outlying airports.
Train fare for such purposes should be at least partially tax-deductible. One should merely have to submit the yearly report from a transit authority account which would list the passes of various types purchased, or retain a collection of receipts for fares bought anonymously.
There are no seatbelts. The train itself does not "slam on the brakes". It takes some time to slow and stop. Like you mention, the intertia is tremendous. If it did try that, then the carriage would tear off of the wheel housings.
If something is obstructing the track, then whatever it is is fucked. The train will try to stop, but the object will still get smacked into.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Look, even if Amtrak did have the billions and billions of dollars of funding it would need to replace tens of thousands of miles of track across the country to create bullet train-ready routes, it would still be wasted money.
The time it would take for a cross-country rail trip might decrease from 60 hours to 25 hours, but it still couldn't beat a 7-hour plane trip.
High-speed rail service makes a lot of sense in a lot of places, but most of the United States is not such a place.
40+ million people in the USA are members of the AAA, the Automobile Association of America.
0 2may.htm
This organization routinely uses it's massive accumulated fortune to lobby against public transportation and pollution controls.
http://www.sierraclub.org/scoop/better_world.asp
http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/harpers20
At the risk of getting flamed, The keyword is "Japan's largest railway company began a test run for a new bullet train". In America the pattern is always the same. Take NY City's subway system first
1) private companies built 100's of miles of track
2) New York set price limits to "keep the fare reasonable"
3) the companies go bankrupt
4) the city takes over the system
5) no major improvments for the next 50 years
6) people start paying much more for taxis and express busses so they can get to work
When the subway was private 26 major lines were built, since then practically nothing. The only thing they have left is advertisements bragging that their system is 100 years old. It's the same story for Amtrack.
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
Admittedly avoiding all the hastle was a draw.
This was a while ago when I looked it up, so I don't remember everything, but I seemed to recall that, even if I factored in the 2 hour trip or so to the airport, that it still would have been slightly faster and cheaper to fly from Utsunomiya to Oosaka than to take the train.
Then again, theres still a good chance I'd take the train since it's much less of a hastle... it just boggled the mind that it would actually cost more than flying.
Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
I think that depends on where you are. Out west, in Colorado, where I live there is a big interest in it. In 2003 voters approved a 4.7 Billion dollar initiative to extend the light-rail system well outside of the Denver area. Unfortunately it's going to take them twelve years to complete it and traffic here is getting difficult now.
Find coupons in Greeley
Because it's infrastructure we don't actually need?
Seriously. From my Minnesota home town to Las Vegas: Eighty bucks and four hours. How the fuck is a train going to compete with that?
It would be one thing if we needed the trains for freight, but between our vast network of rivers and our outstanding system of highways (not to mention air freight), we don't really have much need for another means of moving stuff around.
For people or freight, the US goes about it thus:
Fast: Planes
Cheap: Roads
Cheaper: Barge
Very few people have a lot of demand for a "sort-of-but-not-really cheaper than planes, while sort-of-but-not-all-that-much faster than roads" category.
Therefore, Amtrak continues to bleed money.
Derailment usually isn't a problem for bullet trains unless the rails themselves fail
"The train is equipped with a new air-brake system that deploys in the event of an earthquake or other emergency. The retractable cat ear-shaped spoilers that can protrude from the roof are expected to help slow the train more quickly than conventional brakes." - From Japan Times
On your other point, you really notice the length of the rails (generally 1km sections I believe) on these high-speed trains - amazingly smooth rides with no 'clackety clack'.
Exactly true -- it is all just a matter of priorities. By looking at our budget, you can easily see where are priorities are. Really too bad... What better way to spend taxpayer money than hi-tech infrastructure, research/dev on next-gen technology, etc. The days of the United States holding the world's best technology are coming to a close (if it's not already the case). Instead, we busy going after "evildoers" sitting on oil fields, or spending 60+ billion a year fighting "the war on drugs". Imagine if this money was instead invested in our future!
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
s/Northwest Corridor/Northeast Corridor/g
I hate it when I do that.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Granted, I haven't lived in Japan for a few years, but I have always traveled by train when there.
A few factors: the train station is right downtown, typically very close to whatever business I'm visiting. Airports are distant and require a very expensive taxi ride or at least a long train ride to get to (try getting to Narita easily.) The Shinkansen ticket allows travel anywhere with the city you've reached, thus there's almost no local train cost.
Everyone I knew, and my baseball team, always traveled by Shinkansen, except when going to Sapporo (on Hokaido.)
Even if it's not on the face value cheaper, ultimately I'm sure the value is much better via Shinkansen.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Cheaper than flying, more efficient than flying, more comfortable than flying, and much, much more punctual than flying... and as a bonus, the schedules are linked up with the local trains.
You literally can walk right on (even with luggage), walk off on the other end, walk over to another platform and catch a local within about 10 minutes.
Now, how much extra time do you have to pad a one hour plane flight with because of all the garbage on either end?
> cat ~/.signature | grep -v bullshit
>
...as such the power at least has the potential to come from a non-fossil source.
People who choose cars over other forms of ground transportation so the investment in Iraq makes more sense.
- Opening a country to peaceful trade has historically led to very high returns. Rebuilding Europe and Japan after World War II were some of the largest investments ever made, but they paid off very well. The United States is wealthier for having robust first-world economies to trade with instead of post-apocalyptic bombed-out ruins of once-great civilizations. While the gain for opening up Iraq isn't as great, neither are the costs.
- The return isn't entirely financial, it's also moral, in taking the opportunity to end a brutal regime for relatively little cost in life and money. There's also the military advantage of being able to keep troops right in the middle of the Middle East, and of having a friendly democratic government there.
I understand that there's a lot of controversy over the war in Iraq, but in terms of cost/benefit, the potential benefits are pretty high, moreso than an improved rail network. (Long-term, of course, the money might be better spent on something like the space program, but democratic governments are overturned periodically, so they're less than ideal vehicles for long-term projects that take decades to pay off.)In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Seriously. From my Minnesota home town to Las Vegas: Eighty bucks and four hours. How the fuck is a train going to compete with that?
That's a crap example. Vegas flights are always cheap. How much to fly from your home town to Chicago, Des Moines or Detroit. What if you could hop a train and be there for significantly less in the same amount of time. I would agree that going cross country on a train is never going to be a good option, but going 50-300 miles seems like a no brainer - especially if the train would go 100+ mph and I could be at my destination in a few hours.
Find coupons in Greeley
Will you Americans drop your retarded measuring system already? This is about Japan for fuck's sake, so why is it mentionned in miles??
Please use SI units. They are superior in every respect.
Despite the -1 moderation, parent is (at least partially) correct. From wikipedia, there have been no fatalities caused by operational incidents such as collisions or derailments on the Shinkansen. There have however been suicides, and incidents where people have been caught in doors and injured.
I may or may not be correct on this, but other railway networks across the globe, despite horrific crashes, are still safer than transport by road in terms of volume of passengers carried.
Nice weather for penguins...
People who choose cars over other forms of ground transportation so the investment in Iraq makes more sense.
Yeah, I've noticed how much cheaper it is to drive my car since we invaded Iraq. Great investment.
Find coupons in Greeley
I spent a month in germany this year and did lots of train riding and lots of car driving.. i'm something of a german car fan here in the states (my wife and i currently "share" 3 german cars) and i run a few track events a year with the car clubs in my region of the country.
When i got home to my boring, awful drive from Minneapolis back to Fargo, as i left the cruise control at speed limit + 9, i started thinking to myself, "what would it take to get high speed trains in the states? what would it take to get unrestricted interstate?"
Germany has the transportation problem _licked_.
Coming back to the US was painful by comparison.
I think there are some distance issues and population density issues that make high speed rail less likely in the USA. Finally, there's the issue of how it will get paid for, which given how badly our country has been divided on pretty basic things lately, its hard to imagine national consensus for massive mass transit systems. Ultimately, public transit is USELESS unless it is a fully integrated system so that you can get from NYC to seattle to your neighborhood to about 3 blocks from your house - with luggage, all with a common ticketing/station system.
Germany has that. I can't see it happening in the US.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
OK, I'm imagining the future where we spend no money on the military...
.
Mmmmm... lower taxes...
Mmmmm... peace and harmon.. oh, wait.
Oh, shit.
Oh, SHIT.
Oh, SHIT
-------------
You can quibble about the amounts, and in fact I do, a lot, but investing in the military, or many other "pointless" projects is investing in the future. It is not black and white.
Ambivalent about whether it was the right choice?
You won't know until you've tried Nozomi - the current fastest bullet train in Japan... in a luxurious-2-feet-of-room-in-front-of-you seat in a noise-free air-conditioned cabin where you can read, eat lunch, enjoy the view AND sip your beer all the while you are being taken where you want to go. In under 3 hours for most destinations.
Compare this to a 7-hour drive in peak bumper-to-bumper traffic on a 4th of July on interstate 91 going from DC to New York...
Yep, we know building highways was the best idea ever...
You have to keep in mind the differences between a country like Japan and America.
America is huge. The distance between points of interest is massive compared to most anywhere else we see high-speed rail transit. Consider that the entire country of Japan is smaller than California. A good rail system would make sense if all the population was crammed into one state because there would be lots of places of interest spaced closed together and the entire rail system is relatively short.
As much as I hate flying, air travel is the most efficient way to move around in America because of all the empty space you must traverse to get somewhere interesting. Putting in a high-speed rail system to cover a whole bunch of empty space is simply a waste of resources.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Yey
rails are still disappearing
Not quite -- I did a gig for these guys and they were building out new routes as quickly as they could (which, considering that they had to secure right-of-way and probably file environmental impact statements, wasn't nearly as fast as they would have liked). Believe it or not, the commercial rail industry is doing pretty well. In fact, one of their biggest problems is scheduling -- they're scrambling to build out their facilities and obtain more rolling stock. Intermodal (hauling semi-trailers) traffic is a big part of it, and given the price of diesel now, it's just going to get bigger.
Just junk food for thought...
The Northeast Corridor is pretty much all Amtrak owns. I think they may have a few other pieces here and there, but the NEC is the only major section.
It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on the situation. If you don't already read it, consider picking up a copy of Trains magazine. Although I'm not in the rail industry, just a railfan, I find the articles very easy to understand yet very informative. Nearly every month there's some news brief about Amtrak's troubles, and many of them aren't Amtrak's fault.
but building fenced lines with elevated crossings would be an astronomical expense.
Maintaining the US road system is also an astronomical expense, but we still do it.
I travelled in Germany & Austria a few years back. The majority of the rail lines were completely un-fenced, or had a simple barbed wire fence keeping the trails seperate from the train rails. I only saw fencing & elevated crossings in the denser areas. They also had a sytem of blinking lights and sirens to warn you of a coming train.
It wasn't unusual to go for a hike or bike ride next to some train tracks, and have a high-speed ICE train flying by at 200kph.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Maybe if we convince the gov that it will be a rolling Mini-Mall they coudl then confiscate the land needed.
The Acelas on the Northeast Corridor (one of the most important pieces of track Amtrak owns) were intended to provide higher-speed trains on conventional track by leaning into the turns. They generally do provide faster service when they're running, but of course the Acelas haven't been without their problems.
The Acelas were built to lean into turns, but that never happened. You see, the Acela trains were built 3 inches too wide. If a northbound acela were leaning and the southbound weren't, they would crash. So, none of the Acelas lean at all.
Maybe if we put some half-decent scientists and engineers into building better trains in this country, we'd have something that could actually be called a bullet train.
Bullet trains are very very heavily subsidized. Japan has a denser population, and the ticket prices are steep. It's not really viable for many japanese to hop into a place and bounce from one part of the region to another - airports take up too much space so aren't built like they are here. It's a situation where we've naturally evolved our system to meet our environment, and Japan has done the same. We have more space for airports and too much space between regions for bullet trains.
Japan is a fairly small country. The cost of running new high speed lines across the US would be astronomical. Remember the US is the lowest density per area of any developed nation. Its hard to provide universal services here. Personally I'm surprised we have such an expansive interstate system. One of the many things we can thank the cold-war for. Thank you Russia! :)
Yes, aircraft tend to be more fragile to onboard attacks. However trains have tracks which can't easily be monitored or defended. Why terrorize those onboard an aircraft? Because we already have a substantial population with an irrational fear of flying. An act of terrorism will build upon that fear.
Keep in mind, a bullet train has to rely on aerodynamics every bit as much as an aircraft. Furthermore, if you come to a sudden stop for any reason at all, you'll die just as fast and randomly as you would in an aircraft.
One final thing: High speed trains make at least as much noise as a low flying aircraft. The bow shock from the train is quite substantial too. Few are willing to reserve the space for an airfield, but most don't think twice about carving huge rights of way to mitigate the noise a train makes. What a bunch of luddite foolishness...
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Cite? I follow the rail industry and haven't heard that.
off topic i know, but i listen to things such as that on my commute... just hounding you for some links to lectures...
By the time the test ends in early 2008, the operator hopes to hit the maximum speed of 250 mph -- faster than the train will travel during regular operation.
French company Alstom SA's TGV, or Train a Grande Vitesse, is currently the world's fastest train, operating at a top speed of 218 mph.
Current record for the TGV is 320mph
Lets face it in train technology the US isn't even a player and never will be. When and if these high speed rail corridors are built all the contractors will be non-US firms, as they hold all the leading edge patents.
Judging from what is now in testing, the Japanese will go to MagLev trains in about 2015 for speeds approaching 350-400 mph, with most entirely underground. They have the money and we don't and certainly won't for the next 15-20 years that the US will be in Iraq (as now admitted by the administration).
The problem for the US is that with vastly improved and more cost effective train transport their ability to move people and goods quickly will continue to increase their competitive edge over the US. They will put the savings and difference (estimated at about one trillion dolars per yer by some economists) into new technology in other areas, primarily biomedical, nanotechnology, materials science, robotics, and health care. Advances in robotics alone are likely to overtake use of humans in most routine employment in about 2020 (check-out clerks, receptionists, secretarial, general manufacture), so they will be able to manufacture goods at wages of about $0.20 per hour, which even the Chinese won't be able to compete with. Of course, by then we will have increasd our budget deficit to roughly 800 billion dollars per year and our trade deficit 3.5 times its current pace. China and Japan will continue to remain in the US market, but will buy US corporations that can no longer compete or are attempting to emerge from bankrucpy. They will also own roughly 85% of our debt market.
And the market leading car makers will be Toyota, Nissan and Honda. Ford will go bankrupt in the year 2009 with GM to follow in 2011 as they ceeded the hybrid and fuel efficiency standards to the Japanese in 2002-2005 and we will be unable to catch up. The bright spot is that US government will buy the hummer division to support our troops still fighting in Iraq.
The Chinese will at the same time be buying the major portion of world petroleum exports with their vastly appreciating yuan and gasoline in the US will hit $4.50/gallon by 2007 based on current price trends.
The good news is that Diebold and makers of other electronic voting machines will capture 100% of the US market and we will save millions in being able to suspend elections since the outcomes will be judged a foregone conclusion.
And for all of this economic progress George Bush, following in the Regan tradition, will get $30 million dollar in speakers fee for giving lectures in Japan and Saudi Arabia shortly after he leaves office.
But hey, this is good for the consumer (even if he is in hock up to his eyeballs).
You really have to admire the Japanese, and their
striving for technical excellence. Unfortunately,
this bullet train technology will never be adopted
in the USA. The Japanese don't mind spending
money on their infrastructure -- and having a
rail system accurate enough to support 223 Mph
trains IS impressive. Consider that Japan has
more earthquakes per year than any other country
in the world. On the other hand, the USAs neo-
Con(artists) are about to pull the plug on Amtrak
funding. Our rail system is so creaky that every
time the temperature rises 30 degrees Fahrenheit,
regional commuter rail and freight traffic must
slow down in fear of a derailment. OTOH, hub-
based commercial air travel has been heavily
subsidized in the USA, with multi-billion USD
bail-outs, raids on employee pension funds, etc.
The difference is, the petroleum industry has
heavy clout in the US government - enough to
warrant otherwise unjustifiable foreign wars.
And no industry except private automobiles
consumes as much petroleum products as does the
commercial airline industry. When all air traffic
was shut down in the USA after 9/11/2001, gasoline,
home heating oil, and natural gas prices dropped
substantially for more than 6 months. No USA
industry is as big a customer of the big oil
companies as is the USAs commercial airlines.
You mean this story?
Those who complain about affect & effect on
As long as your final destination is within a particular radius around the train station then you're ok.
However, given the notoriously bad level of service in public transportation, getting around afterwards in the city or town you intend to visit could very well be a nightmare without a car.
Though, having a rail system would be the first step in creating efficient non-traffic causing transportation.
Live forever, or die trying.
Except for Des Moines, which is not reachable by Amrak, air travel is either the same price or close in price to travel by Amtrak. Time wise, there is no contest. Time and prices, round trip from St Paul to Chicago and Detroit leaving July 10th, returning July 18th. I did minimal searching for best fares and the times include shortest possible lay overs. Amtrack: Chicago 8 hours, $200 Detroit 29 hours, $250 By Northwest Airlines: Chicago 1.5 hours, $200 Detroit less than 3 hours, $300 Don't forget to add the cost of food for the Detroit trip.
Anyways, I feel the billion dollar bailouts repeatedly handed over to the airlines deserve some mention here.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
>> Same place we got the money for the war in Iraq
Yeah but funding white elephants just doesn't have the same political sex appeal as killing a bunch of foreigners.
Who would repel all the Iraqi invaders storming our beaches?
I recently went to Japan for a couple weeks. While the train system was cheap for visitors (because of the special pass), it was just as expensive to ride the train as it was to fly for residents. Most of these distances were the 50-300 mile ranges you are speaking of.
There will be if the price of oil continues to rise.
They stopped all service. Amtrak is such a disaster. (1) To take accela turns the philly->boston ticket from a $174 friday/sunday
fare to a $300 fair. (2) The plane ticket prices between those two cities on a friday/sunday are $100 round.
You're forgetting several things here:
1) Acela Express service is only one option on the route you're talking about - there are several others that Amtrak offers that cost significantly less. (Acela Regional, Metroliner, etc.)
2) Acela Express trains are one of the only profitable parts of Amtrak's business, so clearly the business model they've set upon for the train works... when the trains themselves work. This is why it was such a disaster when they had to pull them out of service - right now (well, not right now), these trains are subsidizing most of the NEC improvements that are going on.
The story of why these trains have been so unreliable is a long one, and is rooted in the same congress that has been trying to cut Amtrak's funding for so many years. Congress pressured Amtrak to have a North American-built train and it also refused to amend 19th-century era safety standards so that Amtrak could use similar technology to trains built elsewhere (Japan, Europe, etc.). The direct end result of this is the cracks in the brakes that led to Amtrak taking these trains out of service. The Acela Express trains are based on the TGV, but are about twice as heavy due to safety regs in this country - yet Bombardier/Alstom did not redesign the brake system to take this extra weight into account.
3. The reason why air fares are so low on the route you mention is because of pressure from Amtrak. Amtrak's NEC service (all kinds) is popular enough that it has actually taken riders away from airlines, and that has forced airlines both to use smaller planes and to reduce fares.
I really want amtrak to succeed but they either need to give the same subsidies that they do for roads and airports or just kill the thing off; because its too over specialized for people just doing dc/philly/ny in 1->2 hr hops.
Well, fortunately for Amtrak and its riders, the NEC is the last part of the system that would ever be "killed off".
Are you seriously claiming that if the US just dropped all of its arms, absolutely nobody anywhere would attack it?
It's going to take more than Simpsons quotes to defend yourself. Merely invoking the name of an inapplicable logical fallacy, humorously or otherwise, is not an argument.
(Note: I am aware that there is a grey area between where we are now and zero, and for completeness, we could spend more too, and I mentioned this in my first message.)
This is a society of instant gratification. The passenger trains have less importance than the goods trains (because of the whole capitalistic approach) So, no one wants to sit in a train for 15 hrs when you can get to Place A by car in 10 hrs and 6 hrs (with security , drive to/from airport) by air.
Also, no one wants to pay 2 or 3 tmies as much to travel the same distance.
So, you see, geographically, it is just not the best option. Yes, I know there are places like LA to San Fran where this might work, but you would have to move too many people out of their humble abodes and put a whole lot more into the infrastucture, which the politicians have no interest in doing, because Americans love their gas guzzling SUVs.
Remember, only the Sith think in absolutes ;) I certainly did not advocate that we spend *no* money on the military... There is a middle ground between "less" and "none" that I suggest you take into consideration. Half of our discretionary budget is military-related... we spend more on the war on drugs than we do on NASA, despite the fact that the war on drugs has been proven ineffective, and it is known that education and reform (rather than military interdiction, increased police focus, prisons, etc) is something like 11x more effective in combating drug problems.
Then why do we do this? In the end, you must face up to facts... we as a nation opt towards heavy/expensive action against the symptoms of our problems (especially when it's military related), rather than focusing on the roots of the problems. Why? Because focusing on the roots of problems is a LONG-TERM solution, a notion which has not yet made it into the government dictionary. Short-term solutions make better press releases, provide instant feedback numbers, and are more effective in getting people reelected. It doesn't matter that drug use did not decline under Clinton or Bush -- all that matters is that they increased the anti-drug budget and talked tough in a few press conferences. Like it or not, but this is how our government operates.
I readily admit that short-term strategies are important and effective in their own right -- but I also think there is a price to pay when neglecting the long-term. Because our budget resources are finite, whenever you indulge in such an expensive operation like the War in Iraq, there will be tradeoffs in other areas. Whenever you choose to do A, you are, to some extent, choosing not to do B.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
No need for long descriptions. Just show people this.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Highways are wonderful as long as there is oil. What trains could do is use green-house neutral electricity, straight from the nukular/solar/wind power plants.
In Japan they have JR rail, which is basically subways and train service.
Say what you will about big government and socialism but at least it doesn't lead to "vast garages".
There is a diffrence between investing in the military and spending more than the rest of the world put together...
Wake up and smell the stink in DC.
There is a huge difference in the amount of track needed in the U.S. than Japan.
It always bugs me to see people comparing things like this and high-speed internet access in small Asian countries to the U.S. The reason why we can't keep up is very simple: this country is huge. There's no way to cover the distances involved on even the same scale of a budget - the population density just isn't great enough to make it work.
Bullet train is phallic symbol. This is to compensate for their little peckers.
Train fare in boston is (at least partially) tax-deductible. Check your state tax forms, you can deduct up to $750 per year.
The time it would take for a cross-country rail trip might decrease from 60 hours to 25 hours, but it still couldn't beat a 7-hour plane trip.
High-speed rail service makes a lot of sense in a lot of places, but most of the United States is not such a place.
Except for a couple of key facts that you overlooked (or were ignorant of).
1. Next to pipelines, rail is the MOST reliable and cheapest method of moving goods (and people).
2. Oil is not going to come down in the future. Airlines may not be viable (not unless you are wealthy).
Sure, 25 hours doesn't beat 7 hours. But if you don't have the option of either, then you're screwed.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
You won't know until you've tried Nozomi - the current fastest bullet train in Japan... in a luxurious-2-feet-of-room-in-front-of-you seat in a noise-free air-conditioned cabin where you can read, eat lunch, enjoy the view AND sip your beer all the while you are being taken where you want to go. In under 3 hours for most destinations.
Ok, couple things.
1. Nozomi is a service, not a train. You are probably thinking of the 500 series shinkansen, which were run mainly as part of the Nozomi service and are commonly called "Nozomi trains" in other parts of the world (but not Japan). These trains were a complete disaster financially and are in the process of being retired (if they haven't all been already). They were expensive to build, expensive to operate and seated fewer people than other shinkansen.
2. I don't know what shinkansen you've ever ridden on but I've never been on one with 2 feet of room in front of me. In fact, it's usually more like 4 inches, with a floor made of tile you usually find in bathrooms below you, and a seat barely wide enough to fit an average westerner.
Shinkansen are not luxurious. In fact, private rooms have all but been phased out, same with dining cars (replaced first by snack counters and now simple vending machines on many trains). There are still "green cars" with better amenities and comfort on some trains but these are ludicrously expensive.
Most shinkansen are little more than fast commuter trains in terms of their level of comfort and service. Which makes sense, because most people don't need to spend more than an hour or so on them at a time - it's a small country and the trains are very fast. For any longer trips, people in Japan do actually fly - ANA, for example, was operating something like 21 daily flights using both 747's and 777's from Haneda airport in Tokyo to Osaka up until a year or so ago (I think they've actually increased service now, but may no longer be flying 747's domestically). That's just one airline on one route every day.
So don't confuse the role of the shinkansen. These are not generally long-distance trains for most people, at least not as we would think of a long-distance trains. They are not particularly comfortable, they are not very nice inside. They are just fast.
no there are no dirt roads in Japan, even the most remote mountain roads are paved, and besides there are thousands of kilometers of local rail lines that go where the shinkansen does not.
1. Next to pipelines, rail is the MOST reliable and cheapest method of moving goods (and people).
:)
No, I personally have nevered traveled by pipeline.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
The reality in Iraq is this: For as long as we stay in Iraq, we will lose troops on a regular basis to attacks by insurgents who just want the damn infidels out. As soon as we leave, the country will collapse into civil war. Unlike Japan, Iraq didn't attack us first. There isn't going to be any return on this "investment".
Also, you have a very strange idea of what ordinary people really need if you think the manned space program is a better investment than modern, high speed trains that can actually get them to work each day.
That, and the fact
that the US is much
larger, land area
wise, than Japan.
Also, the infrastructure
of the American rail
system is poor at
best.
The cost of upgrading
the thousands and
thousands of miles
to support high speed
bullet trains would
be much too large.
It's just too costly
with little to no
benefit compared to
the cost. It's not
some giant conspiracy
by big oil companies.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
You're clearly with the terrorists. I'm calling Homeland Security
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Amtrak DOES have a bullet train.
It's called Acela Express.
Running at a top speed of 150mph (not kph), it is officially classified as HSR (min req 125mph).
It zooms from Boston, past New York and Philadelphia, into Washington DC.
There's another problem: local governments. Amtrak can't even get it's one existing high-speed train up to full speed since every little town along the right of way has the ability (and apparently the obnoxious incliniation) to require the train to slow down as it passes through their hamlet. I can't imagine how this would work on a larger scale.
Basically, town exists because of rail road, but town bitches about rail road sending trains through at high speed. Welcome to America, home of the NIMBY.
There is a MagLev test line under development in the Yamanashi perfecture, that can currently do 310 mph; it is quite a treat to watch, and if you get lucky you can get a chance to ride it. More information here in English, with some videos here. True, it's been around damn near ten years and they haven't started public service...
Guess you haven't heard of the oil lobby. Detroit doesn't want people to get out of their cars. The politicians are funded by these big businesses - Ford, Exxon etc.
Passenger trains themselves are obsolete technology, we have these giant flying trains called jetliners that don't need thousands of miles of specially built track.
North Korea Trains New Bullets.
...can we have the old one if they're done with it?
1) private companies built 100's of miles of track
The city of New York and the State of New York paid for all of the miles of NYC subway. They contracted construction and operations to the IRT and later the BMT but always had ownership of the lines.
2) New York set price limits to "keep the fare reasonable"
NYC always had control over the fare prices. These were included in the contracts.
3) the companies go bankrupt
There were many reasons for this, fares being part of them, but also the fact that the city had 2 competing systems for a number of decades.
4) the city takes over the system
5) no major improvments for the next 50 years
During this time, much money and energy went into NYC roads. This was mostly due to a cultural change starting in the 60s including urban renewal and the rise of the automobile. While the subways stayed the same, NYC built airports, more bridges, tunnels, and the Cross-Bronx expressway, etc were built. These were huge projects.
I would also argue that they are once again starting to make improvements. One could call the airshuttle a major improvement.
6) people start paying much more for taxis and express busses so they can get to work
Huh? More people are now using NYC rapid transit than almost anytime in recent history.
A nation-wide bullet train system might be hard to achieve, but I definately think that high-speed rail service in some smaller regions could be a good thing. Trains certainly aren't perfect, but I would seriously consider a fast train over a plane or driving any day.
I live on the West Coast, and could definately see people using high-speed rail from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, LA to San Francisco and/or Sacramento. SF to Portland & Seattle.
I've ridden on some high-speed rail lines in Germany, Swizerland & Austria, and I would be thrilled if we could get some similar service here in the States. The whole experience was efficient and relaxing. I buy a first-class ticket for $150, walk onto the train, find my reserved seat. The seats are comforatable, I have a ton of room to stretch out, I can get up and walk around at any time, and I have a great view from the large window. The staff are polite, the train is quiet and smooth.
For 8 Euros, I buy a beer, some delicious cooked pork and a candy bar for 8 Euros. My wife & I sit & relax for 5 hours on a trip from Vienna to Frankfurt. It takes less then 5 minutes to get off the train and get my luggage.
I recently flew from Oakland to Seattle & back. The whole experience was a stress-filled nightmare. I had to wait in line for 45 minutes so I could get a ticket from a computer terminal (there were 3 people in front of us). Then we wait another hour in the security line. The flight itself is only 1 hour, but you spend another another 45 minutes strapped to your seat take-off and landing.
I got a teeny bag of pretels & a small cup of orange juice. They sell Budweiser for $4. A can of "import beer" (Heineken) or a bottle wine costs $5.
The seat in front of me is 8 inches from my nose. The fluorescent light above us flickers for the whole flight. The staff yell at the passengers.
It takes 20 minutes to get off the plane, an an hour to get my luggage, all of which has been opened and inspected by Security.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Positive: extremely high speeds.
Negative: no scenery.
Are you seriously claiming that if the US just dropped all of its arms, absolutely nobody anywhere would attack it?
I don't think that's the claim. The issue I personally have is that the Bush administration proposes spending $310 million to fund Iraq's rail system and $0 to fund the US's rail system. This does not seem a bit off to you? These priorities are not out of whack?
I cannot for the life of me recall a situation in which our government proposed funding an entire industry in one country while refusing to support that same industry in its own country. Especially when it comes to infrastructure, on which the entire rest of the economy is based. Exactly which country is the Bush administration supposed to be governing? Did we elect the president of Iraq or the president of the US?
I would say the priorities of our government are more than a little off-kilter. It's not about reducing defense spending to zero. It's about $1.2 billion in government funding for Amtrak out of a budget of several trillion. It's a tiny amount in the grand scheme; certainly nobody is asking for anything rivaling the amount spent on defense, or education, or even highways and airports. (David Gunn has never requested more than $2 billion, and has said Amtrak could get by at its current spending level, albeit with deferred maintenance.) It is a much, much smaller amount than the $10 billion the government gave to the airlines after 9/11, it is miniscule compared to the amount the government just gave up in seeking from the tobacco companies as part of the trial it's been waging (recently slashing $120 billion off the penalties they were seeking), it is much lower than many, many other discretionary expenditures. And the proposed amount of spending Bush has set aside for Amtrak next year (zero) is exactly $310 million less than the amount of spending we are putting into Iraq's rail system - the same rail system we destroyed to begin with. We're throwing good money after bad when we could be putting that money to better use right here at home.
While the train system was cheap for visitors (because of the special pass), it was just as expensive to ride the train as it was to fly for residents.
How did the travel times compare? If they were comperable there wouldn't be any reason not to take the train. Plus I can't imagine there were commercial flights everywhere the trains went. I could be wrong, but that seems strange.
Find coupons in Greeley
IMHO the important difference to the US is that in Japan the passenger companies own the tracks instead of the cargo companies; while JR is mostly private by now that's a relatively new development and definitely not the reason trains in Japan don't suck as much as in the US.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Ah yes, my 'trip' from New York to Atlanta via Washington:
1) First train hits debris on the track about 2 hours into journey. On-train staff announce that they are having to replace some hydraulic hoses. Half an hour later, they inform us that they have found some holes in an air tank but despite trying to plug them with wood (TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!!), they have been unsuccessful. Fortunately we are on a piece of double track and so we wait for the next train to Washington to pass and we get off our train, walk across the tracks and cram on to the Washington train.
2) Delayed leaving Washington - dining car has developed an electrical fault and the train will need to be separated, the car removed and then the train reassembled. Meanwhile, the cops are called to arrest and remove a pair of drunks (male and female) who, having just met for the first time, decided to pass the time by having sex in a corridor.
3) Finally, we are on the outskirts of Atlanta. The train makes an emergency stop. We are near a group of houses in woodland and we can see a railroad crossing. Suddenly there are lots of police cars, paramedics and a fire truck at the crossing. We see a large man being escorted to an ambulance - his bandaged arm is covered in blood - it transpires he was walking along the tracks on his way to work and didn't hear the (fscking big!) train coming and he bounced off the front! The train announcer tells us that the man sends his apologies for making us late and that he must be the luckiest man alive, but he will still be going to jail for trespassing on the railway.
--What's this sig thing all about then? Should I have one?
The money spent on Iraq and drug enforcement are being spent on the future.
Its just a future that will never benefit you.
Just ask any Haliburton or Taser stockholder.
Whenever the subject of trains is brought up here or anywhere else, someone claims that trains will never work in the US because of its population density. But the fact is that the population density of the US as a whole is meaningless. Rail lines do not need to be built equally spread out around the entire country; they can be built in the parts of the country where it makes the most sense.
The land area from Boston to DC is about 120 million square miles (including all of NY, PA, NJ, MA, CT, MD, RI, DC). The population is about 55 million, concentrated mostly in metropolitan areas. France has a nearly the same population with about twice the land area. Germany has a comparable population (80 million), and about the same area. Both France and Germany have train service far superior to that in the northeast. Clearly, it it not the population density that is preventing good train service there.
Similar arguments apply to other areas of the US. There are about 40 million people concentrated along the west coast. There's no reason, in terms of population density, that train service could not flourish there.
Apologies I wasn't being clear. The $174 price is amtrak regional the $300 price is amtrak accela. Round trip on air tran is btwn $80->$100. I think amtrak regional and accela are worth it for business class travelers (and their kin) between
dc->philly or ny and vice versa
philly-> ny
ny-> boston
Non business travelers take septa/njtransit between philadelphia
and ny which is $34 (as opposed to $100 for amtrak).
I think the "2-3 times the price" is in the ?noise" for the people
amtrak caters to, which is fine since thats what makes it
profitable but doesn't exactly make it accessible to those
of us w/out expense accounts.
I'm not saying there is no point to it; its brilliant to be able
to walk onto a train and end up somewhere near the center of the city of choice (or its subway system) instead of spending another $20->$30 for a cab. (Actually boston's airport is on a subway line, philadelphia has its airport on a direct regional train route, ny's airports have always been retarded, i'm not sure how dc works).
I just find it a bit odd that as someone who goes between boston and philly at least once a month (and philly, ny all the time) and used to take amtrak regularly now do not because the plane tickets are so much cheaper. Even w/ the lead/delay time factored in (i.e. taking a cab or a train to the airport and going though security) the plane is both much, much faster and half the cost. That price discount is likely due to a fare discounts between the likes of airtran and usair rather than amtrak.
Between Jetblue and airtran "accessible" long distance travel in the NE has really moved to planes and for those who are really counting their $$, its still greyhound/peter pan. Overall I think is a shame, because amtrak isn't seen as the subway system or regional lines for the masses; its seen as the way business travelers go from midtown A to midtown B.
I'm saying this as someone who hasn't had a car in years and w/ friends who don't own cars in the major metropolitan areas (philly,ny,boston) i.e. we all live in the city, near subways.
Greyhound from Pittsburgh to Philly : ~75$, ~7 hours.
Amtrack from Pittsburgh to Philly : ~75$, ~7 hours.
Airplane from Pittsburgh to Philly : ~280$, ~7 hours, roughly 2.5-3 of which is a layover in Washington DC.
Airplane from Boston to Philly : ~80$, didn't ask the commuter in question for the time but it was a direct flight, no layovers.
It's cheaper to take the train to Boston and fly to Philly than it is to fly to Philly. And it's in the same goddamned state. It's a four hour drive in a car!
So planes are cheaper and faster IF you're one of those lucky bastards who happens to live in a major city, who happens to be travelling to another (favored) major city.
The train, it is comfy.
Killing Amtrak off will pretty much double traffic on I-95 immediately. It will also roughly double traffic on the NYS thruway, NY to Albany.
Is this a smart move? No.
Is it a move to have people use more Gas (either via cars or planes)? Yes.
Does the current administration have any ties to Oil companies? Yes.
Why is this so hard to figure out?
Now, wash-rinse-repeat for the midwest, northwest and California.
Don't believe those stickers you occasionally see on 18-wheelers ("This vehicle pays over $1200 in highway taxes") -- they're the biggest beneficiaries of all of those "taxes." If they paid their fair share, it would be closer to 10x what they actually pay. The railways, on the other hand, own their roads (in addition to the rolling stock), and must pay the maintenance, improvements, etc.
Firstly, The US (Eisenhower) highway system was created in 1956 because Ike was impressed by the Autobahn, and because the roads at that time were absolute crap. The Tokaido Shinkansen began construction in 1959, and opened October 1, 1964. So there wasn't even a choice between highway or bullet train.
Secondly, the US has a much lower population density than Japan, making running enough train lines to get people where they want to go less profitable, so it would pretty much only be useful in a highly populated area like BosWash, which may or may not have a sufficient number a passengers to make it profitable.
Thirdly, as someone pointed out, Amtrak can't upgrade, because it doesn't own the rails, not to mention it doesn't have the money.
And finally, a simple solution to avoiding gridlock is: avoid it. Holidays are peak travel times, a bullet train isn't gonna magically teleport you there no hassle.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've ridden the London-Paris train at 300kph (180mph). The sensation was like being in a plane that's flying entirely too low. The scenery blurs, so that you cannot see any detail that's closer than 100m or so. The thought of a train that goes nearly twice that speed is scary!
I was going to say this same thing, but noticed that you did first.
I'm originally from Maine, though I now live primarily in New York City. Occasionally, I now take the train to Boston and then on the "Downeaster" route, but it took them years to run a train from Boston to Portland. There were a lot of reasons why this took a while, but I remember that one chief problem was that passenger trains needed to go a certain speed. Amtrak wanted the train to go over a hundred miles per hour, but it ended up going slower than that.
Amtrak doesn't own the tracks from Boston through Maine (or, apparently, anywhere else). They're owned by a commercial shipping company. The freight companies have absolutely no interest in upgrading their track to handle higher speeds. You can see why it's not in their best interest...you don't want a million tons of coal going 200 miles per hour, after all.
Anyway, I'm about as far from a socialist as you can get, but I think that internal transportation and communication networks are integral to the function of a country and ought to be publically owned, or that the government should step in and force the freight companies to upgrade track, or give up the track altogether. I'm one that would join in the chorus of not invading Iraq -- or not giving money and weapons to Israel -- and instead spending 30 billion dollars putting in mag-lev trains, starting on the West and East coasts, and working inward, much like we did in the 1800s.
The prospect of going from New York to Boston in two hours, or New York to Chicago in...say...6 hours...would appeal to me as an alternative to flying, especially when I factor in that it takes me an hour to get to any of my local airports from Manhattan, that I have to show up ridiculously early to go through security checks, and when I get there it takes another hour to get into the city I'm traveling to, whereas trains just go from city center to city center, and there's no reason to show up early.
gameDB
The rich have their own commuter planes to get around, and hummers to handle the piece of shit asphalt diarrhea they call "roads" in this country.
They don't see a problem.
Amtrack was designed to be failure. In order to bolster the aviation industry, which the railroad tycoons of the day were heavily against, the government broke up the railroad 'monopolies' and replaced them with a 'designed to fail' government corporation. America had plenty of well designed straight line tracks... for the most part they've long been decommisioned. they are now part of state trail systems, or owned by private entities that have nothing to do with railroads eg: ranchers.
It is true, however that japan has half the US population inside a country roughly the size of california.. This makes trains a more attractive form of mass transit than airplanes. Since the cost of flying someone 200 KM is so much grater than sending them there on a bullet train. However, the biggest single difference is that the japanese government didn't 'break up' the companies that were making profit on railroads to 'pave the way' for airlines.
Consider how much easier life would be in major cities if in fact the railroad tycoons had built commuter rail lines with the fortunes they had accrued.. but no the american govermnent stepped in to take out an enemy of the 'people' the railroad tycoons, for the benefit of ford motor co, and the aviation industry.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Are you seriously claiming that if the US just dropped all of its arms, absolutely nobody anywhere would attack it?
I'm not supporting the idea that the US Government should 'drop all of it's arms', but, for the sake of argument...
Pre World War II that's exactly what the US did. They only kept a minimal military force. Our relative isolation from the rest of the world made it difficult to attack us. When we were involved in major wars like World War I and World War II men had to be drafted to meet our military needs. I think this is something that most people don't recognize anymore. Before WWII most countries didn't recognize the US as a force to be reckoned with. Since then the cold war, including our involvements in Vietnam and Korea, forced us to keep our military spending up. I would guess that if we did minimize our federal military spending no one would come along and invade us. The army isn't keeping terrorist attacks away, unless they are doing so by destroying Afghanistan and Iraq - and thats the only type of attack I know that we've had to thwarte recently.
Find coupons in Greeley
I know Nozomi is not a particular train - I was referring to the fastest trains as in fastest service.
I rode in the green cars - expensive yes but so is flying AND driving in Japan. In my opinion bullet trains are a comfortable hassle-free service. They are ALWAYS on time, no security checks, no leg cramps. When was the last time a plane left on time or you didn't have to spend an hour for security checks? When was the last time you didn't hit a traffic snarl in a big city?
Driving here in the US is cheap but there is a HUGE tradeoff - the traffic blows. I make 2 or 3 big trips per year and if there were bullet trains in the US at the same cost as the green car service in Japan I'd use them every time.
"Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad."
Specious is the word you seek young Padawan.
--
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 36 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Re:Another Thought: Amtrak & Japanese Technolo
Now that trains are beginning to reach speeds of over 200 mph, a bullet train from NY to CA could be almost as fast as a plane.
Perhaps you have a different definition of 'almost as fast', so I'll just note that all jet airliners in use today travel around or above 600 mph at cruise. If the upper winds happen to be going in the right direction, you can increase this by a good margin as well. Although to be fair, at least bullet trains would not be bothered nearly as much by the upper winds going in the wrong direction. But I mean, it's still only a third of the speed.
Random and weird software I've written.
You must have missed the part where I said an investment in space would take decades to pay off, then. Things like asteroid mining and zero-g manufacturing come to mind.
Your conception of reality is pretty whacked out, by the way. The overall cost in lives from the protracted insurgency is ridiculously low compared to the entire history of warfare. Besides, at this point in time, disregarding the sunk costs, a couple more years of occupation is a small price to pay for a stable Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis don't want to kill the infidels, they want to live their lives just like you and I do. I don't think the war in Iraq was the best idea, and there's certainly a very high risk to it, but there's still a pretty high potential return and a realistic chance of achieving it.
As for trains, they work great for densely populated areas like Japan and western Europe, but in North America, there's no room for them between airlines (which are better for hopping from coast to coast), automobiles (for a daily commute, and which have incredible advantages over any centralized transport system), and public transportation (for daily commute in urban areas). Public transportation could use some improvement in many US cities, but that's far from what we were talking about (a national train system). The idea makes a great deal more sense in the vast Boston to DC urban expanse, but even there you're working with a smaller scale of investment, something that could be funded by the states involved and wouldn't necessarily need any federal attention (aside from DC itself of course).
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Perhaps you have a different definition of 'almost as fast', so I'll just note that all jet airliners in use today travel around or above 600 mph at cruise.
Indeed. But when I say "almost as fast", I'm also including time for security checks, takeoff clearance, landing clearance, docking clearance, and luggage pickup. These sorts of things make airplane trips take much, much longer than they should. In many cases, the entire day has to be blocked out for the trip. As a result, a 13 hour bullet train trip would be comparable to a 6 hour cross-continental plane trip.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Unlike Japan, Iraq didn't attack us first.
Neither did Germany. Either time.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Unlike Japan, Iraq didn't attack us first.
Neither did Germany. Either time.
Come to think of it, Japan didn't either attack us first either.
Pearl Harbor was a response to our embargo.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
there's no room for them between airlines (which are better for hopping from coast to coast), automobiles (for a daily commute, and which have incredible advantages over any centralized transport system), and public transportation (for daily commute in urban areas).
Not sure where you live, but the automobile is quickly becoming a poor mode of transportation for a daily commute. I love my car and love driving, but if I had to commute to another city for work it would be ridiculous. Fuel is over $2.00 a gallon (if you hadn't noticed) and traffic is out of control in most of the halfway metropolitan areas in the country. People in LA have 3 or 4 hour commutes - each way, the east has toll roads, much of the west and midwest is experiencing growth as people are trying to get out of the congested areas on both coasts.
Our economy is tied directly to our infrastructure, which is currently tied directly to oil. Until we figure out how to deal with the infrastructure problems that are growing exponentially in many parts of this country we are not going to see significant economic growth. It's just a fact.
Find coupons in Greeley
Drop Alaska and the Midwest and rerun those numbers.
/Detroit to New York. You now have Sections of track linking Seattle to Sand Diego and a Chicago/New York to Miami, which will cause other city's to want to join those networks.
We need to try building a system that connects the major US cities. Start with a Boston, New York, Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond. Build a San Diego, Los Angeles, to San Francisco Link. Then add a Seattle Portland Link. And a Chicago - Detroit Link. Add an Orlando - Miami Link. Then start connecting these systems. So you connect Orlando to Richmond and Chicago
I think a system that links most major Cities in the US with 2 - 3 other cities would start to pay for it's self vary quickly. Just look at the metro around DC once you have a system adding a few more stations starts to look vary appealing even if building a system from scratch seems to costly you only need to start with the profitable connections and work from there. In time there might not be a direct connection between Chicago and Seattle but that's no reason why you can't connect New York with DC and start the ball rolling.
Over time you can add some express lines that do 8 - 12 hour links and these systems could become vary high demand. You're not going to have the aircraft security issues and lots of people dislikes flying in cramped seating so this type of transit system could prove vary profitable.
You don't need to connect to downtown either. A simple Metro station gets you into a major city without messing with inner city systems.
The issue I personally have is that the Bush administration proposes spending $310 million to fund Iraq's rail system and $0 to fund the US's rail system.
My point is that while that may be a cute soundbite, it does not a priori prove that is a wrong thing to do. Fixing Iraq's system, which, as you pointed out we had a hand in destroying (though probably only a minor one compared to the previous administration's malign neglect) (reparations anyone?), is justified, rightly or wrongly, as part of rebuilding that country towards independent prosperity, our only hope of ending terrorism from that part of the world.
Amtrak is mostly a government boondoggle. Even if you wanted to allocate money for rails in the US, you'd probably still be better off burning Amtrak down and starting from scratch with just the physical infrastructure and a new organization. That is to say, even if you support the idea of rail spending in the US, 0$ to Amtrak may well be the optimally rational decision.
These kind of stupid comparisions just harm rational thinking. You can't meaningfully boil things down as far as "Why are we spending so much money on the military instead of $PROJECT_X_FOR_THE_FUTURE_AND_THE_CHILDREN?"
My particular examples are beside the point and I actually don't care if Amtrak is the best thing since sliced bread... it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
(In the light of the mod my original message gets, apparently "it's shade's of grey!" is only a valid point if they "white" in question is right-leaning. Nuance isn't necessary if you're toeing the left party line.)
There is a middle ground between "less" and "none" that I suggest you take into consideration.
You mean like, for instance, saying "You can quibble about the amounts, and in fact I do, a lot,"?
If humanity as a whole was capable of reading in lieu of so much assuming ("You disagree 5%, you must disagree 100%!!!!1!"), I wonder how much less stuff the Google newsgroup archive would have in it.
I would not be surprised if a "car train" described above (with cars designed explicitly for such a purpose) could approach energy efficiencies of hundreds of miles per gallon for each car.
Clever, but I think you mean specious.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It is obvious that political will in dealing with Amtrak is a huge issue, as as someone who's travelled across the US by train (Boston > SF), and rode extensively in Japan (Sendai > Nagasaki) and Europe (mostly in Switzerland, Germany, and France) one must'nt forget that many of those countries were devasted by war, and a lot of that infrastructure is new. Aside from the sheer amount of people you want to get as many people back to work as possible, it is probably more economical to lay rail than roads. In this country we had a baby boom and industrial pickup and a nascent consumer culture. Add to that big oil and auto interests having disproportionate influence on government and that is the reason why rail sucks and will continue to suck.
The primary motivation for the US to declare war on the Central Powers during WWI was the Zimmerman telegram which showed that Germany was encouraging Mexico to attack the US to reclaim land lost during the Mexican War.
- Building automobiles that don't use petroleum as a fuel source that can nonetheless use the same roads and infrastructure, solving any potential issues with backward compatibility, while expanding and rebuilding the highway infrastucture.
- Building an entirely new rail infrastructure and designing trains to run on this infrastructure that don't use petroleum.
The first solution can be put into place nationally or even internationally. The second solution can only be put into place locally. Which do you think is bettter? Admittedly, another option is reducing the need for transportation--after all, people only began commuting to work in the industrial revolution, previously almost all work took place at home. Moving back to that sort of arrangement for more of the population (telecommuting, home offices, etc) would be a nice way of circumventing the problem entirely.In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Cisalpino is the rail service between Germany-Switzerland-Italy. The timetable for the trains is here. It's more like a 3 hour trip, since there is no express.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ok - We have a HUGE island that we're on - We call it the United States. Flying makes the most sense to get from one side to another - But trains make alot of sense for smaller distances.
Why cant there be a train from SF to Tahoe/Reno? I'd take it in a heart beat instead of driving. Why can't there be a train from SF to LA? Why cant there be a train from SF to Portland? What about... LA-Vegas, LA-Phoenix. Yea - you can fly all these routes - but it doesnt make much sense.
Now you can fly the long distances but if you have a "Short" hop - you can take a train. Rairly do people (other than business people) fly long distances alot. But I can tell you that thousands of people drive from SF to Tahoe almost every weekend - If there we train that were making this route (and doing 100MPH+ instead of 25MPH on I80), I know that the train would be full to the brim every Thursday to Monday - and then some.
You could also put train stations near airports... GENIOUS
snowulf.com
I completely agree w/ the price issue and Amtrak. In many cases its actually cheaper/faster to fly except for ny which has no easy access to their airports other than another $30 cab.
Incidentally, I think train/commuter fare is tax deductable. I do it directly through my work in Philadelphia which gives me a monthly pretax expense account so I can pay for my subway pass/tokens using pretax dollars directly; but my understanding is is this is just a short cut for what you can do on your 1040. (Otherwise it would mean that my work is randomly paying my taxes for me?)
Just have to point this out for those wondering what's the point when airliners are so much faster.
They aren't. No, really. They aren't. Especially now that the airline industry is recouping and ATC congestion is becoming a big problem again. Think about it.
With a train, you hop on at the city center (probably much closer to your destination unless you're way out in some exurb), board much more quickly, don't have to check in ahead of time, and leave on time. You don't have any delays waiting for a pushback at the gate, waiting for ATC to clear the corridor enough for you to take off, waiting for a slot to land at your destination airport, waiting for your gate to be free, waiting for luggate, etc.
Air travel carries all kinds of "waste" time that in the worst case (which is getting increasingly common as the skies get clogged again) can cut your average travel speed in half or worse. Then there's the fact that major airports are all out in BFE so you have to drive 45 minutes to an hour to get to your point of departure, then again to get from your point of arrival to your real destination and suddenly air travel isn't looking so good. Especially on densely packed, short to medium haul corridors like the NE. Like the LA-San Francisco run. Like Seattle-Portland.
Your analysis is wrong. The United States has several extremely large railway companies. Union Pacific does about $12bn in revenue each year. The trouble is that none of that comes from direct passenger revenue. The reason for that is that direct passenger revenue simply became unprofitable, as it did and still does in almost every single developed country in the world.
Apart from the obvious example in Japan (which is a lot to do with the size and economic profile of that country), passenger railway systems in the world are successful only when they are heavily subsidized by the state. There is no inter-city railway system anywhere which is run privately and for financial profit.
In the USA it simply become completely cost ineffective to run passenger rail, so the private railways ran down and began to stop their passenger rail services. The federal government moved in to stop this and replaced it with Amtrak, which trundles on today keeping the system barely alive. The reason why there is no serious passenger railway system outside the merely-satisfactory northeast corridor is because the regional and federal governments won't spend the money to create one.
The same pattern followed in Europe, ie in the UK where the government nationalized the entire system. In countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland, reliable and efficient railways which contribute to the national economies in many ways exist because the governments spend billions to create them. The impetus to do this simply does not exist at a federal or state level in the US.
To bad the United States government, corporate America and the people don't have the balls to compete.
Yes, but not all trips are cross-country. I wouldn't expect bullet trains to replace 7-hour flights, but they might be a viable alternative to 4-hour drives.
1) TGV could just tomorrow enter operational service at more than 250 mph if you wanted to. The limiting factor is definetely not technical: it is economical. It is the cost of keeping a perfectly parallel railway which limits operationnal speeds. Each and every single slight deviation will tremendously worsen wheel after wheel as the train will "shock" into it and move the railway a bit further than the ideal parallel. Only the aerodynamic brakes are new here, although I doubt there usefulness since they require the electric line be even higher than usual. And to my knowledge braking performance has never been a limiting factor. Besides in normal exploitation "braking" mostly means using the engines as power generator (à-la Prius) which is the most energy-friendly system (slowing down regenerates energy). 2) On the other hand I am glad that people eventually realize that plain old railways are a more suitable solution to fast ground transportations then extraordinarily expensive magnetic trains.
Did someone mention Amtrack in this discussion? Amtrack? :LMAO: Seriously, USA public transit is totally screwed up --the modern day robber barrons see it as a tool to economically control the working class. I think in robber barron cadet school, this is the first lesson they teach their young. Anyway, I really can't quite picture any Amtrack conductor trying to manage a crowd on a 223mph bullet train. Just take Edge's advice (in "Numb") and "Don't travel by train." [at least in US and Europe]
Most Amtrak trains run on a right-of-way (aka tracks) owned by other (freight) railroads. Freight trains don't need extremely high-quality track meant for high speed operation, they run relatively slow. Sharing lines with freight trains also means that passenger trains will sometimes get held, delayed, etc. up when the lines are busy with freight trains. Also, these freight tracks use signaling methods which are not meant for high speed trains. All new signaling infrastructure ain't cheap.
Lastly, in the US, it currently costs about $1M per mile to construct new railroad track. For now we're stuck with our passenger trains using freight railroad's tracks, and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon.
The ICE and TGV Atlantique are certainly CAPABLE of 350kmh speeds in theory or testing, however in commercial service they do not travel at this speed. Also, European high-speed trains have less track gradient and far fewer tunnels to deal with than shinkansen services in northern Japan, so in service a higher average speed is easier.
Set aside all your conspiracy theories about Detroit, big government, and such... There are several very simple reasons (some already hinted at) why America does not have high-speed rail. 1. First and foremost is the construction and design of the railroad tracks. European countries and Japan use concrete rail ties, which last much longer, are extremely stable, and do not flex under the weight of the train. American railways have wooden ties, which cannot be used for high-speed rail. The reason why U.S. railways are wooden ties goes back to the first days of the railroads. Because of the vast distances through wooded country, making railties was faster and much cheaper than concrete. It was not the government building the railways but private companies (the rail barons, etc.) Which is an excellent segue... 2. Private companies own the vast majority of the railways, not the government. This hearkens back to the days of the rail barons again. It is the exact opposite model of the interstate system. The government builds and maintains the roads and automobile laws and standards, but does not manage the business of building the cars. The Amtrak model is a very flawed model because of this. Asking the government to maintain the railway service in a competitive capital economy is a money-draining operation since the government is not intended to compete with private interests. 3. Railroads are viewed in America as freight-movers, not people movers. As a matter of fact, the railroad system in America is one of the cheapest ways to haul freight. It's actually cheaper than hauling freight over-the-road. 4. Passenger rail is not an appealing mode of transportation compared to other forms of mass-transit or, even personal transport options. If I had the option of driving to, say, Tampa from Miami vs. taking an Amtrak, what do you think I'd do? The car culture reigns supreme in the U.S. Air travel is much speedier and more cost effective to the average consumer. Southwest airlines makes travel much cheaper for the consumer and always beats out Amtrak. Even driving is much more cost effective to the average consumer, primarily because gas prices still remain cheap in the U.S. compared to other countries (European nations come to mind, some with gas prices as high as $6-$7 a liter). 5. The U.S. isn't as densely populated as other nations; ergo, moving between the states via rail is just not as cost effective as previously mentioned options. 6. The cost of creating a bullet train with the correct track configuration is hugely expensive, therefore the return on capital invested would really need to cover the cost. So far, that does not seem like a realistic scenario in many different states (Florida residents continue to turn down funding for a bullet train between major cities because the cost is prohibitive vs. the number of people who may actually ride it). There ya go. Planes, trains, and automobiles, most folks pick planes and autos. Trains will move your product, but not people (at least in the foreseeable future).
An illustrated version federal budget allocation is here.
It gives the 2004 Discretionary Budget and it reveals some interesting stuff. Military spending was the largest part of the budget and was roughly $399 BN (not including Iraq/Afghanistan); while non military spending (Education, Enviroment, Transportation, NASA, Justice, Labor, etc.) accounted for $383 BN.
As others have mentioned, 1. Amtrak gets funded just barely enough so that big oil, automotive companies, trucking companies, and the aviation industry can point to it and say "see, passenger rail doesn't work!" 2. Amtrak doesn't have straight track of the quality required for high speed rail or the funds (see 1) to get it. What's been missed is that the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) mandates regulations that really don't make any sense. Japanese and European trains can't run on American tracks--issues of proper guage etc. aside because they don't meet our safety standards. According to the East Bay Bicycle Coalition (I hadn't heard of them before either, caveat emptor, blah blah blah), the FRA basically requires American passenger cars to be built like tanks, which apparently means 50-year old tech meets the spec, but modern, well-designed composite structures used in other countries are "unsafe," even though they are superior in actuality.
"And if you happen to be in a train which crashes at high speed, your chances of survival are still better than a crashing airplane."
Uhm. Let's do some reasoning, shall we?
Bullet Train: 223 mi/hr = ~358 km/hr; height about sea level: ~1,000 feet
Typical Airliner: 510 nautical miles/hr = ~586 mi/hr; height above sea level: ~35,000 feet
Obviously, this should give you an explination of why. And, the reason most airlines crash is due to pilot error (or a general lack of not knowing what to do in an emergency situation).
Regardless, planes are still more beautiful than a train slapped to some tracks.
It's about the same speed as the TGV in France, only 20 years later. TGV's top speed is 515km/h = 320mph.
Building cars that use some other kind of fuel could be done nationally, but building roads and additional infrastructure would have to be done at a local level. The state, afaik, is always responsible for building and maintaining roads, even Interstate Highways. They get federal funding for this, but the work is done locally by local contractors or state workers. This would be the same for roads and for rail.
The other problem is that the all of the cars contribute to congestion on urban roads, where there is no good way to increase capacity. For example, I live about 50 miles north of Denver. If I want to take some friend and spend the evening in lower downtown the only realistic option I have is to drive and contribute to the traffic and parking problems they already have. The Denver downtown area is relatively small, easy to get around by walking or cab. If I could jump on a train we could go down there, spend the evening, jump back on the train, not have to worry about traffic or parking. Same thing if I commuted to Denver (which many people in this area do). If we had a rail system I could avoid the traffic, not have to worry about bad weather, be able to work, read, sleep during my commute.
Bottom line, I don't see how we can continue to expand our highways forever. They are clogged and (appearantly) impossible to maintain now. How many lanes will ever be enough?
Find coupons in Greeley
They claim this new train is the fastest but...
I have ridden the Shanghai Maglev (technically not the same kind of train) and it goes 430 KpH. It is very nice and the sensation of speed is great. For going as fast as it does the noise is quite low and you can easily walk around.
instead of the airlines and the trucking industry, we'd have bullet trains here in the ol'USA.
It's funny to think that the (now) heavily subsidized automobile/trucking industry was originally supported by politicians as a way to breakup the railroad monopolies and clean up (from all the horse poop) the cities:-).
Hrm, big government and socialism led to vast concrete bunkers, basically warehouses for human beings. Most often ugly, inhuman, poorly engineered and shoddily built, they reduced every person to the lowest common denominator. I've seen these buildings in person in the US and Germany, and seen pictures of Moscow which has vast areas which are nothing but these monstrosities.
And yes, very little in the way of garages - beause very few people were allowed to have cars, or could afford them. Not that they needed them - the above mentioned barracks were often, in warsaw pact states, adjacent to whatever factory or agricultural combine a worker was employed at. There was a food distribution center, which is where you lined up to get some lowest-common denominator food. There really wasn't any entertainment to go see, or vacations to take, and traveling without a valid permit was illegal anyhow. So there wasn't much need for a car, huh?
Frankly, very few areas in North American have the population density to make high-speed rail economically viable. What most Europeans can't grasp no matter how plain the numbers are is the VAST area of these countries. Travelling HALFWAY across Canada is roughly the equivalent of travelling in Europe from London to Moscow! While many of us would LOVE to have these services available, they just aren't cost-effective without a population 10x the size, outside of a few areas such as southern California, the US east coast and southern Ontario/Quebec.
Yup, spot-on. The #1 problem with automobiles is not the pollution or the fuel consumption, but the amount of space they take up (even when you're not travelling). This is not an issue in sparsely-populated countryside, but large-scale single-driver automobile usage is just never going to be a very good match for the city. [It boggles my mind that they've tried to push as far as they have!]
Ideally you'd have a mix of solutions -- better mixing of residential and business areas so that people can live closer to work (and hopefully use "very local" transport methods like walking or bicycling), a good (efficient, clean, safe; yes it's possible) mass transport system used for the average longer-distance trip, with cars being used only for those applications where they make sense.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Record-breaking?! I rode the maglev train from Shanghai http://www.shairport.com/en/airline02_d.jsp to the airport. It accelerates for an awe-inspiring 3 minutes, to 432 km/h http://flickr.com/photos/25577117@N00/21992900/ then after about 1 minute it decelerates for the final 3 minutes. Less than 8 minutes for what is nearly an hour drive in traffic (30 km).
Of course there are no tunnels, it's brand new maglev track, etc, so not comparable to trains on traditional track. Still, an unbeatable experience.
"A person died after apparently being hit by two speeding Shinkansen trains and a normal train on Monday morning, police said."
I bet it was that third train that did him in.
- 1- Amtrack doesn't have any long distance straight trackage that connects cities the way that Shinkansen does. (Most of the existing bullet train track was laid down in the 50's and 60's when labor was cheap and enviromental regulations essentially non-existent.)
- 2- Almost none of the trackage Amtrak uses is owned by them in the first place - and the owners therof refuse to spend billions to support a high speed train when their own trains travel at a fifth of that speed. (Freight trains are hard on trackage - and maintenance is expensive as it is. Shinkansen partially avoids this problem by running on dedicated lines. See #1 above.)
You are 'locked in' to a space that consists of multiple cars (as much as 15-20 on popular routes). There are several lounges, public observation areas, a bar, a dining room, etc... It's much more spacious than you seem to believe. Once you drop the 'me me me satisfy me get me there *now*' attiude so prevalent - it's quite a pleasant way to travel.You are ignorant as well - so are most people on this issue.Here's a little known fact about rail travel in the US. Passenger rail, with one exception, has never been profitable in the US. Never. Not even in the days of fast direct service like the Coast Starlight or the Empire Builder... The one exception among Class I railroads (systems having over 1 million dollars US gross passenger revenue) was the Long Island Railroad - which had a lock in the commuter and weekender traffic between Long Island and New York.
The big roads ran their passenger service at a loss for decades because they believed that well run passenger service provided advertisement for their freight services.
The Bullet Train works because it connects a large number of fairly close and very dense urban centers. (It's *not* a commuter line.) There is no equivalent in the US, not even in the BosWash corridor.A bit of trivia - Shinkansen doesn't mean 'bullet train' or any other marketdroid speak - it means simply New Train Line.
Actually the War on Drugs costs around $18 billion dollars a year to run. Granted its still a phenomenal figure, and considering only a tiny fraction of drugs get seized its a pretty huge waste of money. And considering some of the most dangerous and addictive drugs Alcohol and Tobacco are legal its fairly hypocritical in its aims to protect the peoples' health and minimalize social problems.
Indeed, what if the money went to NASA, or to a formation of a new international space agency?
Or to removing taxes on healthier foods to encourage more consumption? Heck, THAT would definately improve peoples health and lifestyles.
In 2003 voters approved a 4.7 Billion dollar initiative to extend the light-rail system well outside of the Denver area. Unfortunately it's going to take them twelve years to complete it and traffic here is getting difficult now.
Inter-city FRA regulated passenger rail and commuter "light-rail" (as you ironically even quoted yourself) are not the same thing, retard.
The TGV run you pointed to is just an experimental run, not regular commercial service of a production train.
The latest JR Maglev train (on display at the 2005 World Expo in Aichi, Japan) has had trial runs reaching 581kph (361 mph), making it the current Guiness Record holder for any train.
The TGV and JR500 series tie for the fastest commerical runs, at about 300 kph.
The U.S. government should issue credit and invest in high-speed rail lines. Remember JFK's space program? For every dollar the government spent it got back at least $10 over several years. Or Lincoln's trans-continental railway. Projects like that spur economic activity. Same thing would happen with a new national high-speed rail system today. Ask yourself: What would it cost to NOT build a modern railway system? The U.S. really needs a modern railway system that can eliminate highway congestions, heavy trucks on highways, and compete with airlines.
Steam trains were pretty damn fast since Victorian times: http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/mallard.htm Diesel electrics and pure electrics do not have the raw power required for high speed travel. Slow diesel trains is a major reason why air travel became popular.
Oh well, what the hell...
A railway system will always cost money but to not have a funtioning railway system would cost the country as a whole even more. A paradox.
By the way, the US should have maglev train system.
but building roads and additional infrastructure would have to be done at a local level
In the 1950's, the federal government commissioned the Interstate Highway System. Any expansion of highway infrastructure could be commissioned federally along the same lines. If you have to lay down rail, then you're going to be laying down rail lines, which are as land-intensive as roads and additionally limited only to trains that are built for that rail. Roads on the other hand are compatible with any wheeled vehicle. Then there's the problems of running the train, planning the train schedule, etc.
I have no idea what the feasability is, but why not expand highways three-dimensionally in congested areas by building an overpass-like road above and parallel to the main road, effectively doubling capacity without consuming significantly more land?
In the long run, I still maintain that the *best* way to solve the problem is to circumvent it by abolishing the commute by allowing workers to either work out of their homes or live close to where they work.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
While generally I agree with you, I have one acronym for you: NIMBY. "Not in my backyard."
Almost everyone anywhere near a right-of-way will fight it tooth and nail on any grounds they can think of - noise, pollution, scenery, the children, etc. (I know some of those are idiotic complaints, but they'd come up.)
Also, as others have pointed out, I don't think the rail lines will ever replace flying for long distances - the NY to LA run will always be faster in the air, for example. But we should have the OPTION of taking the train and getting there in a reasonable amount of time, too.
What the USA needs is this: a coherent national transportation policy that takes airlines, intercity rail, interurban rail, busses and whatever else into account. Come up with a unified strategy - for example, on short runs (DC to NY, for example), high-speed trains make a LOT of sense, a lot more than airliners. Longer runs are going to call for planes. (Not that I think we should eliminate the possibility of getting from NY to LA by rail, either.)
You miss my point - the construction of the infrastructure is a small part of the total energy balance, although yes for railways I'm sure it is bigger than for airports. But we could argue that this is only because the railway network covers far more towns and cities (and villages even) than the air network.
Damage to the track only disables the line on which it occurs, and when it does occur it is a real pain. However on well-maintained routes this is actually fairly rare, significantly rarer than flights get cancelled due to bad weather.
No I couldn't have made the trip in 45 minutes. It breaks down something like this:
Travel to airport 1 hour
Checkin 2 hours
Waiting on plane plus journey itself 1hr 15min
getting off plane and getting luggage 30 minutes
travel from airport to city centre 1 hr
delay in flight 15 minutes
Out of these, you could arguably reduce the checkin time to about 30 minutes if you are checking in luggage. An efficient luggage retrieval system would save 15 minutes. And no delay to flight would have saved another 15.
Journeys to and from airport were both taken by train (!!) and there is little you can do to reduce this. OK the Heathrow express is supposed to take 15 minutes, but leaves me in the wrong part of town so there is no saving over all.
That makes a saving of 2 hours, still giving a total of 4 hours which is more than the train. So you only really get savings with the plane on longer distances. And even then, the quickest way to the city centre by far is on the train, at least in most European cities.
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
The biggest reason T-REX has light rail attached to the project is that I-25 needed the serious upgrade, and most of the rail could be crammed on the highway right-of-way.
Don't get me wrong, I love light rail, but it usually can't stand on it's own.
I think I need a new sig here.
Most of the bullet train tracks in Japan have long stretches of straight track followed by a short distance to turn the train generally before a train station. Fast banking and turns is not required when the train goes in a straight line. :)
...is the high price/limited availibility of foreign oil provided by politically unstable and/or unfriendly nations.
Remember that a huge amount of travel in Japan is "medium distance" (a few hundred miles); it's more or less perfect for trains. Air travel may be competitive for the longest trips, but I think many people are already used to the train system, and so take the train for those trips too -- and why not, if you have a bit of time? It's quite nice to kick back with a book while the countryside streams by your window...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
In the 1950's, the federal government commissioned the Interstate Highway System. Any expansion of highway infrastructure could be commissioned federally along the same lines.
I don't think that would be easy to do these days. In the 50s those roads weren't heavily traveled like they are today. Any kind of federal mandate would be snarled in beauracracy FOREVER.
If you have to lay down rail, then you're going to be laying down rail lines, which are as land-intensive as roads and additionally limited only to trains that are built for that rail.
I don't think rail lines would be as 'land-intensive' as a highway. Understand, I'm not advocating getting rid of cars or roads. I just think if there was an alternative method of transportation it would be better for everyone.
I have no idea what the feasability is, but why not expand highways three-dimensionally in congested areas by building an overpass-like road above and parallel to the main road, effectively doubling capacity without consuming significantly more land?
Problem with this is cost. Building roads up in the sky like that are expensive and time consuming, plus the engineering required is much more significant to ensure they don't collapse and smash the people underneath. These do exist, but it's not a solution that you see often.
I still maintain that the *best* way to solve the problem is to circumvent it by abolishing the commute by allowing workers to either work out of their homes or live close to where they work.
I just don't see this happening in the near future. The high paying jobs are almost always in the urban areas, but everyone wants to live in the quiet suburban areas. This has been going on pretty much ever since the primary industry moved away from agriculture. I've also talked to many people recently that don't like working from home. Many people miss the social interaction that comes from their job. Being sequestered in your house day after day isn't all it's cracked up to be. As long as people have a free choice about where they can live and where they can work there people will commute.
Find coupons in Greeley
The shinkansen has been running since 1-oct-1964, and in that time it has had one derailment(only minor, no injuries) and although it was due to an earthquake, since 1964 Japan has had a number of large earthquakes.
The track is beautifully put together and the ride supurb, unlike here in Australia where the track width varies upto a quarter of an inch.
Yeah, but why is work centralized in dense urban areas, and why does it have to be? Explain me that.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
After a quick check on current prices and times, here is what I came up with going directly from Tokyo station to Shin-Osaka station.
Shinkansen (Nozomi): 2 hours 33 minutes, no transfers, 13,850 yen.
Plane: total of 30 minutes with a transfer onto the monorail line to get to Haneda airport. 620 yen. Direct flight to Osaka Itami airport, 1 hour, 19,200 yen. Bus to Shin-Osaka, 25 minutes, 490 yen. With wait times included, total 2 hours 52 minutes, 20,310 yen.
The Shinkansen here looks much more attractive then taking a plane. Even if its for a business trip. More comfortable, faster, cheaper, much less hassle.
The TGV run you pointed to is just an experimental run, not regular commercial service of a production train.
The TGV record was done with a production train just sligtly modified for safety/performance issues, IIRC. The biggest difference being the number of cars (4 instead of 10).
Anyway. My point was that the article implicitly compared an experimental/maximum speed for the Japanese train to a commercial speed for the TGV.
Both train will basically run at the same speed (223 mph for the japanese vs 218 mph for the TGV, that's a 2.3% difference, nothing to brag about IMHO). Except that the TGV has done so for the past 17 years.
As for the Maglev, given how such a train works, it's like comparing a turbine engine to a propeller.
Actually the War on Drugs costs around $18 billion dollars a year to run.
B ackground_5.htm r isons/investment.html
Our differing figures probably just come from different ways of cutting the data. I believe the federal anti-drug budget is around 20 billion as you mentioned, but including states expenditures raises that dramatically. I don't really have time to find more sources, but here are a few articles from a quick google search that mention the higher figures I was referencing.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/warondrugs/a/WOD
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/p
Agree with everything else you said wholeheartedly.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
My apologies... that "-------------" in your post made me think the portion that fell below it was your sig, and hence I did not read that line on my first pass. My mistake :)
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
In Japan they have JR rail, which is basically subways and train service.
The "two JRs" (JR east and JR west) are the largest railway companies in Japan, but they mostly only run trains, not subways (pthe proper subways seem to generally be split between private companies and city-owned corporations), and a large percentage of the trains (and track) are private; most of the latter seem to be the various commuter railways, using the "build new railway, profit from development around train stations" model (they own all the best real-estate...).
E.g., on the south-west side of Tokyo, there are quite a few train lines beloning to the Tokyu corporation, and at many of the stations, you can buy your groceries at "Tokyu Store", shop at Tokyu department stores, buy a house/condo built by Tokyu construction company... Move around the perimeter of Tokyo and you'll find many other famous companies doing the same thing.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
One thing I do express concerns in regards to today's fastest steel-rail trains is the sheer physical wear and tear on the tracks, rolling stock and overhead wiring from all that high speed travel.
When you go faster than 300 km/h (186 mph), the issue of wear from the physical contact between the steel tracks and steel rails and the catenary pickup and overhead wiring could mean much more maintanence expense on a per kilometer basis. This means frequent and high-quality maintanence, because even one small flaw will have extremely disastrous consequences; we all remember that German ICE train tragedy where a flaw in a broken wheel cause a derailment that killed over 100 people some years ago.
As such, for reliability and cost of maintanence reasons I don't see steel-rail high-speed rail go much faster than 300 km/h in revenue service anytime soon. Yes, the French did manage to get TGV to go over 320 mph but that was with a four-car highly-modified trainset on a very straight alignment of track, something not found in regular TGV trains in revenue service.
So don't confuse the role of the shinkansen. These are not generally long-distance trains for most people, at least not as we would think of a long-distance trains. They are not particularly comfortable, they are not very nice inside. They are just fast.
Bullshit. I've ridden many different models of shinkansen, and they've all been pretty comfortable and nice -- at the least, far better than a commuter train, often as good as airplane seating and more roomy. There's definitely a range of seat type though, and I've found that sometimes reserved seats are of a higher grade than the unreserved seats. [I never use green cars.]
Actually what bugs me is that on the two-level trains, the lower level windows basically can't see much scenery because a lot of shinkansen track has a short wall on either side; if the train is crowded often the lower seats are the only ones available.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
If oil prices keep rising, of course, these problems will tend to get solved... :/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
If they make it nice, treat it nice, the staff puts on an air of high class travel... I'll think of it that way.
And for god sakes lets put it between vegas and LA... I'll fund the whole thing myself in the first 6 months!
1 ticket there for me, 6 for me and the strippers!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Also, Metro-North restricts traffic to a maaximum speed of 90MPH within it's territory.
---PCJ
Do not worry. I bet the $310 million are only incoming *if* US contractors are selected. So Halliburton should make some money.
On the subject of [the island of] Hokkaido, where I live: The government recently announced that they're going to start laying track for our own Shinkansen service in the near future. It's going to be interesting to see how they deal with the 4-5 months of the year that we are under a seriously heavy blanket of snow.
Naturally, the carrier doesn't have the money to replace the ones they have, let alone expand the fleet. Years ago, they were exploring the possibilty of extending the service to Philadelphia using bi-level autocarriers instead of trilevel. I'm guessing lack of equipment scuttled that plan.
---PCJ
Plus assorted kickbacks to oil companies, invasion of certain middle eastern countries to secure oil supply, etc.
Actually one of the main reasons why amtrak hasn't built real high speed trains and why the acela is probably currently being worked on is that federal transportation laws state that a passenger train has to be prepared to crash with a freight train since they share the same lines with each other (unlike Europe and Japan where there are seperate lines) and so the trains have to be much heavier here. That is most likely why the acela trains are having break problems, they were based on a canadian/french design that had to be modified to meet us standards... that and of course there is no money being put up to build a dedicated passenger rail network... http://www.signalfire.org/
"It's not some giant conspiracy by big oil companies."
I am not saying that it is some big conspiracy by the oil companies. I am saying that the Federal government over the past 10 years has bailed out the commercial airline industry to the tune of $6 Billion USD, not counting subsidies/tax credits/infrastructure support or the raids on airline employee pension funds. The US Congress routinely and grudgingly provides only enough funds to Amtrak to barely maintain the status quo.
The Japanese, in spite of having the largest number of earthquakes of any country in the world, manages to build railroad tracks that can support 200 plus MPH trains, and invest in new train technology. It is entirely a matter of political will to make the investment.
The US commercial airline industry continues to lose money because deregulation and price competition does not bring in enough revenue to pay their bills, and the Federal government continues to bail them out with taxpayer funds. The only US airlines that actually make a profit these days use non-hub based point-to-point flights. The major hub-based airports that have consumed so many billions of taxpayer dollars are, basically, white elephants in the current era of deregulation. But no politician wants to admit that their regional airport is just pork barrel politics, as usual.
1. The us has a much lower population density than Japan or Europe.
2. The distances tend to be much greater.
3. Even fast trains are slow compared to jets.
4. Jets have a smaller environmental impact. They take up less land and make less noise than a jet.
Some places in the US they may make sense. Boston-New York, LA-SF, Dallas-Houston-Austin are possible.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
---PCJ
"223 miles per hour -- faster than many propeller airplanes"
Gotta love the editorials. Propeller airplanes built for commercial passenger travel get much higher speeds than that. Example: NWA uses the Saab 340 for pond jumping, cruising speed is over 300 miles per hour. You can't compare commercial train travel to personal airplane travel. Still, even little Cessnas can reach 200 miles per hour.
That doesn't mean they can't tilt elsewhere. The parent post claimed that they can't tilt at all. Wikipedia indicates that they were initially designed to be several inches too wide but that problem was apparently fixed. And, several articles I came across talking about the Acela mentioned that they could feel the effects of the tilting inside the train.
There's a very good reason for the fall of the NYC subway system: Robert Moses. I won't delve into the details, but suffice to say he did more to damage the system than any public sentiment ever could.
;-)
Also witness how the automobile companies shut down public transportation in the US, by buying out the public transpfortation companies and tearing up the tracks to promote automobiles.
The MTA does not help matters. For the role the subway system plays in NYC, there is really no need for it to be run by a state agency which also siphons off the subway fares to pay for state infrastructure. The subway system was most successful when it was run merely as a city utility by city agencies (albeit competing agencies, but at least the money was kept within city boundaries). It all went downhill with the formation of the MTA.
On the whole though, it would just seem that railroads (and by extension subways) aren't the "American Way". I've taken to extolling the virtues of rail travel to my friends, but Amtrak is not the most helpful of marketing partners. US metropolis development outside of NYC (or the NE seaboard) don't help matters. In short: NE cities are very much more European than "American".
In the meantime, I travel to Japan every now and then and get my rail travel fix there
In order for the high speed train to be cost effective it must be set up first along routes where there is the most traffic. If it can prove itself there, then it should show that there is potential elsewhere. IMO, the first route should not be trying to span large distances, such as coast to coast, rather it should link up major cities either on the east coast or the west coast. For example: Seattle - San Francisco - LA - San Diego.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Actually, if anything, I think Europeans and the Japanese are painfully aware of one key element that Americans seem to be ignorant of: Service. Plane rides CAN be wonderful (ever fly JAL? Almost as good as riding on the Shinkansen), but American airlines just refuse to raise the service bar.
"The same roads and infrastructure" are rapidly becoming unusable. There is simply no room for more cars. We might eke out a little more space by adopting Japanese-style 600cc minicars, but population growth would quickly eat up those savings. Once you have designed a robust passenger rail infrastructure, adding capacity is easy, even with Manhattan-style population densities -- you can move a *lot* of people with a 16-car train ten times an hour. 16 cars * 80 pass. * 10 = 12800 passengers/hour = 3+ passengers/second. I'd like to see the road that could handle that volume and fit in the space of a double rail track. Go to any European country and you will see that heavy rail is used in both commuter and intercity applications -- seamlessly, with brilliant scheduling. It works as advertised: it reduces car congestion in central cities to a somewhat tolerable level and it is much more enjoyable than flying. Amtrak has never worked properly because it has never been funded properly -- not once in its sorry history. I have personally talked to many Amtrak employees who know exactly how the system should be built and run. With the massive capital investment the system deserves it could be terrific. We are very open about massively subsidizing roads and air travel. If we subsidized passenger rail to the same level -- government construction and ownership of track and stations -- it could work just as well. As other posters have said, regional connections should be the first to be built. Eventually, a system with lines spanning the entire east and west coasts and the Great Lakes area would be just as functional as those overseas. No, we can't build a working train through the Rockies or the desert, but that's not where the need is. JUST BUILD IT ALREADY. Yes, I'm shouting.
I've love to see high speed rail in the US. But I'm afraid I won't see it in my lifetime. 1) private property - gives individual rights to the citizens. this makes it hard for the goverment to buy up choice land to build the tracks 2) weaker central government power than compared to Japan, China, France, etc. 3) airline industry - would be very threatened 4) more market oriented - government can't dictate and make things change without a push from lobbyists, citizens, etc. (ie, see that we have competing cellular technology while Europe and Japan are on 3G). 5) infrastructure - we love to drive and live in sprawl. many cities don't have extensive public transportation within the cities.
I cant remember (apart from Pearl Harbour) what got the US involved in WWII but the germans certainly attacked first (or at least really pissed off the US) with the sinking of the Lusitania
I haven't heard of the extra width being a factor anywhere else.
---PCJ
Because people prefer to travel by air.
Well, better than just agreeing with you, I'll make a small correction :
"I've ridden on some high-speed rail lines in Germany, Swizerland & Austria"
There's even no real high-speed rail lines in Switzerland (probably neiter in Austria, but less sure). The normal swiss speed for the InterCity trains is 160 kph to 200 kph (on the standard double-deckers).
and, btw, those train have something nice (unique?) : a children playground !
#include "coucou.h"
It's not unique, of course: at least here in Finland, the double-deckers have a playpen for children. I'd bet it's in use in other countries too.
How about putting rails down the medians of the major highways and establishing stations at major cities. Then offer fast direct connections and slower regionals. The eminent domain issue is solved because the state already owns the median and the traffic would jump once people see the train go by twice their speed.
I've seen this down to a limited degree in cities where there isn't room for the rails, so they put them between the lanes.
Huh?
Yeah, but why is work centralized in dense urban areas, and why does it have to be? Explain me that.
Not exactly sure. Part of it these days is technology. You get 50+ miles outside of an urban center its almost cost prohibitive to get a good high speed connection. This is getting better with some of the new wireless technology, but it's still difficult.
Outside of that, it's probably a problem for a sociologist. I just know that's the way it normally is.
Find coupons in Greeley
Close, but not quite.
Go to a place like the Netherlands back c1990 (last time I visited). Nearly everyone lives in-town. Most folks seemed to be living either in high-rise apartments, dense apartment complexes, or small homes with very small backlots.
Nothing like America's fondness with 3 acre front yards and suburban sprawl.
In the Netherlands, you would walk out your front door, walk down to the bus stop and catch a ride to the train station. At which point you'd ride to another city, get off, and walk to your destination.
If you wanted to go out into the countryside (say, to visit a cheese making business), you could rent bikes.
It was a *very* pedestrian friendly country in comparison to the U.S.. During the 3 weeks I was there, we had to resort to using a car once, and I think that was only to save on the rail fare.
What kills mass transit in American is the surburban sprawl. You can't grow up in the suburbs of a city like Baltimore / Philadelphia and survive without a car. And by suburbs, I mean places outside the city limits. Once you're forced to own/operatea car to get around, why would you bother using mass transit?
Becomes a bit of chicken/egg issue.
"Notoriously bad level of service"?!?!
I hope you are not referring to the service in Japan because anywhere I went in that country I could not ask for better service. Hands down the best service of anywhere in the world.
To give you an example - in the hotel room service comes literally 10 seconds after you hang up the phone asking for something! And this is in a $50/night hotel.
didn't heard about any others, but that's cool.
;)
they also tried to put a "mini-market" wagon on selected lines, but they dropped the project after a few years
now if only they'll put some bed on those trains, sometimes, I'd really like being able to take a nap on those trains
#include "coucou.h"
Thanks for the correction. It was faster then an Amtrak train, and faster then the BART regional trains in the San Francisco region, which go up to 130kph in some places.
Although, there is a playground on most Amtrak double-decker trains. It usually takes up 1/2 of the lower deck, and has a couple play structures.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
When was the last time a plane left on time or you didn't have to spend an hour for security checks?
My recent vacation to Puerto Rico comes to mind. I left on a Friday morning, and returned on a Monday afternoon. Despite leaving from BWI, an extremely busy airport, there was little hassle because I wasn't traveling during peak times. Got to the airport an hour before takeoff, took 15 minutes for e-checkin, 20 minutes in security. The flight left on-time.
Funny that, except for isolated incidents, most of the delays I've experienced in all my years of air travel have been when I was flying during the busy weekend (Friday afternoon to Sunday evening), when everyone else wants to fly.
Use your head.
When was the last time you didn't hit a traffic snarl in a big city?
When I didn't insist on getting into the city during the hours of 7AM-9AM, or 4PM-6PM weekdays. People obey the schedule imposed on them like good little cattle, regardless of whether it's really beneficial that they all get to work at the same time. I arrive at work at 10AM when my presence is not required earlier, and you'd be amazed how little traffic I encounter.
My limited experience with rail transport in this country (commuting on subways and regional trains) is very similar. Using the rail during rush-hour? Expect to pay substantially more in some cities, and expect more delays and crowded cars.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I agree with you except I don't think NIMBYs is going to be a real problem. (Maybe non-scientific environmentalists could pose a problem...) The general welfare principle, as stated in the U.S. Federal Constitution, weights heavier than "my property" arguments. (Tell the NIMBYs: "If you don't like the general welfare, you're in the wrong country.")
When it comes to NY-LA trips, passengers would probably choose to go by air. However, it would be optimal to transport goods by rail instead of trucks or by air -- much cheaper.
Well, here's an example (I read this after I posted that comment):
0 /000/006/002znhif.asp
http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/00
That site requires registration, so here's an excerpt:
"...Nassau County residents are vigorously voicing concerns about the proposed construction of a third track along the Main Line of the MTA Long Island Rail Road."
"But in a series of public meetings this month in Mineola, Floral Park, and Hicksville, hundreds of residents raised objections, citing the possibility that the railroad would have to acquire land through eminent domain and that local businesses would be disrupted. In response, several state senators threatened late last week to withhold support for the capital program..."
And this is just adding a third track to a place that already has two! NIMBYs will be a problem no matter what we try to do.
It's hard to tell from the news reports if these are the Shinkansen trains or others, but that doesn't mean that rail is perfect - just that the best units ever built, running on very special rights-of-way, haven't had major problems yet.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Because
1) war there is better than war here.
2) real war there is less expensive than political war here.
3) buying enough land anywhere in BAMA to get a strait run for the train will cost way more.
Not according to this link:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-c ountries-by-population-density
That title goes to Australia. And there are many other countries before the US.
High speed trains make at least as much noise as a low flying aircraft. The bow shock from the train is quite substantial too. Few are willing to reserve the space for an airfield, but most don't think twice about carving huge rights of way to mitigate the noise a train makes.
You can't put up sound-damping walls around aircraft flight paths.
Sound dampening walls wouldn't work well around a bullet train, anyway. What's your point?
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!