Slashdot Mirror


Magnetic Levitating Trains Get Go-Ahead In Japan

An anonymous reader writes "They've been on the drawing board for 40 years but the politicos have finally approved routes for the 500kph maglev trains to replace bullet trains." I wonder if they'll let me test out maglev rollerblades on the track.

425 comments

  1. Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by frooddude · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So maybe you forgot to mention the jet pack? Or you plan on lighting your farts?

    1. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rollerblades doesn't even make sense (why would you need wheels?). Maglev skis maybe.

    2. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Put down the fruit-boots: real men ride maglev skateboards.

    3. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by mamono · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as they don't go over water, then you need POWER!

    4. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by obergfellja · · Score: 0

      1.21 Gigawats

    5. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't the point of mag lev that the propulsion is provided by pulses of current in the "tracks", or some such shenanigans?

    6. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by Enki+X · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's "Jiggawatts!"

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to the internet. 'Tis a silly place.
    7. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by Hojima · · Score: 1

      The United states could seriously use these for public transportation. Every time I go into a crowded parking lot I think, "right here lies enough resources to get one of those done." Can you imagine how convenient it would be to have smaller versions branch off and routed to homes for delivery and single person travel? You wouldn't even have to leave home for groceries, and daily travel would be shortened exponentially.

    8. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by illumastorm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great Scott!

    9. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      The United States and most every other country could use these for transportation on a large scale, yes, but I have no interest in a 500 kph train coming directly to my door or even coming down my street.

    10. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you'd first have to address the problem of (sub)urban sprawl. public transportation is incredibly efficient with good urban planning. but since the 1950's urban sprawl caused a shift away from transit-oriented development. people began relying more and more on personal transportation. with the advent of the superhighway, introduced by Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, people began commuting 50-60 miles to work and population density began to thin out.

      but now that private vehicle ownership is considered the social norm, with public transportation out of vogue, the public highway system is being stretched to its limit. traffic congestion has become a major problem in most urban areas. and with skyrocketing gas prices, many people are finally starting to realize the stupidity of dreaming of living in sprawling suburbs and bedroom communities far and removed from job opportunities.

      the rise of car-dependent communities basically makes it impossible to walk anywhere. and everything is too spread out due to leapfrog development and single-use zoning for public transportation to be practical. add on top of this the incompetent management of commercial transit systems in many areas, and you end up with completely unusable public transportation. in my area it takes me 2 hours to get to a medical clinic by bus when it only takes me 10-15 minutes driving my car.

    11. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Obviously not to one's door, but parallel to main roads could do.

      --
      signature is pants
    12. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      Here in California it takes me (minimum) 8 hours to get to a school 20 minutes away from house if I attempt to use public transportation (and there are no bike or pedestrian routes due to the small bit of fenced off farmland and/or park between).
      Every train/bus goes into or out of LA.
      Even getting to a place less than a mile away takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour (as buses are unreliable here; they always arrive upwards of 20 minutes later; usually skipping 5-8 posted times at a time.

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    13. Re:Rollerblades + zero friction.... right! by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      the maglev train line IS in the works in the United States.

      It will connect two busiest business hubs that matter, Disneyland and Las Vegas for a low low price of $45M.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. ONLY the routes have been approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Rather astonishingly for anyone used to most Western trains, the Japanese technology has been in the pipeline since the 1960s, with a major publically viewable 20km test track to the west of Tokyo since 1997.

    Still, we mustn't get too excited - the Japanese say they won't be ready to put a maglev train into service at those speeds until 2025 at the earliest and that's at a cost of around ¥5 trillion ($50 billion).

    That acclaimed members-only dating site seems much more promising than some route plans.

  4. good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by tisch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    leave it to the japanese to set the bar.
    500kmh eh? wouldn't that be more useful in places with HUGE distances to trek, like, canada or usa, or the russian frontier? haha.
    i'm sure we westerners will steal the technology when it become cheap enough to implement. it's gonna be a looong while.

    1. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 2, Informative

      i'm sure we westerners will steal the technology

      Umm, look up "Eric Laithwaite".

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    2. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Trails · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meh just buy it now on credit. I'm sure the japanese will lend us the money. It's foolproof!!

    3. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by butterflysrage · · Score: 5, Interesting

      except being far apart you have the problem of getting the track actually built. While I don't know much of the Russian frontier, or much of rural US... I know there is a whole LOT of empty land in Canada, rocky, swampy, forest covered nothing. Plowing a train route through the Canadian Shield is not just difficult, in many places it's pretty damn impossible. The hardest rocks in the world cover most of eastern Canada, and despite not being a steep as the Japanese Alps, the sheer hardness of the rocks would make blasting/tunneling prohibitively expensive. On the flip side of that, one would need MASSIVE bridges to cover many of the dips and rivers in Quebec and Ontario.... It is just all around cheaper to fly over it all.

      The Tokyo/Nagoya run was likely picked as a first attempt as it is fairly flat and there is an absurd amount of travel between the two centers. At about 20 million people in the greater Tokyo area, and over 8 in the area around Nagoya, these are two of the thee largest cities centers in the country... add the two together and you have almost as many people as there are in ALL of Canada.

      They have the demand, money, and geology for it.

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    4. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by somersault · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I hope you can afford automated laser defense systems along the whole line by that time too, because something like that would be an awesome target for a terrorist attack. Even if you didn't kill anyone, just damaging the lines would cost a whole lot of money in repairs and inconvenience a lot of people.

      I don't think the US government can risk anything like this while their "war on terror" is still in effect. Canada or Russia maybe could do it if they can free up budget for it - not so many people seem to hate them (okay some little countries around Russia hate it, but they haven't shown as much initiative as Al Qaeda).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      There are lots of flat spaces in Canada. Think of a link between TO and Montreal. Or Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnepeg.

      Calgary to Vancouver would be a bitch, but I like driving the route anyway, or taking a slow train; such lovely scenery.

      And by the time one considers the Air Canada subsidy taxes, you could finance mag levs from Halifax to Prince George.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    6. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by smidget2k4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, we are really being pummeled with terrorist attacks over here in the US. All of the place. They are something we should definitely not advance our horrid land-based transit system for.

    7. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Yep - 1974 was the best set of Royal Instiution Christmas lectures ever.

      It's time they repeated that series - I was only 10 at the time, but was spellbound, especially by the air-powered gyroscope.

      Lest we forget, Laithwaite also helped build the Manchester Mark 1 computer - the first stored-program computer, so we have more than just fancy trains to thank him for.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    8. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by somersault · · Score: 1

      Hey I know that, you know that, but your government either likes to pretend or really believes that there are going to be more terrorist attacks. I usually get annoyed at people expecting terrorist attacks at airports all the time or whatever (and I live in Scotland where those morons tried to blow up their landrover at glasgow airport).

      The thing is that since they made a big deal out of the whole thing, Al Qaeda probably would take such an easy opportunity to piss them off. I'd probably want to do that if I'd had the hell bombed out of my friends and family for the last few years, and I think this would be a great way to send the "Great Satan" into even more of an economic depression. There's no way they could defend thousands of miles of highly expensive maglev track adequately. Railway lines are cheap as chips in comparison.

      I don't think they'd do it even without the whole terrorist situation anyway. It just doesn't seem practical. Perhaps in a looooong time as the original poster said, it will make economic sense. Hopefully everyone will be playing nicely by then. Not likely though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't it be awesome if Canada had an awesome rail system with stunning scenery, decent trip times and fairs, and with good train stops? Oh wait, they do, and it's world class:

      http://www.viarail.ca/en_index.html?wt.ad=english_link_view&wt.ac=click_English_link

    10. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      I think that both the US and Canada need to build East/West and North/South high speed rail lines, and cost be damned. These could be the new national dream. It would revitalize the economy the way the Hoover Dam and other mega projects (like WWII) did. A good start would be a New York to Montreal high speed corridor. A Halifax to Vancouver line would be amazing, you could get across the country in what, 8 to 10 hours?

    11. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Dan9999 · · Score: 1

      and slow...

    12. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Hey I know that, you know that, but your government either likes to pretend or really believes that there are going to be more terrorist attacks.

      Hence the term "security theater" -- and the current threat level which is "lavender" I think, well, it's probably "yellow" and by "yellow" I mean cowardly.

      Seriously though, it's all show -- hand waving, conjuring up imagined threats to justify their living off of the taxpayer teat.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It is just all around cheaper to fly over it all.

      Now, perhaps, but until when? Oil spiked to almost $150 a barrel this year. If it goes up to $150 and STAYS THERE, the airline industry as we know it will simply disappear.

      you had damn well better have a VERY effective train system installed BEFORE that happens.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    14. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Eric came up with the idea made it work at all ...no one was interested

      The Japanese liked the idea (fast trains with very little noise) and have spent years doing the research to make it actually buildable .. they also have several systems already up and running, this will be just the first to be an actual commuter system that is fast ...

      They have a demonstration system that runs at 581km/h and a working urban transit system that runs at 100 km/h

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    15. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't really have any bearing on my point. People complain about complexity of endeavors whenever it comes to upgrading our infrastructure. Canada had adverse conditions to running rail, and yet the succeeded. It seems pretty clear to me that rail can be used effectively in just about any environment, given proper planning and execution.

      Also, relying solely on one form of transportation, whether it be air, rail, ship, or car, is a mistake. Continuously improving all forms of transportation is in the best interests of our society and economy. Remember 9/11? Every plane grounded. How many flights are delayed due to weather? Likewise for rail and roads with earthquakes. IMHO America is embarrassingly behind on rail. We used to be known for our daring innovation and technological know-how. Now it seems like we just want to whine and collect profits.

    16. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by tisch · · Score: 1

      since when is building something large north america's weakness.
      look, thousands of miles of track have been laid coast to coast, and their immediate surrounds surveyed in the event of new tracks being built. it would be difficult, i'm not going to refute that, but, it could be done.
      think about the benefits of having a super-fast train traveling form new york to denver, los angeles to montreal, toronto to houston, etc. don't forget about picking up more passengers ($$$) in between.
      it would create a huge stake for other means of commuter transit in north america other than air travel.

      as far as demand goes, yes, i agree japan has the immediate demand. but new and better systems have a way of instilling the 'now i can do this...' syndrome.
      it would generate demand onto itself.

      now, will it happen? no.

      ps, the stealing technology remark was a joke, thanks.

    17. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by tisch · · Score: 1

      well, yea, they do. but this one gets you to vancouver from toronto in less than 8 hours, not three days.

      via isn't geared toward business people travelling much farther than a toronto-montreal trip. not that there's anything wrong with that.
      scenic train trips are like a rite-of-passage to be canadian afterall.

    18. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Apparently not all that hard if anyone cares. You can take a normal train from one coast of the US to the other. They built bridges over the valleys and blew tunnels through the mountains.

    19. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      You're right. Check out my comment below.
      I was mostly pointing out that building rail is not as difficult as people make it out to be. In other words, IMHO it's a relatively small step from the VIA rail to maglev.

    20. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay maybe there's a good reason for this, but I've never seen it before. If the rock is so damned hard, why can't we use some sort of resonance? That should make it easier, not more difficult! If resonance is the wrong word, pretend I said sonics. If that also is the wrong word, then substitute the one that I mean, and enlighten me! :)

    21. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      That would be nice,
      As it stands, It takes around 24 hours to drive from North Minnesota to south Florida .. And to able to drive though Kentucky and not notice it, THAT WOULD BE SWEET!
      you know the wierd part about the Mag-train, And other wierd inventions (Space elevator) are all laughed at by everyone else and the Japs look at it and say, "YeA! Thats a sweet fuckin idea! Lets do it!" And then everyone else is like, Wow, Those japs make really cool stuff!

      I just dont get it ...

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    22. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by $criptah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you traveled around the United States? In many places we have geology for that too. Unfortunately, many of these cutting edge ideas won't get off the ground because of the current deficits and millions of Joe Plumbers who will fight for every cent spent outside their pocket. I will not be surprised to hear that things like high speed trains and ability to use cell phones for purchases will be linked to socialism and "'em Asians." While the whole world is trying to march forward this country seems to be taking one step back at a time.

      But let's focus on geology for now. There are many valleys and flat places around the U.S. that scream "give me a train!" You can put a train between San Francisco and Los Angeles without fighting the terrain too much. Will Californians do it? Does not look like it because nobody wants to give money. Mid-west and Eastern U.S. are prime candidates for more rails as well. Hell, even if somebody put a high speed train between Silicon Valley and some place in low Sierra I would love to commute on that every day. If I can spend one hour on a train and live 250 miles away from my place of work, that would be awesome. We don't have to focus on extremely long distances. Why not build trains to connect places that can be connected? Fewer cars on the road, shorter lines in airports. It is not about building socialism or taking away your car. It is all about leverage. If we ground our aircraft for some reason or if there is a problem with a major highway it will only make sense to take a train. Currently we put all our eggs in one basket and when oil shoots past $140pbl everybody goes ape shit because we are simply forced to pay the price. We can't avoid it. We can't say "Gee dear, I will be taking a train today since there is no need to stop by for groceries after work."

      But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.

    23. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      500kmh eh? wouldn't that be more useful in places with HUGE distances to trek, like, canada or usa, or the russian frontier?

      Building a rail system - even one that runs on tracks - is expensive. It only makes sense to build one where it will get used.

      A line between Tokyo and Nagoya, the largest and the third largest cities in Japan, will see lots of passengers. The shinkansen line between them gets plenty of use by business travelers just going for the day. A train across the Russian wastelands, not so much.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    24. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You got the money, honey, I've got the time...

      Best Wishes

      Your friends at Haliburton.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    25. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by djupedal · · Score: 1

      >and have spent years doing the research to make it actually buildable

      After spending the last few years riding the maglev train the Chinese built (w/a little help from the Germans) in Shanghai, of course. I swear they must get on board and stay for hours, going back and forth between the airport and Pudong, as if they were on a ride in a theme park...

    26. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500kmh eh?

      You misread. It's not kilometerhours, it's kilopondhours.

    27. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      "They have the demand"
       
      If you build it, they will come.

    28. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After saving the planet, virgil will be used to create holes all over!

    29. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Qwavel · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      I took the train from Toronto to Quebec City a couple of weeks ago. It was very slow. The line is primarily for freight and the passenger trains have to do a lot of slowing down to coordinate with the freight trains.

      The seats all had power outlets, which was great and the WiFi internet service was very reasonably prices. On the other hand, the internet service was so slow it was unusable, and the train vibrated so much that it was hard to get any work done.

      The internet service could easily be improved, but the vibration problem was probably due to low quality tracks so it would be hard to fix.

      Also, have you looked at the price of a train ticket to go out to Vancouver? It is outrageous.

    30. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by russotto · · Score: 1

      (okay some little countries around Russia hate it, but they haven't shown as much initiative as Al Qaeda).

      I beg to differ.

      But if someone blew up a Russian maglev train, they'd just kill everyone responsible (or a likely scapegoat),and any nearby innocent bystanders and continue. There are advantages to ruthlessness.

    31. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      If it were half as subsidized as the air industry, I'd bet fixing the tracks and the cost of a cross country ticket would not be an issue.

    32. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by speed+of+lightx2 · · Score: 1

      except being far apart you have the problem of getting the track actually built...

      There's already a train line that goes from Vancouver to Toronto, it only takes 6 days, so I don't think there's the need for a Maglev/bullet train.

    33. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "wouldn't that be more useful in places with HUGE distances to trek"

      Not really. Airplanes work best over long distances. The reason is the cost of the track.

      Trains work best for medium distances. Airplanes don't work well for 200 mile runs because you have to wait so long to board the plane that you might as well drive a car but a train can make stops and then zip back up to high speed and only take five minutes at each stop.

    34. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why nobody hates them? Oh yeah, they don't invade innocent countries and kill millions of innocent civilians.

      Terrorism is caused by OUR actions. Elect someone that wont continue to ruin the US's reputation and then you start to solve the problem.

    35. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese Alps?

      Hardest rocks in the world? Dragonforce hasn't been there in years!

    36. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Benfea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aren't maglev trains energy inefficient? They have to spend power counteracting gravity, after all. If so, these things wouldn't be practical at all over long distances, and arguably may not be so practical even for Japan.

    37. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inviolet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.

      You're spinning this maglev project as socialism, and equating our resistance to it as ignorant xenophobia?

      What if ultra-expensive trains, requiring (due to their speed) very smooth runs of rail, are justified by market and geographic conditions in Japan which do not exist in America? Japan's decision to proceed and America's decision to refrain are both therefore simple rational efficiency tradeoffs. Most people call that 'capitalism', in the sense that rail is only being laid in places that can turn a profit with it.

      I think your post is a thin attempt to inject a political screed into an unrelated discussion. That might be okay if your screed was itself insightful, but dear lord do we have to have Bush-bashing in every single slashdot story?

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    38. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by BoogeyOfTheMan · · Score: 1

      While you do have a point, you are already forgetting about the hundreds of miles of pipe with highly pressurized combustables flowing through it in Alaska that hasnt been attacked. Throwing a whole state, and many of the west's major oil companies in turmoil would seem to be a much better target than a few thousand yuppies on a train.

      I just dont see the logic in the "Lets not build it because someone might want to blow it up" mindset. We already have plenty of huge targets that would be more disruptive to daily life if they were taken out.

    39. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with trains in the US is that Taxes are killing the system. If the Government provided land tax free like churches then ticket prices could be affordable.

    40. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Call me when I can go from USA to Japan besides by plane.

      No, boat is no longer an option. Unless you want to go by freight boat. Look it up if you don't believe me.

    41. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      if they were to start with anywhere, I'd say look for where there is a lot of commuter aircraft flights. NYC to Montreal is not worth it; sorry, but there just isn't enough air traffic to support building that much rail there. Now, there is between say NYC, Boston, and Washington; hence why the build the over-priced, under powered Acela. The trains themselves are nice, pretty fast, and very convenient as opposed to using one of the 3 NYC airports. The tickets just cost a bit too much, and the trains run too slow. Why, well, the trains are actually used, and subsidize much of the rest of Amtrak. The other problem being that you'd have to demolish a buildings to get those tracks capable of a real high speed train. People won't allow it, which is why they went with the underpowered Accela, that runs on the old tracks that were mildly upgraded. Even then, the Boston - NYC corridor runs slower than the NYC - Philie - Washington run. I'll bet you could do a faster train most of the way from NYC to Chitown, but you'd still run into the "don't tear down my house" folks for a good part of the distance around both cities. I'd be pissed if I had to move for the train, good idea or not.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    42. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil spiked to almost $150 a barrel this year. If it goes up to $150 and STAYS THERE, the airline industry as we know it will simply disappear.

      Let me fix that for you:

      Foreign OPEC-controlled oil spiked to almost $150 a year. If it goes up to $150 and STAYS THERE, the Canadian oil companies will still be able to sell their oil domestically for much less, and the airline industry as we know it will simply be replaced by Canadian air carriers who can buy their own oil for cheap.

      The parent poster never even mentioned the biggest problem with a trans-Canadian rail system- maintenance. You're running through extreme wilderness areas, hostile mountains, etc. The cost to simply keep the rail operating is high enough that even with $200/barrel oil it will still be cheaper to fly. This isn't just tossing some railroad tracks across a grassy plain like we did in the US.

    43. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      I know there is a whole LOT of empty land in Canada, rocky, swampy, forest covered nothing. Plowing a train route through the Canadian Shield is not just difficult, in many places it's pretty damn impossible. The hardest rocks in the world cover most of eastern Canada, and despite not being a steep as the Japanese Alps, the sheer hardness of the rocks would make blasting/tunneling prohibitively expensive. On the flip side of that, one would need MASSIVE bridges to cover many of the dips and rivers in Quebec and Ontario

      This was flagged as interesting?

      Read some history about the Canadian Pacific Railway and its transcontinental railway built in the late 1800s. (try "The Last Spike" by Pierre Burton) If they could do it in the 1800s why is it so impossible now?

      Canada is the perfect place for bullet trains. Huge tracts of flat land from Manitoba to the other side of Alberta. Fairly dense population in the Windsor - Montreal corridor with a lot of people travelling for business on a daily basis. Also, Canada is a lot more geologically stable compared to Japan.

    44. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You mean the technology they use that was created in the West?

      Ironically, to build one accross the US it would probably cost a trillion+ dollars. The distance being pretty vast.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    45. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Air traffic is far more reliable the train. Faster and usually cheaper, to.
      For passengers, cargo is a different matter.

      As far as the US is concerned, People wouldn't tolerate what it took to build the train system any more.

      You know, slaves, stealing of whole towns, killing people in the way.

      Of course it is doable, but the expense for a 4000 mile mag train would be tremendous.

      Rail is a dead end for passengers in the US.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    46. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Explain to me how increase in oil prices doesn't effect all areas of transportation?

      The airline will never disappear.
      WHat is happening is the peopel with the deepest pockets are trying outlast most competitors.
      Then airline tickets will adjust for proper market conditions.

      Yes, the prices may double, but it would still be faster then anything else, and competitively priced.
      Or the Airlines will go back to being regulated. I don't know if you remember how nice is was to fly during the time of regulated prices, but it was very nice.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    47. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      For the purposes of this discussion, I would thing buildings should be counted as terrain.

      People don't like to use trains. They are slow and expensive.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    48. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      This only serves to feed my point that a diverse transportation infrastructure is best.

      And if it weren't for a strong water-based transportation Japan would not be able to ship their vehicles over for American consumption. Sure, you may not wish to take a boat for personal transportation but what about when you want to take several thousand lbs of machinery from the US to Japan for your business? I doubt you will be going by air freight.

      To discount any method of transportation completely without looking at the entire spectrum is horribly dualistic and short-sighted. The more options I have available for personal and freight transportation, the happier I will be.

    49. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You can put a train between San Francisco and Los Angeles without fighting the terrain too much.

      They had one. It was never profitable despite being (at the time) one of the fastest and best maintained trains of it's day. The Japanese trains are profitable over similar routes because they carry ten times the passengers than a comparable US train ever will.
       
       

      Hell, even if somebody put a high speed train between Silicon Valley and some place in low Sierra I would love to commute on that every day. If I can spend one hour on a train and live 250 miles away from my place of work, that would be awesome.

      And how much are you willing to pay for the privilege? You're talking a multi billion dollar investment to handle a few thousand of riders at a point destination.
       
       

      Mid-west and Eastern U.S. are prime candidates for more rails as well.

      In your dreams. There aren't any point-to-point destinations in the Midwest, that avoid problematical geography, to justify the tens of billions of dollars needed to construct the line. The same thing on the East coast - outside of the Bos-Wash corridor (which has considerable troublesome geography), there simply aren't the destinations.
       
       

      If we ground our aircraft for some reason or if there is a problem with a major highway it will only make sense to take a train.

      And of course train tracks never get blocked or shutdown or require maintenance.
       
       

      But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.

      We don't need any of that. We have enough ignorant people like yourself.

    50. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      I am talking about building for future needs and as a symbolic act, like the Canadian Dream, the national railroad, which was what built Canada into a country. And maybe I'm crazy, but I am looking at it from and "if you build it..." POV. A NorthAm shinkansen would make changes in the social fabric itself. You sound like you given this some thought, your idea of following established commuter routes makes sense and would be a big step forward to a bigger network.

    51. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Aren't maglev trains energy inefficient? They have to spend power counteracting gravity, after all.

      Conventional trains spend power counteracting gravity as well - in the form of overcoming friction on the wheels and axles that support the train.

    52. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      Air travel is incredibly unreliable. I've worked in the industry and the pilots laugh whenever there are delays. They have a saying for it: If you have time to spare, go by air. The point being that short to medium length trips are not always best suited to air travel.

      Sure, some of the old railroads had some nasty heritage but to discount the entire mode of transportation because of that is a mistake. IMHO the airlines need competition and I want a way around the PITA that is the TSA.

      And when has anything great that America has taken on ever NOT been tremendous? Men on the Moon, nuclear power, the computer?

      Rail is not altogether dead in the US, though I will grant that it is a bloody beaten wretched creature and, much to my chagrin, the butt of our transportation industry. Europeans have begun to stop laughing at us it's so bad. The once mocking heckle has turned to outright pity for our overwhelming dependence on cars and air.

      If that doesn't rile you up I don't know what will.

    53. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with your, let's say, higher vision. I'll just quibble on where to put it. Still, your overall point is still valid.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    54. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Explain to me how increase in oil prices doesn't effect all areas of transportation?

      Most main railways in Europe are electrified -- the train takes power from overhead power lines. This makes the train lighter (no need to carry fuel or a diesel engine), allows for regenerative braking, and more powerful freight locomotives (you can draw much more power from an overhead line than you can generate from a diesel engine) and hence better acceleration. It also means you're power source is mixed, and potentially carbon-neutral. There's no pollution from the train, so it's easier to deal with (at the power plant) and nicer for passengers (no exhaust). There's no vibrations (like a diesel engine) which is nicer and causes less wear on the track.

      The disadvantages are
      - if there's a power cut all the trains are stranded (this is incredibly unusual)
      - expensive to install the overhead lines

      and in the USA
      - property tax is much higher on an electric railway, so there are very few.

    55. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by badasscat · · Score: 1

      Rail is a dead end for passengers in the US.

      Amtrak just got a $13 billion funding authorization this week. That's about double what they usually get (per year). I'd hardly say rail is a "dead end" here, especially considering:

      a) this funding increase came under a Republican president who has actually tried to kill Amtrak several times - imagine what will happen with a rail-friendly administration

      and

      b) Amtrak's ridership is at all time highs.

      Not to mention that's all happening with antiquated equipment on poorly-maintained rails owned by freight companies that do not allow Amtrak trains to run on time. If rail travel can do this well under these circumstances, just imagine how well it could do if we actually invested properly in rail infrastructure like they do everywhere else in the industrialized world.

    56. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by badasscat · · Score: 1

      You're spinning this maglev project as socialism,

      (Woosh!)

      His use of the word "socialist" was obviously satirical. As in, there is a large group of people in this country that calls government investment in public works projects with citizen tax money a "socialist" idea.

      If you asked 100 Americans "do you think the federal government raising taxes on the top 1% of earners, then spending those tax dollars on a rail project thousands of miles away from where you live is a socialist idea?" I guarantee a majority of them will say yes. That was the parent poster's point, which you completely missed.

      What if ultra-expensive trains, requiring (due to their speed) very smooth runs of rail, are justified by market and geographic conditions in Japan which do not exist in America? Japan's decision to proceed and America's decision to refrain are both therefore simple rational efficiency tradeoffs. Most people call that 'capitalism', in the sense that rail is only being laid in places that can turn a profit with it.

      No, that's not capitalism, in the same way "redistribution of wealth" or using tax dollars for public works is not socialism.

      Capitalism by its very nature is free market based. There is nothing free market about government spending billions of dollars investing in infrastructure. The free market may benefit from these public works, but the government itself does not. In fact, this is the point!

      Similarly, calling progressive taxation "socialism" is ridiculous when you consider the fact that the entire reason taxes exist at all is redistribution of wealth! Whether it's a flat tax or a progressive tax, the entire point of taxes is taking money from somebody and putting it somewhere else that it might do more for the common good. So unless you believe taxes in general are socialist and nobody should ever have to pay them at all, there's no reason not to support whatever tax-funded programs might benefit society as a whole. (And even the most rabid anti-socialists in this country seem to support the military, which is one such tax-funded program. Your wealth has been redistributed to the military and the industrial complex that supports it!)

      My point is there is a middle ground here, which is what even you, who don't sound like the most unreasonable person I've ever met, are missing. You acknowledge that government works can sometimes be good but yet you argue that in those cases, those works must be good only because they are capitalist! That does not follow.

      There's no either/or when it comes to capitalism and socialism. This is yet another case where one side is trying to present things as black and white, but I think we've all learned by now that the real world doesn't work that way.

      Some government programs are good, some are bad. The good ones aren't all capitalist and the bad ones aren't all socialist. Taxes are annoying but necessary. At the end of the day, you pick and choose what you support based on what you think is best for society (and yes, yourself). But assigning these loaded labels like socialist or capitalist to things when they have no bearing on what we're talking about is not helpful. (And the parent was trying to prove that.)

    57. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      Chechen rebels are, for the most part, creations of the Russian secret services. If you believe otherwise, you're uninformed. You can correct that misconception by quickly browsing a well-sourced Wikipedia article on the matter. If you're informed and still believe otherwise, you're as crazy as the 9/11 Truthers think that most Americans are.

    58. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by $criptah · · Score: 1

      Slow and expensive? I agree with the first point, but not with the second. I loved working in the city because I could spend $100/month on a commuter ticket vs. a car loan, gas and insurance which add up to more than $500/month.

      Unfortunately, yes, trains are slow mostly because Americans unlike European or Asians are not willing to put newer systems in place.

    59. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by $criptah · · Score: 1

      You're right. All these things are in my dreams. The outcry of American public when gas shot past $140 is never going to happen again because oil will always be cheap and plentiful. We will always rely on cars and planes to get us from point A to point B becuase unlike the rest of the world we are number one and who cares that we are years behind may other developed nations.

      I am sorry for stating that Mid-West and Easter U.S. are primary candidates for a rail road. The reality is that the whole freaking United States is a good candidate. I know several truck drives who were not able to engage in profitable business activities during the recent spike in gas prices. An extremely large fraction of goods is delivered by trucks and if we face another round of gas prices hoovering close to $150pbl, then many businesses may lose money becuase goods will not be delivered to customers at reasonable costs. This is no longer a matter of people like me getting to work w/o using a car. This is a matter of national security. This whole damn country runs on cars and there is absolutely no leverage if cars become useless. A train can haul a butt load of goods at a fraction of the cost. Why not use it? Yes, trains will require maintenance and spare parts. But then we will have highways, planes, boats AND trains; hence a stress in one area of transportation is going to have a lesser impact on the whole economy. By no means I suggest that everything that is done in Japan can be done in the United States. But at the very least we should give it a thought.

      And once again you're right about me being ignorant. It is extremely hard to be objective when your government spends billions of dollars on a useless war in somewhere far away while cutting local programs. I am not against helping other countries with infrastructures but let's do ourselves a favor and help this country first.

    60. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Deanalator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is there a chance the track could bend?

    61. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is a Muslim communist terrorist. He will abort 8 month old babies and then shove the fetus back in the woman to re-abort them. And if you dont like him, he'll take your guns away so you cannot fight back. Did I mention he'll tax the rich and not cut your taxes?

    62. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by el_munkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post is nothing but a succession of bad logic, typos, and off-topic strawmen.

      Have you traveled around the United States? In many places we have geology for that too.

      Geology is irrelevant. We have highways that go straight through mountains. If we wanted to, we could do the same thing with trains. The problem is that our population distribution is so spread out.

      Unfortunately, many of these cutting edge ideas won't get off the ground because of the current deficits and millions of Joe Plumbers who will fight for every cent spent outside their pocket.

      Governmental bodies in the U.S. consistently piss away taxpayer money in obscene ways. I don't make much more than my expenses, yet the government takes 30% of my paycheck. And where does it go? A Social Security program that will be insolvent long before I retire. Bridges to nowhere. Bailouts. Pointless wars. And both major party candidates whole-heartedly support these and want more of the same.

      will not be surprised to hear that things like high speed trains and ability to use cell phones for purchases will be linked to socialism and "'em Asians."

      That's a really weak attempt to inject racism into it. How often do you hear rednecks bashing Asians for having excellent cell-phone service and fast trains?

      You can put a train between San Francisco and Los Angeles without fighting the terrain too much. Will Californians do it? Does not look like it because nobody wants to give money.

      I don't blame them. California is completely incapable of managing money. Your solution is to give them more and to hope that they manage it responsibly? By the way, I just mailed in my ballot, and it has a very dark square next to the "No" option for Prop 1A.

      Hell, even if somebody put a high speed train between Silicon Valley and some place in low Sierra I would love to commute on that every day. If I can spend one hour on a train and live 250 miles away from my place of work, that would be awesome.

      You want taxpayers to lay you a high-speed rail directly from an exurb to the place you work? I guess you'll want another track going from your neighbor's house to L.A., and another to Sacramento? This is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. Move closer to where you work.

      You make a semi-coherent point after that: High-speed rail would be a viable replacement for airline travel. But it would be better if we waited until the technology is more mature. Let the smaller, denser countries work out the bugs and we can implement it when it works well.

      But yeah, leave it to Japan and other socialist countries to leave the world. Let's focus on 9/11, terrorism and THAT ONE with his ties to Arabs and Muslims.

      That's an absolutely pathetic attempt to inject U.S. Presidential politics into the discussion. Go back to Digg.

    63. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      Quebec-Windsor has a giant highway system that doesn't seem too troubled. Same for the trans-canadian highway.

      Does this have to be underground?

    64. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I am sorry for stating that Mid-West and Easter U.S. are primary candidates for a rail road. The reality is that the whole freaking United States is a good candidate.

      You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Among other things, we were talking about passenger trains - and you suddenly switch the topic to freight, being ignorant of how large a percentage of freight goes on trains already.
       
       

      And once again you're right about me being ignorant. It is extremely hard to be objective when your government spends billions of dollars on a useless war in somewhere far away while cutting local programs.

      Your objectivity isn't in question, your level of knowledge is. Once again, you try and change the topic.

    65. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      500kmh eh? wouldn't that be more useful in places with HUGE distances to trek, like, canada or usa, or the russian frontier?

      More useful? Yes. Prohibitively expensive? Also, yes.

      And "the russian frontier?!" Seriously? Who the heck would want to go there anyway?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    66. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Starmengau · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, the idea of loaning the US money has been floating around the upper echelons of Japanese government. You should get +1 "Unintentionally accurate."

    67. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A train across the Russian wastelands, not so much.

      Actually, train is pretty much still the most popular way of long-distance travel in Russia - simply because it's much more affordable than flying. And by "long-distance" here I mean just that - there are trains that go from Moscow to Vladivostok...

    68. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by somersault · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      The highest losses from the pipeline were in February 1978, when a deliberate explosion led to more than 16,000 barrels (2,500 mÂ) leaking out at Steele Creek, near Fairbanks

      And one jerk actually shot a hole in the pipeline on purpose, leading to 6000 barrels of loss.

      They have a lot of observation stations and people scouring the pipeline as well, so like I said unless there is a decent defense (or even just warning) system on the tracks then something like this is just asking for trouble.

      I admit it won't happen very often, but just pointing out that it would be a very good target for those people that are always making such a big deal about terrorism, they concentrate on airports and ignore the more likely threats. Airport "security" is so unnecessarily tight these days - any terrorists that did try to use a plane as an improvised missile would get taken out pretty quickly by the passengers like in the infamous Flight 93 on 9/11.

      As I said I am not that bothered about it myself and I would go ahead with plans if it was economically viable - but considering the big song and dance the government makes about airplanes and the PATRIOT act, if they built something like this it would either be a good act of defiance showing that they're regaining some backbone, or it would prove that they were just using the public to gain more power.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    69. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by zoney_ie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      High speed rail *is* mature, certainly for the fairly tame speeds required to compete with air travel over short/medium distances. There's no excuse for the US not having some high speed rail lines to reduce the use of inefficient, costly and overcrowded airline services and highways.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    70. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by somersault · · Score: 1

      I meant initiative in the sense of creativity and using new ideas. Having a plain old war isn't very inventive!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    71. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Air travel simply doesn't require the level of infrastructure that rail does. We pay for the infrastructure in each ticket. The Aviation Trust Fund is a very large pool of money. In the past, the US Congress has raided it to offset the federal deficit.

      Amtrak, on the other hand, struggles to manage its deficit. It's not about profitability. Oh, and let's not forget that over distances greater than five hundred miles, it's slower (even if you take the airport shuttle time and security in to account).

      I like traveling by rail. I like how it can drop you right in to the middle of cities along the North East Coast of the US. However, going from the mid-atlantic to, say, Chicago, is a waste of time. Beyond the densely populated North-East, rail simply isn't practical.

    72. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Trails · · Score: 1

      How about +1 accurate? Japan is already a creditor of the US.

    73. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference in the two things.

      Air travel. Buy an airport and a bunch of planes. After that you only need to buy fuel for the planes. And planes get better gas mileage than cars, plus they run on kerosine which is cheaper than gasoline. More to the point the goverment only has to worry about the airport, the planes and fuel come from the private sector.

      Railways. You need to build and maintain a whole railway. Ok fuel usage is lower still, but maintaining the railway is vastly expensive.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    74. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      Certainly there is a law of diminishing returns. However, for each and every drawback you mention there are advantages inherent to that mode of transportation. A monoculture of transportation is not in our best interest. Our rail is underdeveloped. In terms of the international community, our rail is third world. And that precedent is anything but American.

    75. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      This is true. Why post anon? It wasn't particularly inflammatory. =)

    76. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by butterflysrage · · Score: 1

      they could do it then because there was a need for it. How else were you going to get form Halifax to Vancouver? horse and buggy? How about now? You can fly, drive, or take the current rails... why would we need to spend trillions to build a NEW rail system?

      Canada does NOT have high population density, anywhere. The Windsor/Montreal corridor has a fraction the population of JUST Tokyo, forget Nagoya... add the two together and you have a appreciable fraction of the population of all of Canada in just those two cities.

      But population is not what we are really looking at, you can have a billion potential customers, but if no one uses the service you wont make a dime. What we are really looking at is the number of people who will use it. Windsor to Montreal is one of the best serviced road routes in the country, tones of very nice, often new, highways cris-cross the area, this essentially kills any chance of someone using the train over short distances making frequent stops unlikely. Now since you are not stopping often, you are less likely to pick up people along the way, further cutting the number of users. Also, Canadian cities have right crappy public transportation, so once you get there you are likely going to need a car anyway, either by renting or taking a cab, since nearly every business person would already own a car in their home town anyway this is an added expense.

      Now, why this works well in Japan... they have a LOT of people, they also have a LOT of inter-city commerce so many of those people are going from one place to another regularly. Their public transportation system is immense and prompt. Very few urban Japanese own cars, so driving there is rarely an option. There is no legacy rail. So really you are only competing with air, instead of air, road and pre-existing rail.

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    77. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The problem with trains in the US is that Taxes are killing the system. If the Government provided land tax free like churches then ticket prices could be affordable.

      Are you kidding me? The government gave the railroads the land for free, in the first place. I don't remember anyone giving me any free land. The very least they can do is pay tax on it. If I have to pay tax on the land my house sits on, I don't see why the railroads shouldn't have to pay tax on land that they use to turn a profit.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    78. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Maybe rail travel is just obsolete? Of course the government could tax people and spend a fortune on high tech trains and keep it alive like it does in other countries, but what's the point? Maybe the government should subsidise the horse drawn buggy industry too.

      The things to bear in mind is that a 747 flies much faster than this MagLev, around 900 km/h according to Wikipedia vs 500 km/h for this thing. And if you fill all the seats they get 100 miles per gallon per passenger

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    79. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by inca34 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, what? Rail obsolete? Are you kidding me? Our government is downright sucking the rail industry dry with property taxes for the rails and, unlike the air industry, doesn't practically pay for your ticket and it's /still profitable/.

      Also, there's the fact that it takes at least 3 to 4 hours to get anywhere by air, including places that it takes 2 hours to drive. That would be 2 hours for regular rail and 1 hour for high speed. Cleveland to Columbus, Toledo to Cincinnati, etc? The fact of the matter is that medium to small length distances are immediately better suited to rail. Sorry. The TSA and the complexity of flight guarantee that.

      The government should serve the best interests of the common wealth. If that means bringing out horses and buggies, then so be it. However, until oil disappears from the energy equation, I think the numbers will show otherwise.

    80. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      Sure the prices may double, but will they find enough customers when they quadruple? Quintuple?

      Oil is cheaper right now due to economic catastrophe, but that doesn't put more oil in the ground.

      Think of it as a savings account with zero interest. What's there is there. Now add this: Every withdrawal from here on in has a fee atttached to it. And this fee only increases (as oil only becomes more difficult to extract).

      That's the actual framework you're dealing with. Don't like it? Tough shit.

      Make plans or have Mother Nature make them for you.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    81. Re:good idea, maybe the island is to small for it by Dan9999 · · Score: 1

      the reason I say slow is because the percentage of travel is not for scenery (and to disagree about the "descent" trip times), myself and most people that I know do not take the train for the Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec area because it adds no benefits to taking the car. There is no way it could be cheaper so the only benefit would be speed, and it doesn't exist. I would take it all the time if it were one hour to Toronto from Montreal.

  5. Population Density by Daryen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sort of project makes a lot of sense in a place like Japan where there are a few places with very dense population separated by rural areas.

    America is one of very few places in the world with sprawling suburbs that make transportation projects like this unfeasible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it will be exponentially more difficult than for us than for a country like Japan, or even most Eastern European countries.

    1. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most, if not 95%+ of all rail traffic in the US is in small, highly populated corridors - think BosWash or through Californian cities. If this was a viable alternative to air travel, I think most folk would hop on it in an instant to avoid the hassles of modern air travel.

    2. Re:Population Density by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      Maybe not country-wide, but what about, for example, New York? LA to San Fransico to Las Vegas? Places with population density that rivals Japan.

      Then again, America has never been a fan of investing in public services.

    3. Re:Population Density by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this was a viable alternative to air travel

      The airliners have nothing to fear. Since the trains levitate, the TSA will simply declare that they have authority over security for them, and they'll make sure its just as much of a hassle as flying.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Population Density by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      America is one of very few places in the world with sprawling suburbs that make transportation projects like this unfeasible.

      Not necissarily true. I think the important thing is to get people thinking of a maglev more the way they think of airplanes than the way they think of trains. Americans in general are very resistant to rail travel for some reason, mostly because the only experience they have with it is a friend of a friend who rode Amtrak once. Why not have non-stop routs between the major cities of each region (LA, Chicago, Houston, Miami, New York). Put the Maglev terminals at the airport and consider them another part of the air transportation network.

      Alternatively, put maglev lines between airports that are close together but still see lots of traffic. I'm thinking something like Mineapolis to Chicago since that is what I am familiar with. Generally, if you want to fly into or out of Minneapolis, it is cheaper to go through Chicago. It would save a lot of time, money, and polution if you could ride the maglev between them. If it worked out and was profitable, it would also be a powerful proof of concept for longer lines in the future.

    5. Re:Population Density by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember reading a report that said that for the cost of the "stimulus checks" that the government wrote last spring (150billion), they could have built a 300+mph train from SF to Chicago, using 2 tracks, one for eastbound, one for westbound. Future projects would be cheaper, since that included wiggle room to iron out a few problems. so that's what, 5-6 hours from SF-Chicago, with all the legroom you could want, large bathrooms, dinner cars, etc? No more feeling like cattle, no more airport body cavity searches. Something 600-1000 people per train, trains leaving every hour or less.. My god that would clear up roads and airports.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:Population Density by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      actually, in the last amtrak bill that passed, their was money in there to extend the high speed rail between chicago and milwaukee (one of the most reliable and most profitable routes for amtrak, airport to airport). They are going to extend it to Madison, then up to St. Paul Not Maglev, but 100+mph trains, with limited stops. Even without Maglev, the diesel electric trains are the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to move cargo or people around.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    7. Re:Population Density by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Right, but if it could be built, perhaps it could begin to change the entire mentality around surburban sprawl.

      If business-people could get from Chicago to Minneapolis, or Denver, or St Louis, at a fraction of the cost they do now, do you think businesses just might decide that an office building downtown would be a good idea? People might just decide they are willing to travel more (I know a fair number of people who are too scared too fly).

      Just some thoughts, sort of "build it and they will come" mentality.

      --
      -
    8. Re:Population Density by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      The TSA has no need to declare levitating trains as aircraft. They already have authority over rail traffic and mass transit sytems like subways and busses.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two thoughts on this. First, yeah, why do you guys do that? What is it about Americans that they want their towns to be so mindbogglingly inconvenient? I don't know about you, but I like to be able to, I don't know, pop out for some milk and fresh tomatoes, stroll down to the fountain where the pretty girls walk by, go for a coffee or a beer or an ice cream, perhaps even walk to work! This is supposed to be a democracy—why build such misery for yourselves?

      Second, HSTs, like aircraft, connect hubs, not suburbs. Starting and stopping works better than with a plane, but it still puts a hell of a dent in your average speed, which is your selling point. The population density of the US is more than a quarter of that of the EU; that means that the distance between hubs is on average only doubled—and the fact that there's nothing much happening in the midwest only argues in favour of trains by pushing up the density on the sides. Indeed, if we take the (sadly American) argument that we cannot take any risks and we can only deploy technology where we are sure it is justified, well, France has HSTs. If you need a population distribution like that of France to do this thing, then—if I read these maps right—there ought to be HSTs (and I mean like TGV, not Acela) from Boston to DC, from New York to Chicago, and within the states of California and Florida.

      Of course, what's really going on is that America just doesn't do infrastructure, because the country is hung up on a psychological model of 'winning' against the 'competition' by holding back your neighbours. That's why businesses talk all the time about 'market share' and in times of difficulty fire R&D and boost marketing. If you built a train system, other people could use it! Perhaps even—OMG—poor people! Then how would I know I was better than them?

      (And I'm not making this up. I'm living in San Jose and hearing what the people around me are saying about the light rail, the BART extension, the HST project.)

    10. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, but so long as AMTRAK is in charge of managing this it will never happen. Acela had the potential to steal massive amounts of travel from the airlines. If you could do Boston to NYC in 2 hours by train it would be faster/cheaper than flying.

      Its the politics and half-assed shortcuts that are preventing it. Would it take financial capital to start up? Sure. But if done RIGHT it would return on its investment pretty quickly. However Amtrak is constantly doing it wrong. They need a dedicated line, with maybe 2 inter city stops. The train needs to run full out the entire time its not stopped. I'm not 100% certain of the route Acela uses, but if it stopped once in RI and once in CT you could be doing 150mph the entire time in between. Even at $100 per ticket thats far better than flying. How many Boston to NY flights are their daily?

      In general the US just has a broken view of how train infrastructures should work. The best model for a place like the US is a hub system. You designate major metros that have inter city traffic as hubs (NYC, Boston, DC, Philly) You run limited highspeed inter city trains between them. Dedicated lines for the majority/all of the trip. Once a person gets to the city they can use conventional rail to travel to surrounding areas if they so choose. Having intercity trains slowed waiting on local traffic or making local stops is just a terrible idea.

      I ran an itinerary of a Boston to LA train trip on Amtrak and the number of stops was just silly. Amtrak just needs to realize its cheaper to ignore some areas and improve travel times and they will be able to be competitive with airlines. If I could do Boston or NYC to Chicago with say 4-5 stops Same thing for Boston->NYC->DC, and be able to do it at 150mph on average, then $100/ticket 1 way would be more than reasonable, considering you'd be looking at double that for a plan ticket.

      As mentioned in one of the above posts, the key is flight time + airport time + 20% > train time between 2 cities. The 20% makes up for the fact that people will consider slightly longer for a significant savings in cost.

    11. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then by that same token, the $700 billion bank bailout could be used to build a pair of cross country tracks with several north/south routes in between SF and NY.

      When can I get my express train from Orlando to NY?

    12. Re:Population Density by MightyYar · · Score: 0

      It would help airports, but it wouldn't really help roads... Trains can't really replace cars except in city situations. A 200MPH bullet train is a waste if it has to stop every mile.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Population Density by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Huh? What you just said makes no sense at all. When you have dense population centres it makes more sense to have air transportation between these big cities than in places with big suburbs. When you have big suburbs, it seems to me it would make a lot of sense to have rail transport which can make several stops and which facilitates easy transfer to other ground-based transportation. ???

      --
      Lalala
    14. Re:Population Density by snspdaarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      (And I'm not making this up. I'm living in San Jose and hearing what the people around me are saying about the light rail, the BART extension, the HST project.)

      So you are not actually in America after all.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    15. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others have alluded to it, but what the hell do you think, say, the Eastern Seaboard is? Or the West Coast, for that matter? Ok, so we don't have a single city the size of Rhode Island (I kid you not, look it up sometime), but we've got some very dense areas separated by sometimes-rural, more-frequently-sparse-town areas here. Rail should be fantastic on the Eastern Seaboard, but we've thoroughly fucked it up.

    16. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people in the United States like large homes in pretty neighborhoods with nice big yards.

    17. Re:Population Density by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll tell you why we are resistant to rail: it's expensive and slow.

      NYC to Philly (or the other way) by car is about 2 hours. If you are traveling ALONE in the car, it will cost you about $20 in gas, $15 in tolls. Throw in $30 for parking.

      Rail options are about $60 for Amtrak, $100 for the Express. Already your as expensive as car travel, and double the cost if you are traveling with someone else. Time is about the same when you consider that your final destination is very unlikely to be Penn Center or 30th St. Station.

      Amtrak's competition? A Chinatown bus can get you there for $12. Subsidized transit can get you there for about $20, but you have to change trains in Trenton and the trip then takes more like 3 hours.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      Well, good God, it's as America as I can take. Living in Chicago was more than I could stand.

    19. Re:Population Density by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if we take the (sadly American) argument that we cannot take any risks and we can only deploy technology where we are sure it is justified

      Excuse me? Do you pay ANY attention to American news over the last 10 years?
      Let me tell you about this little thing we call "Undermining democracy".
      You see, we like to find a new computer driven voting machine, any one will do, buy a whole lot of them and try them out on a large scale during important national elections. Did I mention that we prefer to not keep any sort of verifiable record?

      Now this risk adverse country of which you speak would be a country that would buy a couple of them and try them out during local elections and slowly expand from there.

      I dont think we are talking about the same America. Who is the American president where you are?

    20. Re:Population Density by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      We can't go more compact because we are such car addicts. There would be no place to drive and park. In my parents' town, they have been expanding and are overwhelmed with traffic, but they're not really very compact. To have a compact town, many people would have to agree to walk rather than drive.

    21. Re:Population Density by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The line already runs through Minneapolis but I never understood why it only breezes within 30 miles of Madison instead of skimming the side. If I could get cheap real transportation between there and the twin cities or Milwaukee/Chicago it might finally be a better option than driving.

    22. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      Well, ok, it's been a while since you had a free and fair election. At least on a bad day (or is that a good day) I don't believe either of the last two, either. But I'm serious about the risk aversion. The current administration is backed by a lot of powerful people, and its policy has been very much to move the clock back a century to the time of fighting wars over natural resources, a tried-and-true model that is well understood. The *AA situation is also about holding back the clock. In fact, the long and the short of it is that conservatism is fundamentally conservative, and even the American left is to the right of the other wealthy countries.

    23. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let's not forget; another major reason to take a train is they can be booked last minute with no increase in fare!

      If I decide I want to go from NYC to DC for the weekend I can book the train on Friday. A flight would cost $1000 one way for a day of booking.

    24. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But it's nicer to walk than to drive. Plus, and many people are so inclined, you can go for a beer. As I say, why do you do this to yourselves? The answer "we're addicted to misery" isn't generous on insight ;). Though perhaps it's true—the way you let your petty bureaucrats, the TSA, the guys at the social security office treat you, there's some support for it as a theory.

    25. Re:Population Density by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The speed will always be a killer on the business end. Take a couple weeks ago. I flew out of DIA on a Thursday night, landed in Chicago and was in Wisconsin midnight, left sunday at 1am and was back in Denver by 8AM Sunday.

      By rail I would have either had to miss another day day or two of work, or half of my weekend. For longer trips it would be a perfectly viable option except that the way AmTrak runs their pricing zones it's completely uncompetitive with flying if unless you don't care at all when you get there and you don't mind 15 hours in one seat. If they could get their prices to somehow be cheap enough it'd suddenly be an upgrade from Greyhound.

    26. Re:Population Density by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Informative

      This sort of project makes a lot of sense in a place like Japan where there are a few places with very dense population separated by rural areas.

      No... NO IT DOESN'T!!!

      It makes sense only in the minds of people who only know the image Japan wants to project to the world.

      They don't need _even faster_ trains using Ãbertech, they already got the shinkansen. Shaving off 30 minutes of the ride from Tokyo to Osaka isn't worth it, when the effort should really be spent on making what they have _affordable_.

      Wasting enormous sums of money (that they don't have, most of it is funneled out of the postal savings and pension funds... Which, btw forced the previous prime minister to resign cause they 'lost' all the records of how much people had deposited) on unneeded construction projects is the _LAST_ thing Japan needs.

      They should try to bury all the cables hanging around everywhere... Seriously, only place in the country where they bury cables are Shinjuku and Harajuku; as a pilot program. It's so ugly that after a while you just learn to ignore it, yet still it lingers in the back of your head.

      Or they could build people real houses, instead of these un-isolated plastic... things. Winter here isn't _that_ warm.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    27. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Japan, isn't like 99% of the population Japanese? In the US, the single largest ethnic group might be...Northern European at around 40% of the population? IDK. Ethnic segregation is the main reason for US residential geography.

    28. Re:Population Density by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know about you, but I like to be able to, I don't know, pop out for some milk and fresh tomatoes, stroll down to the fountain where the pretty girls walk by, go for a coffee or a beer or an ice cream, perhaps even walk to work! This is supposed to be a democracyâ"why build such misery for yourselves?

      I like those things also. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. There are a number of factors that drive urban sprawl in the US:
      1) Housing is expensive in the city and land is much cheaper away from the city.
      2) People enjoy the freedom of an automobile (something they have to give up living in the city)
      3) There is a belief that the city is dangerous and not suitable for raising children.
      4) There is a belief that children need a backyard (I honestly never understood this one at all, what good is a backyard when your friends live 10 miles away?)
      5) There is a belief that the city is unhealthy so they move away for the "fresh air"
      In the end I think it has to do with an American desire to live in 1950s small town America, but all of the jobs are in major cities. I've noticed that there has been a recent shift toward moving into the city among recent college graduates. I think well planned colleges have made people aware of the fact that they don't have to rely on a car to go everywhere, and services like Zipcar have made people realize that a car is available if they need it.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    29. Re:Population Density by Rastl · · Score: 1

      Living in the corridor, I can pretty much say it's so tangled in politics I can't see it happening any time soon. Which is a darn shame.

      One of the earlier proposed schedules had the commuter trains stopping so much it would have taken an impossible amount of time to get to Milwaukee.

      Commuting by train is great. If you can get the schedules and station locations to work correctly.

    30. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I used to live near Chicago. Love visiting, but don't want to live there. Don't ever move anywhere in Florida. It'd make you cry.

    31. Re:Population Density by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember reading a report that said that for the cost of the "stimulus checks" that the government wrote last spring (150billion), they could have built a 300+mph train from SF to Chicago, using 2 tracks, one for eastbound, one for westbound. Future projects would be cheaper, since that included wiggle room to iron out a few problems. so that's what, 5-6 hours from SF-Chicago, with all the legroom you could want, large bathrooms, dinner cars, etc? No more feeling like cattle, no more airport body cavity searches. Something 600-1000 people per train, trains leaving every hour or less.. My god that would clear up roads and airports.

      I was just thinking about that yesterday. If we stimulated the economy by way of good old fashioned public works projects instead of just cutting checks for everyone, we'd leave a much more useful legacy to society than a few million houses with an extra plasma TV each. On the other hand I suppose it's good that people got a chance to pay down credit card bills and take some debt out of the system.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    32. Re:Population Density by icebrain · · Score: 1

      $150 billion sounds awful low, especially considering it's just a paper study. Maybe for materials and manufacturing labor, but not a total cost.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    33. Re:Population Density by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The problem: at a cost of 150 Billion, you would never ever make the money back on it. That and 150 Billion is almost certainly too low, since you not only have to get land rights across half of the country, but you also have to cross the rockies.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    34. Re:Population Density by Hell+O'World · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I always thought that the American destruction of the cities in lieu of building sprawl was stupid, but then I realized that there really was one good reason for doing it that way. The suburbs were built in the cold war, and suburbs are much harder to nuke.
      Luckily, suburbs are widely being shown to be a failure. You mention checking out the pretty girls by the fountain, how about having any incidental contact with anyone ever? Suburbs are a nightmare of tinted windshields and road rage, hour long commutes and no pride of place.
      In the misguided attempt at "safety" we have given away our humanity. Now there's a nice eulogy for America.

    35. Re:Population Density by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      It's not so much we're addicted to misery. However, we've already developed our entire infrastructure around the car. Having done that, it is extremely difficult to make the switch to walking. Perhaps this happened because our cities aren't as old, or because we had so much open land to use. Or perhaps we're just lazy.

      Older US towns usually have nice downtown areas to walk around. However, most people don't live nearby, and so they need to drive to get downtown. Newer suburbs are just hideous networks of parking lots, unfortunately. I don't know why we keep building them that way.

    36. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people keep buying them that way.

    37. Re:Population Density by michael021689 · · Score: 1

      I agree with your reasons there. Those are the general reasons I hear from most people I've talked to it about. More importantly, I wanted to comment on your fifth point there. As a current student in one of the largest universities in this country, you can see a clear shift in perception over this subject. We have an excellent campus bus system that interconnects with the city bus system (for free even!). In addition, everything is laid out to easily allow anyone to walk to anywhere on campus. In addition, we have Zipcars and a recently added system that allows us to borrow bike's from the school for days at a time. With all of these factors combined, most of us have little to no need for bringing a car to campus. Of course, this doesn't stop many of us thanks to the I-need-a-car attitude that is ingrained in our culture..but we are making progress.

    38. Re:Population Density by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I just tried it; there's a flight from NY to Boston for $159 leaving in 2.5 hours, one way. Actually, there are three or four flights at that price today. Some aggregators (like expedia) don't do 6 hrs from departure, but tomorrow there are several flights for less (135 range one way) on several airlines.

      Now, that's not a Friday, admittedly, but it is on short notice. Oddly, it's about the same price to fly to Los Angeles from NY as it is to fly to Boston.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    39. Re:Population Density by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I once researched a trip to DisneyWorld from Oklahoma City. The routing had me go up to Chicago, over to Washington D.C., and then down to Orlando. The trip would have taken a little over two days and cost about 50% more than a plane. It's hard to compete when you take 10 times as long and cost more money. Even the bus was only a little over one day and far cheaper. The cheapest option of all was driving (but not cheap enough for me to actually go. Upper middle class doesn't leave enough extra for a Disney vacation).

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    40. Re:Population Density by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      High speed rail could work well but here in the US we have a very good interstate highway system. Yes gas is expensive. But guess what? even at the highest price point this summer it was still cheaper to drive on the highway then to take a train. And you know what? driving is faster. Faster AND cheaper. People will move ro trains when they are 20% or so LESS expensive than cars. The car has the great advantage of gong from door to door.

      Within a city cars can move slowly but outside on the highway it is easy to go 65 or 70MPH If the car gets 30 miles to the galon it costs less then $10 an hour to operate. No train tickets are o cheap as $10 per hour on travel time.

      One more thing. Carpools. I can but my entire family in the car travel but if I took a train I'd have to buy a ticket for each person. Trains work only if traveling solo. Carpool give a 2X to 4X advantage to cars.

      What is really needed are zero emission cars that are fully automatic and self driving Once we have those we don't need trains

    41. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly the author lambasting Amtrak for the lack of high speed trains is at best marginally familiar with US railroads as well as Amtrak and it's funding. The current level of less than $2 billion a year in funding is not going to get you high speed anything. There are enough curves on the tracks between Boston and NYC to make over 11 full circles. Add the various commuter and freight trains sharing the tracks (yes, even on the NEC there is freight) and it's not possible without dedicated tracks. To build all this would cost billions upon billions of dollars, which you conveniently glossed over. Amtrak would LOVE to not have to share tracks with Metro North, ConnDOT, MBTA, freight railroads, et. al. but without the green it's a no go. (Take a ride on the NEC between NYC and Washington DC and you already have a higher level of success. More people take Amtrak than planes between these two points already.)

      Regarding Boston to LA, the poster is clearly not familiar with how Amtrak gets its funding. Cut out stops in some states and they'd save money in operating expenses, but senator so-and-so from state losings stops would make a stink and cut Amtrak's funding. Throw in the fact that freight railroads own the tracks and maintain them for freight speeds, you are looking again at megabucks necessary to get the speeds up.

    42. Re:Population Density by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Luckily, suburbs are widely being shown to be a failure.

      Citation please. Not everyone wants to live in a box.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    43. Re:Population Density by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      trains are easy to take in the us... even the Accela... FYI.. I work 1 block from GCT where it stops in NYC.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    44. Re:Population Density by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Come on - admit it! If your country was big enough, you would spread out too!

      It's not like you Europeans never decided to travel to far off lands and make settlements. Too bad the settlers said "Shove off! We'll make our own country."

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    45. Re:Population Density by tool462 · · Score: 1

      This was my experience in LA as well. People there overwhelmingly support adding more mass transit. The mass transit they have is notoriously underused and inefficient. A big piece of this is that everybody wants everybody _else_ to use the mass transit so they can get around in their cars easier.

    46. Re:Population Density by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      My god that would clear up roads and airports.

      Except I use the road a lot, and I don't go to either SF or Chicago.

      Wait maybe if we included stops at towns along the way, and maybe have a whole network of tracks that cover the nation. We can save money and real estate by sharing the track with trains carrying cargo. To top it all off, we should form a governmental agency to run the passenger service...

      If the name isn't already taken, I think we should call this governmental agency - AmTrack.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    47. Re:Population Density by hador_nyc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right about defining the problem, but wrong as to why. 60 years ago, HST, if they had existed, would have worked very well in the US. That was before the suburb culture started here, just at the beginning of the car culture, and a time when the US was laid out much like Europe; big dense cities, small dense towns, and not much (farms or forrests) in between. When president Eisenhower, Europeans might remember him as the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allies during WWII, decided to build the interstate highways; copying Germany; to ease troop movements around our country and to help speed moving consumer products around our country, everything changed.

      (As an aside ALL US military bases, expect the "secret ones cough cough Area 51" are near Interstate highways. They built the highways that way on purpose.)

      Anyway, you had cheap cars, a population with the money to buy them and a "big house and a yard" (the suburban dream which I grew up in), and now highways which made it easy to live there and move to the cities. Before those highways, we had trains that connected most, if not all of our towns. The one I grew up in, like so many towns in the US, was centered at the time around the train station that, in Monroe NY's case, linked it with NYC. By the time my parents moved there, and I came into the picture, in the 70s, the town center was shifting towards the land nearer the highways. The local train system had collasped, and Amtrak was created out of many collasped commercial passenger train lines. They were all killed by the highways; and cheap gas. That process was replicated in small towns throughout the US. (That train line is now a bike/walking path that extends throughout the whole county; rather pretty actually.)

      It's not that we hate trains, hate poor people, or infrastructure in general, it's that air fare was cheap at the same time cars, and living in the suburbs was cheap. The government continues to pour billions, collected in 48cents per gallon gasoline taxes, into those high ways.

      My point being that the highways killed the trains with help from the Boeing 707/747(yes I know other aircraft from other manufactures helped, but I'm just making a point). The problem is that no one realized how much of a mistake we all made until the gasoline crisis of the 70s, which was quickly forgotten when gas got cheap again in the 80s.

      If you want to see, and use, the best mass transit system in the US, come to NYC. The commuter rail is complained about, because it doesn't have enough trains/cars/lines. Here, people love it, and everyone uses it. Subway, Metro-north(east side of the Hudson River and into CT), Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit. We have a new Air Train monorail that connects two of those commuter rail lines to two of our 3 airports, we are building a new subway line (#2 finally after a 40 year wait) in parallel to the heavily overcrowded #6 aka Lexington ave line.

      Yes, some parts of the us know the value of rail, NYC in particular, but the rest will likely be taught the value in the coming years as gas, in spite of the recent drop, will rise again.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    48. Re:Population Density by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In general the US just has a broken view of how train infrastructures should work. The best model for a place like the US is a hub system. You designate major metros that have inter city traffic as hubs (NYC, Boston, DC, Philly) You run limited highspeed inter city trains between them. Dedicated lines for the majority/all of the trip. Once a person gets to the city they can use conventional rail to travel to surrounding areas if they so choose.

      But a hub and spoke system is no less broken - if to travel from where I live (near Seattle) to my hometown of Winston-Salem (NC), I have to from the Seattle hub, to the Chicago hub, to the Washington hub, and then take slow conventional trains from Washington to Winston... I'm considerably worse off that the current situation where I change planes once (usually at DFW). (Don't fool yourself into thinking that all hubs will be connected to all other hubs. There isn't enough traffic, and managing that number of connections becomes nightmarish.)
       
      There's a reason why, to the maximum extent practical, airlines have abandoned spoke-and-hub for direct routing.
       
       

      If I could do Boston or NYC to Chicago with say 4-5 stops Same thing for Boston->NYC->DC, and be able to do it at 150mph on average, then $100/ticket 1 way would be more than reasonable, considering you'd be looking at double that for a plan ticket.

      Assuming that you can get the ticket for $100, which is a completely unsupported assumption on your part.
       
       

      As mentioned in one of the above posts, the key is flight time + airport time + 20% > train time between 2 cities. The 20% makes up for the fact that people will consider slightly longer for a significant savings in cost.

      The problem is that you handwave that savings into existence, ignoring the billions of dollars it would cost to build such a network (current rails can't handle those speeds and aren't set up to allow for through trains), and the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that such a network will require for routine track maintenance.

    49. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But guess what? even at the highest price point this summer it was still cheaper to drive on the highway then to take a train.

      Cheaper only if you consider gasoline costs. You never factored the cost of purchasing the car, maintaining it, and supporting the maintenance costs of the entire interstate, state highways, and roads. As of today, you're also stuck with an oil monopoly on diesel and gasoline so next summer when prices spike again you're screwed. If you wanted to switch to another fuel source, you'd have to sell your car, eat the depreciation costs, and buy another alternative fuel vehicle which will likely be expensive because we haven't gotten down the technology.

      People will move ro trains when they are 20% or so LESS expensive than cars. The car has the great advantage of gong from door to door.

      They are less expensive than cars, but for specific purposes and if built and maintained with just as much care as our interstate highway and roads. The train won't go to your door, I'll give you that--an automobile is pretty darn convenient. But you know what? Most people travel between the same two points 5 days a week. Those two points are called "home" and "work". Rail or even buses can do a hell of a better job of moving people than giving everyone an SUV or large sedan to drive around ONE person.

      We also have this strange obsession of building huge parking lots when we don't need them. The distance between two buildings is literally a block now because you have to build a parking lot. But if people walked by foot and the parking lot wasn't half or more of the space, people could actually walk from place to place. Americans in generally have this strange obsession with finding the perfect parking space when they can park 50 ft and save gas and time just by walking instead of sitting and waiting for the fat lady to move out of the FIRST parking space.

      The last point I have is that automobiles are the least safest form of transportation. You have millions of people coordinating with each other merely through the use of signal lights IF THEY CHOOSE TO USE THEM CORRECTLY. People have this awkward logic going on in their head that "if I'm at the wheel, I'm safer". No you're not! You're putting yourself at the mercy of hundreds of other drivers! So you'd rather get on the road with strangers that can kill you because they're putting on make up or they had a long shift that day and are lacking sleep or would you rather be on a rail where the number of variables that can kill you are greatly reduced? Oh, you don't want to deal with the crazies on the train, but you'd rather let the crazies zoom past you on the freeway. Makes perfect sense.

      One more thing. Carpools. I can but my entire family in the car travel but if I took a train I'd have to buy a ticket for each person. Trains work only if traveling solo. Carpool give a 2X to 4X advantage to cars.

      You sure can! But let me ask you this: how often do you use that "feature"? Where do you spend most of your gas money? Is it on hauling your family to the local soccer field 5 miles away so the kids can play on the weekend match or is it that 20 minute commute to work? How many vehicles do you own? Don't you think you could actually get by on just one vehicle for the household if the city was built correctly and public transit was readily available?

      Don't get me wrong, carpool if you can. But not everyone has perfect schedules and the same destinations for work and home. The demands of a salaried worker frequently leads to awkward hours or an extra hour here and there. So carpools aren't a solution. But in a functional public transit system, you'd just wait for the next bus or train and the entire public transit vehicle is in use all day while your car just sits in a parking lot or in the garage for most of the day. To me, public transit is a much more effective use of resources or assets because it is managed directly for the needs

    50. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, suburbs are widely being shown to be a failure.

      In what respect? Where I live, the suburbs have higher quality of life, lower crime, and end up subsidizing the major cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul) with their tax revenue.

    51. Re:Population Density by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Americans in general are very resistant to rail travel for some reason, mostly because the only experience they have with it is a friend of a friend who rode Amtrak once.

      No, it goes back into history - Americans avoid rails because except for fairly short distances, airplanes are far faster and cheaper even when compared to dedicated trains on dedicated tracks.
       
       

      Alternatively, put maglev lines between airports that are close together but still see lots of traffic. I'm thinking something like Mineapolis to Chicago since that is what I am familiar with. Generally, if you want to fly into or out of Minneapolis, it is cheaper to go through Chicago. It would save a lot of time, money, and polution if you could ride the maglev between them.

      How, precisely, does building tens of billions of dollars worth of tracks save you money? In the end, that's the real problem with rail travel - it never has been profitable in the US, ever. Amtrak was formed because the US railroads were ready to simply abandon passenger service entirely because dropping freight revenue (from competition with trucks) made it an expensive luxury and no longer viable in it's old role (as a loss leader to advertise the railroads freight services).

    52. Re:Population Density by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There is a belief that children need a backyard (I honestly never understood this one at all, what good is a backyard when your friends live 10 miles away?)

      In a reality where houses with kids are ten miles apart, this is a valid point. Here in the US where you have kids next door, and down the block, etc... etc... it's nonsense.

    53. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      probably because they just want to fill the seats any way they can this close to the fight.

      Still when was the last time you tried walking up to a ticket counter and purchasing a plane ticket on the spot. Assuming you know the train schedule you could just show up 15 min before the train leaves and buy a ticket in most cases. You'd need at least 2 hours to do that for a plane, and you'd likely not get a ticket.

    54. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it's good that people got a chance to pay down credit card bills and take some debt out of the system

      Oh, if only that's what people actually did with the stimulus checks.

    55. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      I know full well how Amtrak is funded. As I stated, Amtrak is the problem, pure and simple.

      Privatize the railroad or stop funding it the same way. Make them actually EARN profit like an airline or bus company.

      You'd see incredible improvements if that was the case. If Amtrak fails, someone else can step up.

      I've ridden the route from Boston to NYC and I know its an awful mess sharing the tracks, thats why I think its a terrible idea. I also realize there would be a huge investment in building a new system. I was thinking single digit billions of dollars. Take a slightly out of the way route perhaps near the I84 corridor. But if you make it fast, simple, efficient, the cost savings over flight would make it profitable and over time it pays off the investment cost.

      Its not that there aren't challenges and issues, but with the mindset that there's no way to do it, nothing will ever get done. If people were so motivated they'd find a way, its not like other countries that have built high speed lines haven't faced the same issues. The Atlantic coast at the very least is not all that different than Europe or Japan in terms of population density and terrain. If anything other countries have it worse.

    56. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      //If I could do Boston or NYC to Chicago with say //4-5 stops Same thing for Boston->NYC->DC, and be //able to do it at 150mph on average, then //$100/ticket 1 way would be more than reasonable, //considering you'd be looking at double that for a //plan ticket.

      I used to take the train from NYC to Providence, RI quite often. There was one stop in between. The theoretical top speed of Acela was 150 MPH. It is just about 180 miles between the two cities. The train ride took 3 hours.

      The problem was not the number of stops, it was that the train went VERY slowly when leaving New York and only went at top speeds for maybe 30 minutes in Connecticut.

      It seems that we would have to have more dedicated tracks so that the trains can go at top speeds for extended periods. But then again, is there any room to build more tracks coming out of NYC?

    57. Re:Population Density by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Here in the US where you have kids next door, and down the block, etc... etc... it's nonsense.

      Just because there are kids next door doesn't mean your kids will like them.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    58. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      I'm basing the $100 ticket price on Acela pricing. You can get the tickets for sub $100 at times.

      The Acela prices could be less if they filled the trains more, but they don't because it still takes 3-4 hours (you can almost drive it in that time).

      I DO realize that the cross country trip in a place like the US would be an issue. Thats the perfect time to use an airline. The bread and butter routes for trains should be regional intercity routes. These are the routes where the overhead time at the airpot (checkin, security, boarding, unboarding and possibly baggages etc) is a significant portion of the overall trip time. Boston to NYC is like an hour flight, but you might spend 3 hours total from drop off to pickup. If you can just show up at a train station, hop on the train and be outside the other station in a comparable 3 hours, or maybe 3.5 hours (figuring people will take a little longer if its cheaper), it would be preferable for many people to the plane. For an cross continental trip thats not the case. The time by train versus the time by plane is significant, and the time before/after the flight is perfectly acceptable for the time of the trip.

      Like I said in one of the other responses, its not like all of this stuff hasn't been dealt with in other places. In Europe if I want to travel locally I take a train, if I want to travel across the continent I'd fly.

      The spoke/hub system I mentioned was more of a way to connect point to point, not so much taking into account hub to hub to hub to local. While East/West across the US is an issue, the Atlantic coast (the busiest area for flights) is perfect for inter city trains. It would be better for the environment, better for wallets, and help ease congestion as a few dangerously busy airports.

      Not to much I personally find trains much more comfortable, but that might just be me.

    59. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Yeah it might not have been clear, but this is what I meant by sharing the tracks. Acela can't go full speed for most of the trip for 2 main reasons 1) the tracks weren't designed for the speed, so even though the train is build to run on normal tracks, it still needs to go slower in sections and 2) because it has to deal with being routed around conventional trains. If it had the full track to itself as is it could cut probably an hour off that time you had, but it has to slow in order to keep acceptable space near other trains at times.

    60. Re:Population Density by donoteat01 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but so long as AMTRAK is in charge of managing this it will never happen. Acela had the potential to steal massive amounts of travel from the airlines. If you could do Boston to NYC in 2 hours by train it would be faster/cheaper than flying.

      Its the politics and half-assed shortcuts that are preventing it. Would it take financial capital to start up? Sure. But if done RIGHT it would return on its investment pretty quickly. However Amtrak is constantly doing it wrong. They need a dedicated line, with maybe 2 inter city stops. The train needs to run full out the entire time its not stopped. I'm not 100% certain of the route Acela uses, but if it stopped once in RI and once in CT you could be doing 150mph the entire time in between. Even at $100 per ticket thats far better than flying. How many Boston to NY flights are their daily?

      In general the US just has a broken view of how train infrastructures should work. The best model for a place like the US is a hub system. You designate major metros that have inter city traffic as hubs (NYC, Boston, DC, Philly) You run limited highspeed inter city trains between them. Dedicated lines for the majority/all of the trip. Once a person gets to the city they can use conventional rail to travel to surrounding areas if they so choose. Having intercity trains slowed waiting on local traffic or making local stops is just a terrible idea.

      I ran an itinerary of a Boston to LA train trip on Amtrak and the number of stops was just silly. Amtrak just needs to realize its cheaper to ignore some areas and improve travel times and they will be able to be competitive with airlines. If I could do Boston or NYC to Chicago with say 4-5 stops Same thing for Boston->NYC->DC, and be able to do it at 150mph on average, then $100/ticket 1 way would be more than reasonable, considering you'd be looking at double that for a plan ticket.

      As mentioned in one of the above posts, the key is flight time + airport time + 20% > train time between 2 cities. The 20% makes up for the fact that people will consider slightly longer for a significant savings in cost.

      Not quite. Unfortunately, the infrastructure for 150 mph trains simply does not exist south of NYC. The Northeast Corridor is not a dedicated high-speed rail line, at least not in the European or Japanese sense. The actual track was built in the late 19th century. The overhead wiring is original from the 1930s. The only 150mph track is the brand new line from NYC to Boston. Below NYC, everything is rated for 100mph or less, with a few stretches of 125mph near Philly. Around Baltimore it is really bad, limited to 45mph. It's not as though one can simply make the trains tilt, they'll still derail. (also, the Acela trains were built 4 inches too wide, so if their tilting functionality was used to its full extent, it would smash into stuff on the side of the tracks.) There is essentially no room to straighten the track or to build new dedicated lines anywhere in the Northeast. Also, Amtrak shares this track with New Jersey Transit, SEPTA (commuter trains in PA), MARC rail (Maryland commuter trains), and freight trains, none of which have priority over the Acela, but which still cause delays simply due to the fact that two trains cannot occupy the same track at the same time. Couple that to the fact that Amtrak is required by the US government to keep all their unprofitable trains and hence has absolutely no money, and it's surprising that they can get the trains out at all. 1930s trackage and corrupt government management do not a high speed rail line make.

    61. Re:Population Density by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      DC people say the same about keeping the Metro out of Georgetown. I suppose they're counting on being rich enough to pay for $5+/$10+ gas when that day comes. At least it keeps the rabble out.

    62. Re:Population Density by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Thing is, maglev isn't so good for long distance.

      The problem is that maglev is ground level, whereas aircraft fly at high altitude.

      At high speeds, most of the energy used goes in airdrag, and so aircraft are much more efficient because they fly where the air is thinner, and this ultimately means that can go faster and they cost less.

      Maglev is good if you want to go relatively short distances very quickly, where aircraft don't have a chance to gain much altitude before they come down again, but not long distances.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    63. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Driving is only faster because US train system sucks. In germany our highway system (i.e. Autobahn) is better and faster than US highway system (my usual travel speed is 100mph, leading to a 85mph total average), but nontheless the train is faster in connecting many big cities (Munich-Hamburg: 7 hours drive vs 5:30 with the train)

      And with german gas prices, it is even cheaper to go by train than driving.

    64. Re:Population Density by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      As mentioned in one of the above posts, the key is flight time + airport time + 20% > train time between 2 cities.

      Actually it's flight time + security line time + cab/rail time from the airport in the exurbs to your downtown destination, versus train time.

      I travel from Baltimore to Manhattan by train a few times a year. Even though I live twenty minutes from BWI, and it's only about an hour and a half flight from there to LaGuardia, I'd have to get to BWI early and dick around with security, wait around at LaGuardia to get my bags, and then face a ride in from Queens. It makes a lot more sense for me to drive downtown to Baltimore's Penn Station and take a two and half hour Amtrak ride and end up walking distance (or maybe a quick subway or cab ride) from my destination. Trains can bring you right into the center of town, usually not workable with airports.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    65. Re:Population Density by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      NYC to Philly (or the other way) by car is about 2 hours. If you are traveling ALONE in the car, it will cost you about $20 in gas, $15 in tolls. Throw in $30 for parking.

      Rail options are about $60 for Amtrak, $100 for the Express...Time is about the same when you consider that your final destination is very unlikely to be Penn Center or 30th St. Station.

      Ah, but it's wasted car time, versus usable (reading, sleeping, working on a laptop) time on the train. And you're more likely to make it close to your scheduled time instead of being stuck on the interstate in a backup.

      Plus, you don't have to drive in Manhattan traffic. Big win!

      But yes, the Chinatown bus FTW - provided that your schedule has leeway to allow for those backups.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    66. Re:Population Density by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      First, yeah, why do you guys do that? What is it about Americans that they want their towns to be so mindbogglingly inconvenient?

      It's a combination of "white flight", cheap gas, public policy favoring public road with private vehicles over public transit, and a general American trend towards thinking that "bigger is better!"

      In the 1950s, everyone wanted to live in the suburbs, with their own little plot of land and no dark skinned people around. Gas and cars were cheap enough to allow it. We planned our communities around that, then let public transit rot. As public transit rotted, everyone bought cars; as everyone bought cars, suburban living made more sense and cities decayed...lather, rinse, repeat.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    67. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, here in Southern California, part of the problem is that you have cities originally designed by people with an interest in the automotive industry (e.g., Los Angeles).

      But also, people value their automobiles for the isolation. They don't want to have to deal with seeing and hearing other people or other people's problems. (In other words, many people's resistance to public transportation is that if they used it, they'd have to deal with the general public.)

      On a related note, there are lots of people who think public transportation is overcrowded, dirty, unsafe (more along the lines of "you could get mugged!" rather than "you could be in an accident"), and too infrequent to be practical. Which means that they prefer other methods of transportation, and then withhold funding from the public transportation that they aren't using, thereby increasing the problems that they didn't like in the first place.

      I recently visited the Bay Area for a workshop and took the plane up to Oakland, where I then took public transportation (BART and shuttles) for my entire trip -- it was reasonably fast and inexpensive, and there's nothing like it in the area where I live. I would have taken the train up instead, except that it was a 10-hour train ride (as opposed to 80 minutes by plane). If something like this would make it practical to take the train on a future trip, I would be all for it.

    68. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]Even without Maglev, the diesel electric trains are the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to move cargo or people around[/quote]

      The fact of it being diesel by definition proves that it is not most efficient or environmentally friendly. Maglev trains can, in achievable theory, reach speeds over 1,000 miles per hour.

    69. Re:Population Density by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, since I don't have a car the train is a no-brainer when I'm consulting. But the creepy bus with all of the criminals is the way to go when I'm on my own dime. If I'm in no particular hurry I'll take the NJT-to-Septa route.

      The part that sucks is my final destination in Philly is another train away, and my starting point is about 30 minutes by train from Penn Station in Manhattan... so my trip is now over an hour longer than it would be by car.

      Anyway, I don't mind the short drive to Philly if I've got someone in the car with me. If I'm alone the time I can charge while working on the train more than pays for the trip. Amtrak has nice seats... I'll give 'em that. And a power outlet at each one!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    70. Re:Population Density by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 1

      and that project would actually create jobs as well and stimulate the economy much more than the $600 bribe plan. very interesting.

    71. Re:Population Density by evilviper · · Score: 1

      What is it about Americans that they want their towns to be so mindbogglingly inconvenient?

      If you drive a car, US cities are very convenient.

      And if you want to extol the virtues of walking (or biking) over driving, I suggest you take a close look at weather patterns in the US.

      Not to mention the flexibility being able to drive gives you.

      pop out for some milk and fresh tomatoes, stroll down to the fountain where the pretty girls walk by, go for a coffee or a beer or an ice cream

      How many choices do you have for shopping within walking distance, and how long does it take you to walk there? I bet cars have you beat on speed and choice.

      Besides, the crux of your point seems to be that driving is some painful, miserable activity that people tolerate... which is really the exact opposite of reality, except in the case of cities with heavy traffic congestion mainly during rush hour. In lesser densely populated areas, driving in an extremely fast and convenient way to get where you want to go, and offers a level of freedom that is difficult to describe to anyone who has never experienced it themselves. Someone who drives might have similarly negative opinions about being forced to walk a couple miles to get somewhere, rather than being able to drive there.

      And finally, there's no denying the economics of it. Even with heavily government subsidized public transportation in the US, it's still almost always cheaper to drive yourself... The exception being distances well over 200 miles (~350km), at which point the limited schedules may become a problem. With substantially larger distances, commercial passenger jets quickly become cheaper, while being much faster, safer, and more frequently scheduled, hence the term "commuter flight".

      And this is coming from someone who is actually a proponent for improved passenger rail service in the US. For those intermediate distances, it's a very good option. If operating costs could be reduced significantly, it might be able to compete with passenger jets for somewhat longer trips as well.

      The population density of the US is more than a quarter of that of the EU; that means that the distance between hubs is on average only doubled

      Lower population density doesn't mean that you can stop less frequently... The population is much more uniformly distributed, meaning you'd need a much larger transit system to get everyone to the "hub" in the first place. At which point, you can just connect the individual "spokes" and eliminate the hub all together.

      That kind of system would actually describe the MetroLink rail system in Los Angeles quite well. Of course, it has the familiar disadvantages of innumerable stops, making getting to your destination slower than driving directly there. Never mind having to sit around waiting for the next scheduled train to arrive, which isn't an issue with a car.

      Of course, what's really going on is that America just doesn't do infrastructure, because the country is hung up on a psychological model of 'winning' against the 'competition' by holding back your neighbours.

      That's just not true at all. The US spends tons of money on roads, which is highly prized infrastructure, used by both rich and poor alike.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    72. Re:Population Density by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      But they didn't _want_ people to pay down credit card bills (which people shouldn't have anyway, except in unusual circumstances). They expected people to go buy a TV or other goods.

    73. Re:Population Density by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      It's because our country's government has been hijacked by looters for some time now.  We once had the wherewithal to build the interstate highway system and send a man to the moon.  But that sort of thing is much too expensive when you would rather give all the government's money to your friends.

      Ultimately it's down to the military industrial complex, which has morphed into a general corporate-government complex, which will destroy our country if we let it.

    74. Re:Population Density by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      All it takes is for train service to get popular, and it will become a terrorist target. Well, at least our friends in Washington will fear it and you'll get to the hour waits in a TSA line and a Soviet era "your papers please" request at every ticket counter. Think of it like windows and Linux - you can write a virus for the latter, but it's not worth the effort when windows is so popular. Make trains a critical part of the passenger infrastructure and they'll be considered a target - at least by our own government.

      (yes, I chafe at the annoying and pointless checks through airport security.)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    75. Re:Population Density by Chang · · Score: 1

      Nothing could be further from the truth. There's an awful lot of cities and suburbs between Tokyo and Nagoya and Osaka where these lines will go first.

      Not to mention mountains everywhere - the railroads and highways run through plenty of tunnels along this same stretch. Those tunnels had to be built, painfully, and one-by-one over the past several decades.

      The right of way for rail is pretty small - there are business and residences on both sides of the track usually located very close.

      The existing rail service has to keep going during construction which means a new right of way for the maglev lines. This isn't going to be easy or cheap and there will be plenty residents who fight to keep their land.

      There will be a major fight between Yamanashi and Shizuoka prefectures over the line. Shizuoka has the Shinkansen line now and has benefited economically. Yamanashi has the test track (20km) already installed (thanks to Shin Kanemaru) but may not have the political power to take advantage of the test track and get the line to run through Koufu.

      Building through a suburb in the US would be very easy by comparison. But nobody would ride it until gas hits 5$ or more and car maintenance costs go up to a level consistent with Japan or Europe.

    76. Re:Population Density by groman · · Score: 1

      Two thoughts on this. First, yeah, why do you guys do that? What is it about Americans that they want their towns to be so mindbogglingly inconvenient? I don't know about you, but I like to be able to, I don't know, pop out for some milk and fresh tomatoes, stroll down to the fountain where the pretty girls walk by, go for a coffee or a beer or an ice cream, perhaps even walk to work! This is supposed to be a democracy—why build such misery for yourselves?

      It's not misery and it's not inconvenient. I don't want to live near businesses or other people, but I also don't want to give up the benefits of proximity -- so it becomes a balancing act. I live as far away from others while maintaining the basic required connection to the infrastructure (roads, sewers, electricity, broadband, stores, jobs, etc.) as I can afford.

      It's not about being better than somebody, or even knowing that you are better. It's grasping at straws to maintain any semblance of autonomy and individualism (but not necessarily individuality). Why would I choose to deal with random strangers any more than I already have to?

    77. Re:Population Density by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      On the other hand I suppose it's good that people got a chance to pay down credit card bills and take some debt out of the system.

      There's so many people getting layed off in places like Windsor and Detroit, why don't they convince them to help in these sort of projects? It's often people who worked for GM/Ford for a long time... I'm sure building tracks and trains is not too much harder than building cars? As for laying them down, well, I'm sure some people are up to it. Lets you see some scenery, too.

      Or, I hate to say it, but put the 1%-of-the-pop-prisoners of the US help work in these sorts of programs. I'm talking about low-crime stunts though. Things like somebody put in jail for drugs and other bullshit reasons (we're not going to touch that, but is prison really the best punishment?).

      Then like you said, instead of leaving kids with plasma TVs, we leave them with a stronger infrastructure, and maybe then they'll take out the iPods and aspire to be good people too.

      But who am I kidding. Just print money.

    78. Re:Population Density by Jorophose · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree 100%. I think this is why they fly more in Europe than drive, at least that's what I saw when I was there...

      Driving down highway 401 takes about 8 hours to reach windsor from Ottawa. Fill up just around Toronto. So we'll say you spend 200$ in gas to get there, 200$ back. This is for a van that seats 6 and their stuff for a couple days. Now, how much is a plane ticket? 800$+ IIRC. Yeah, right. Train? I think it's cheap enough, but it's a bit longer. And with 6 people, might as well take the car.

      But you know what? For business use trains are fine. Why not? Who are you going to carpool with?

    79. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Don't know about this. While bombing trains might be just as bad in actuality there's something in the finality of falling from the sky that seems to make people want security on airlines more. Its not like train travel isn't huge in other parts of the world and we don't have the same security that we do at airports in those countries.

    80. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      I think you're agreeing with me and not realizing it. Even north of NYC a lot of the track is shared with MetroNorth and the MBTA. I clarified this in another followup post to one of the other responders. I realize its contending with other trains and I realize it would require tons of infrastructure for a full high speed line.

    81. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have higher quality of life

      Sure... If you're married. If not, good luck finding a life (and no, trolling churches for desperate women does not count).

    82. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suburbs are a nightmare of tinted windshields and road rage, hour long commutes and no pride of place.

      WTF?! I live 10 minutes from work in a man-u-fact-u-ring facility (not law firm or doctor's office). If I lived in the big city 10 miles away, my commute would be further. Now I made the conscious decision to live near work and many coworkers choose otherwise. So long as the metropolitan area stretches over 10,000 square miles, any family of 4 is not likely to find all the schools, jobs, and housing they need within a few square miles. The exceptions tend to be one 'breadwinner' households that are not very particular about which school their kids attend. Could our 10,000 square mile metropolitan area be less spraweled? Perhaps but at the cost of less industry, fewer parks and greenways (I am smack in the middle of MANY MANY MANY forest preserves). Bringing people closer would not negate the need to move those people so the roadways might need more lanes and that is not always practical. If you can simcity something from the ground up, it may be possible. Also, seeing the way major cities are run politically, they are not destroyed by America, they self-destruct.

    83. Re:Population Density by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm basing the $100 ticket price on Acela pricing. You can get the tickets for sub $100 at times.

      However, Acela is subsidized, doesn't run on dedicated rails, and doesn't run fast enough to be really competitive with the airlines. You are basing your ticket price for your proposed train by comparing apples to oranges. Creating an 'Acela done right' is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars just to connect Boston to Washington - tickets won't be $100.
       
       

      I DO realize that the cross country trip in a place like the US would be an issue. Thats the perfect time to use an airline. The bread and butter routes for trains should be regional intercity routes.

      Like I said in one of the other responses, its not like all of this stuff hasn't been dealt with in other places. In Europe if I want to travel locally I take a train, if I want to travel across the continent I'd fly.

      But you fail to realize that outside of Southern California and the Bos-Wash corridor - the United States isn't anything like Europe. There simply aren't any regional intercity routes that will come anywhere even close to paying their own way outside of those small areas. I really wish people would learn that the US isn't simply a large Europe.
       
       

      The spoke/hub system I mentioned was more of a way to connect point to point, not so much taking into account hub to hub to hub to local.

      Well, you have to take into account hub to hub to hub to local because it's an inescapable consequence of spoke/hub. There's a lot more to the US than the few large hubs that are (more or less) connected point-to-point under your scheme.
       
       

      It would be better for the environment, better for wallets, and help ease congestion as a few dangerously busy airports.

      Railroad tracks are hardly environmentally friendly, it's only better for wallets when subsidized, and any significant train system will suffer the same congestion on the tracks and at the stations.

    84. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      <ahem>Actually, we threw you out because you were a bunch of nutjobs, and you ran off to another continent, started a war with the inhabitants, whined to us that you needed military help, got all upset when that turned out to have a price, invested heavily in the slave trade, and finally declared independence when you realised that the abolition of slavery was becoming unavoidable throughout the Empire and it was going to wreck your economy when it happened. But that's neither here nor there.</ahem>

      Montreal is on this continent, you know, in a country with rather too much room, and it's pretty livable. Not perfect, but no doctrine of 'no food without a car.' You really are just being weird.

    85. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cars faster than trains? Even the pathetic trains they have in England do 125MPH. In France that's 200MPH. China? 270MPH. Cars cheaper than trains? Only, I suspect, because your wonderful highway system is state-subsidised, but the government is in bed with the automotive companies and will do nothing similar for rail. Wake up, America! There's a whole world out there, and you're not within sight of the leading edge when it comes to anything infrastructural.

      Oh, and you're right. Train tickets aren't as cheap as cars per hour travelled. But that's assuming I spend time in a car for fun. Cars are cramped, smelly, have no restaurants or social opportunities, are inconvenient for reaching city centres and take three times as long to get there. These facts will stay the same even if cars become self-piloting, though I guess that then, at least, you'll be able to sleep and perhaps even to drink without getting yourself and several other people killed.

    86. Re:Population Density by porpnorber · · Score: 1

      My father remembers the streamline Pacific class locos. These were breaking 125MPH in 1938. So, yes, they had HSTs, by the European definition, 60 years ago. And no, it wasn't here, and no, it isn't here.

      But your point is taken. It is a conspiracy. Yet, this is supposedly a democracy—can't you vote in a little sanity?

    87. Re:Population Density by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you why we are resistant to rail: it's expensive and slow.

      Yes, but it has been consistently shown by Europe and Japan that it can be made both fast and cheap. Yet every time this discussion happens on /., Americans raise a fuss about how it's unfeasible for the US, how it's too expensive, and how rail sucks anyway so who cares. Which probably was GP's point, anyway.

    88. Re:Population Density by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      On the other hand I suppose it's good that people got a chance to pay down credit card bills and take some debt out of the system.

      Which is the entire point of the "stimulus" checks. This is not to stimulate the economy by increased consumer spending (which, by the way, has a reduced impact due to so few consumer goods being made in the US -- though some people do use the checks to purchase services).

      This is about further bailout of the banks. Many people who have insufficient income to pay back their debt will use their "stimulus" payment to pay down their debt, which would otherwise become bad debt, and need to be written down by the banks.

      In the end, the "stimulus" checks will have some of the desired effects. It will increase the capital available to the banks, thus enabling them to meet the minimal fractional reserve requirements, thus freeing up capital for lending. This, in theory, should stimulate the economy.

      But those of us who are not in the banking industry should know that these checks aren;t about putting money in our pocket, they are about putting money in the banks' pockets.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    89. Re:Population Density by wrook · · Score: 1

      Sigh... Or even better -- buses that came back from the train station to small towns in the inaka past 8:00 PM.

      I've come to the conclusion that transportation in Japan is intentionally slow in order to maintain all the individual cultures in the small towns. When you read about these super fast trains, what you don't realize is that visiting your friend in the neighboring town 40km away is virtually impossible. Even if you have a car, it's quite difficult and slow.

      It does make you scratch your head and wonder why they spend *that* much money on something only a few people will use...

    90. Re:Population Density by FroMan · · Score: 1

      I like those things also. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. There are a number of factors that drive urban sprawl in the US:

      I'm one of those folks who disagree.

      1) Housing is expensive in the city and land is much cheaper away from the city.

      Two options in the city: pay rent and have to put up with any random neighbor beating on the walls. Or pay through the nose for a house and have higher taxes.

      2) People enjoy the freedom of an automobile (something they have to give up living in the city)

      This is a huge benefit to owning a vehicle as opposed to taking public transportation. I go where I want when I want.

      3) There is a belief that the city is dangerous and not suitable for raising children.

      While living in the city I had my car broken into multiple times. Once while it was sitting in a locked car port/garage. I've been yelled at by one of the other apartment's residents being called a "cracker" while out walking with my wife.

      I have had no issue living in the country. While out walking with my wife and son I have folks wave and say hello. The folks at the grocery store adore my son and ask where he is when I do not bring him with me.

      4) There is a belief that children need a backyard (I honestly never understood this one at all, what good is a backyard when your friends live 10 miles away?)

      I spent hours and hours and hours, days and nights, and weekends exploring the woods, fishing, and camping growing up. I would ride my bike up to 30 or miles to visit friends. 10 miles is nothing. Is a backyard required, no. But does it make life interesting and fun, heck yeah. My son is going to be pretty lucky we were able to move back out into the country.

      5) There is a belief that the city is unhealthy so they move away for the "fresh air"

      The country is cleaner and healthier from my experience. Wild strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, blueberries; I could eat jut about any wild fruit I found. I could fish in any stream or lake and fry up my catch. I could drink from any stream I found without worry. Where I am now, I can breath and the worst I might smell is some manure on a field.

      The nearest city around us warns against swimming in the river after just about an appreciable rainfall. And don't even think of eating the fish out of the river. When we head into town you can smell the exhaust and lord knows what else in the air.

      In the end I think it has to do with an American desire to live in 1950s small town America, but all of the jobs are in major cities. I've noticed that there has been a recent shift toward moving into the city among recent college graduates. I think well planned colleges have made people aware of the fact that they don't have to rely on a car to go everywhere, and services like Zipcar have made people realize that a car is available if they need it.

      I have no desire to live in a small town either. We live near a small town, but suburbs we are not. There is maybe one neighborhood (you know where a developer buys land and builds 50 exact same houses) within 10 miles.

      As far as jobs only being in the city, well perhaps not so. You have taken a very narrow view of what sorts of jobs exist. If you want to work for someone who has a symbol on the stock market maybe you need to be in a city. On the way into work though (20 miles) I pass numerous farms, trucking training school, a number of small tool and die, a couple specialized manufacturing businesses, and many more.

      Folks in the city think they have it all and the "right" view of the world. And for kids just out of school, the city makes sense. When you are looking to keep certain expenses down, do not have children, and are working more than 40 hours, and basically putting all of your effort towards making something for yourself, that is when the city makes sense. To have access to a variety specialty shops and stores or dining, the city has it. But it doesn'

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    91. Re:Population Density by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to Europe? Rail ain't cheap, even when subsidized by the government. Look at London to Amsterdam - about 300+ miles by car. There is some convoluted train + ferry route that can be done for about $120 round trip. But you lose a whole day. Eurostar can do it for about $140 if you book early and travel the off-off-peak hours. Flights currently go for as low as $240 for comparison. The drive is like 6 hours and is only ruled out because of the crazy taxes they have on gasoline.

      In the US a 300 mile car ride in a gas-hogging SUV would cost you about $70 in gas plus tolls. Have one person riding with you or drive a Civic and that gets cut in half. For an entire family traveling the train is almost a non-starter. If you don't have a car, the bus in the US for a similar journey would be somewhere between $20 and $60, depending on the local competition.

      So what Europe has managed to do is make rail attractive by artificially increasing the cost of driving. Not that I am necessarily opposed to that, but let's call a spade a spade.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    92. Re:Population Density by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have made my US prices round-trip to compare to the London-Amsterdam prices... just double everything! :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    93. Re:Population Density by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, here in the USA there are corridors that make maglev quite viable if track construction costs are reasonable:

      Boston-Providence-Hartford-New York City-Philadelphia-Wilmington-Baltimore-Washington, DC
      Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Eau Claire-Minneapolis/St. Paul
      Chicago-Rockford-Des Moines-Omaha
      Chicago-Champaign-St. Louis-Kansas City-Wichita
      Chicago-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit
      Chicago-South Bend-Toledo-Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo
      Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati
      Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Savannah-Jacksonville
      New Orleans--Biloxi/Gulfport-Pensacola-Tallahassee-Jacksonville
      Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami (with spur to Tampa)
      Dallas-Houston
      Dallas-Austin-San Antonio
      Sacramento-Stockton-Fresno-Bakersfield-Palmdale-Los Angeles-Anaheim-San Diego
      Los Angeles-Barstow-Las Vegas
      Eugene-Portland-Tacoma-Seattle-Bellingham-Vancouver, BC

      Chicago would be strong candidate for a big maglev train hub since with maglevs capable of 500 km/h, many large cities are reachable within two hours' transit time on maglev from Chicago.

    94. Re:Population Density by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem with Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service--too much of the tracks used for its Acela service has to be shared with much slower local commuter and freight trains. As such, Acela trains have to travel a lot slower than dedicated high-speed lines like you see in Japan and France. If Acela trains had their own dedicated lines the transit times on the Northeast Corridor would be a lot lower.

    95. Re:Population Density by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      I actually don't think it's a conspiracy. I have heard about those trains too. There's more to the story that I started write about yesterday in my big comment there.

      I think of it as a pendulum. The Depression and WWII messed with peoples heads. World wide there was so much poverty and despair. There was sadness and suffering. Then, in the US anyway, the war ended and everyone had lots of money saved up. They had plenty, and our country was unharmed by the war(yes I am aware of Pearl Harbor and the fighting on the Aleutian Islands, but honestly does that compare to Europe, even North Africa? I don't think so, buddy.) So, back to my point, the highways and expanded cheap airfare, the latter triggered by the war making aircraft production comparatively cheaper, added in the new idea of the suburbs, and people found heaven. Look at the stuff Hollywood produced in the 50s. It was a total change from the past 20 years, and make no mistake, the movies during the depression and the war were all about hope and plenty; something that all but a lucky few didn't have.

      Anyway, my point is that the culture had the means(money saved by the war jobs) and the desire(from the suffering from the depression and the war), to want exactly the kind of culture that the highways enabled. It's really that simple.

      Europe, by contrast, didn't have the highways(Germany's the exception of course) as early as we did. Didn't have the money saved from war jobs; didn't have a country untouched by war. Put simply they didn't have the means or the mindset to do what we did. Europe had to try to rebuild. That's why they went to trains, and we did not. Add to that, later policies that kept the price of gasoline up, while we did not (Europe's gasoline taxes are much higher than the US's), and you have your answer.

      The US in not a democracy as the Greeks defined it. We are a representative democracy; more of a republic really. Sure I'm quibbling, but this is /. after all.

      As for voting in a little sanity, I assume you are not a fan of our president? I wonder why? JK! All I can say is that I hope the better person wins, and if the lesser of the two wins, then that he rises above our expectations. To paraphrase my favorite line in The Count de Monte Cristo, "Wait and hope... the sum of all human wisdom in contained in those lines."

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    96. Re:Population Density by RailRide · · Score: 1
      "...where Acela stops" would be Penn Station. There's no overhead wire, just third rail power into GCT.

      --PCJ

    97. Re:Population Density by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Good post, but I think the GP is talking about people who live in the suburbs, not rural areas.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    98. Re:Population Density by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

      now that's embarrassing... thanks for the correction. i do work next to GCT, but i tend to mix up amtrack since i never take it. LIRR, NJT, or metro north is all i ever take...

      Too embarrassing!

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    99. Re:Population Density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't have rail travel because back in history the railroad unions killed the industry by monopolizing the track systems and driving up prices. That's particularly why we use freight trucks sooo much in this country, they were the only alternative to mass-transport goods at the time. The reason we don't have a sprawling train system in the country is, it's too easy for private companies to monopolize the rail lines and the government is incapable or lacking in resources to maintain the system (competently without corruption). Not to mention that most regions are lacking the rail infrastructure to support this and buying up private properties to make it happen is just wayyyyyyyy to expensive now.

      Rail companies slit their own throats back in the day and it will take a lot to convince the current culture that rail is the way to go (because of efficiency, cost, etc...).

      BTW, Chicago is the cheapest way to go by air because it is United Airlines main hub. People all over the country have to go through Chicago to get around, so naturally the air tracks incoming/outgoing are thriving there. It's the same as United has a hub here in Colorado. It makes it much easier/cheaper to get around the country.

    100. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed my point.

      I'm not saying we should have a national infrastructure.

      I think a rail company could start and operate wholey within a region. I realize Acela isn't a full true high speed line and that it shares track etc. However that $100 is profitable. No subsidizing is needed to maintain its operation. In fact AMTRAK was trying to use Acela to offset everything else it does that loses money.

      Operationally I highly doubt running a high speed line would cost any more in month to month. If anything it would be less with a dedicated line. The issue would be the cost of constructing a dedicated line. If you could get government funding to create, but then be wholly independent of subsidies to operate you'd be in pretty good shape, and I still don't think $100 is unreasonable assuming good volume of traffic.

      There's no reason you couldn't have a company maintaining train routes only along the atlantic coast and ignoring connecting to cities anyplace else in the country. If the coast is the only area thats economically feasible, only do it there. The best transportation infrastructure is a mix between regional rail and air for long cross country trips, which IS what you see in Europe. Train travel isn't efficient for traveling certain routes, but it is for others.

    101. Re:Population Density by RailRide · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but so long as AMTRAK is in charge of managing this it will never happen. Acela had the potential to steal massive amounts of travel from the airlines. If you could do Boston to NYC in 2 hours by train it would be faster/cheaper than flying

      Amtrak already has almost half of the travel in this corridor buttoned up. Ridership is so high that Amtrak is seeking funding to buy additional cars to lengthen Acala trainsets because they're becoming maxed out ridership-wise.

      The train needs to run full out the entire time its not stopped. I'm not 100% certain of the route Acela uses, but if it stopped once in RI and once in CT you could be doing 150mph the entire time in between. Even at $100 per ticket thats far better than flying. How many Boston to NY flights are their daily?

      Acela makes one stop in RI (Providence) , and three in CT (New London, New Haven and Bridgeport). Dwell time is about a couple of minutes, and acceleration is rapid (with 12,200HP for six cars, it can't be anything but rapid)

      Top speeed for Acela is 150MPH (241 Km/H) on two stretches in Rhode Island. From New Haven, CT to New Rochelle, NY, the tracks are owned by Metro-North Railroad, which imposes a 90MPH (145Km/H) limit. Metro-North also disallows use of Acela's tilt feature on its segment because in many places the tracks are too close together (I watched two Metro North trains passing on adjacent tracks at New Rochelle station, and if there was a foot of space between them, it was a generous estimate)

      South of NYC, the limit is 135MPH (217Km/H) due to the design of the Pennsylvania Railroad-era catenary (overhead wire), which is not counterweighted, but anchored to the support towers at each end of the wire (they're not continuous, but made up of segments that overlap at their extreme ends). What this means is that the wire cannot remain at a constant tension through temperature changes, and the resulting uneven-ness causes pantographs (the hinged arms on top of the trains that collect current) to skip along the wire, causing both to wear out prematurely from arcing. Anyone who's watched an Acela passing at speed south of NY can see the effect it has on the catenary. Regular trains don't distrurb it much, but have an Acela roar by, and it'll clang and clatter for the better part of a minute after the train's passed.

      Replacing this ancient catenary is another capital project awaiting funding. I don't know if the recent appropriation covers this project. It likely doesn't--at least not in full.

      ---PCJ

    102. Re:Population Density by RailRide · · Score: 1

      Long-distance trains do not cost all that much to operate, since the freight railroad picks up the tab for track maintenance. The Northeast Corridor generates the most revenue, but it also has expensive maintenance requirements (catenary and high-speed trackage). The Amtrak train that comes closest to turning a profit is the Auto-Train.

      The services that appear to be profitable in other countries only talk about revenue vs. operating costs. Include capital expenditures and almost all of them operate at a loss on passenger rail alone. The privatized Japanese lines don't appear to be paying the capital cost of establishing their networks--that was all built by the government under the aegis of a state-owned corporation (that was up to its eyeballs in debt as a result) before it was divvied up among the various private operators.

      ---PCJ

    103. Re:Population Density by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You really are just being weird.

      I was going for humorous, but I'll take weird.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    104. Re:Population Density by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Finally someone with constructive feedback instead of a bunch of poo-poo-ing.

      At least it sounds like there's hope with some improvements. Perhaps a partial capital investment to bypass some of the metro north stuff increasing the speed in CT. And it sounds like the south of NY stuff is more than manageable just given the funding. If they are already packing the trains I don't know why there isn't more of a push to get them to run full out. If they managed more dedicated line for them, you'd assume they could just run more trains rather than deal with the congestion.

  6. Efficiency by ILikeRed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone know how the energy usage per passenger compares with a large jet?

    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
    1. Re:Efficiency by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to remember that you don't have that costly climb to 10 km. It will probably be a lot cleaner.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Efficiency by interiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2) You don't have to carry an entire trip's worth of fuel with you.

    3. Re:Efficiency by ILikeRed · · Score: 1

      "Clean" is a whole different issue. I just wonder about it's efficiency. I would like to have fast trains between major cities in either case, but the engineering interests me.

      --
      I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
    4. Re:Efficiency by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also you don't need a portable energy source (like fossil fuel) You can use normal infrastructure energy including the more clean types. The problem with Cars and Airplains is that they need to carry their energy with them and convert it in real time, So fossil fuel is good at that, A lot of energy in a small package that is controllable, and affordable.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Efficiency by entgod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      3) You don't need to use fossil fuels in the first place.

    6. Re:Efficiency by bdenton42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4232548.html?page=2 they appear to be saying maglev is about 36% the energy cost of airplanes and about 43% of conventional trains.

    7. Re:Efficiency by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fine, let's just _surrender_ to the fossils, shall we?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:Efficiency by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      4) Profits!

    9. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A maglev train is supposed to compare favorably with other high-speed rail systems.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid#Energy_requirements

      Braking also generate electricity back on the power grid.

    10. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot this...

      3.5) ????

    11. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You need to remember that you don't have that costly climb to 10 km.

      You realize you also get to come down from 10 km for free...

    12. Re:Efficiency by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would imagine the train wins hands down. Electrical generation is more efficient than jet engine thrust, being a more closed system vs the jet engine. Even early maglev systems (Disney) had been shown to be fairly energy efficient with computerized control of power distribution.

      Don't forget to account for the share of costs of the ATC system of radars, centers and towers to track and route the jet. This would significantly outweigh the cost of similar systems for a maglev train.

      I won't go into airport congestion, weather delays and other cost additions for aircraft in flight. A maglev train parked on a siding should absorb only sufficient power for safety, communications and environmental (comfort) systems.

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
    13. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you can't turn that 10km drop back into fuel, otherwise you might have had a point.

    14. Re:Efficiency by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      4) You must keep everything cool.

    15. Re:Efficiency by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Interesting
      HA. Yeah, that would be usefully true if jetliners had a decent glide ratio. as it is, once the engines cut out, they fall out of the skies like stones. So, sure, you get to "come down for free" but nose down at 800 mph...

      HW

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    16. Re:Efficiency by wiz_80 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, because they're *magic* levitating trains, which don't need electricity made by burning nasssty coal, right?

      Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky, and you may well have been thinking of Japan's nuclear-powered grid, but I see too much of this sort of thinking. "I'll buy an EV so that I don't burn gas!" Uhhh... yes, you do that.

      --
      " There is a rational explanation for everything. There is also an irrational one. "
    17. Re:Efficiency by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      Where's the electricity come from? If its like most US cities, its Natural Gas or Coal power plants...

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    18. Re:Efficiency by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think you are right, but coal electricity production is horrendously inefficient - about 33% or so last I looked into it. They CAN do better, but they don't, probably because coal is so cheap.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone compared it on a slashdot post a couple weeks ago. Planes and trains both get about 40mpg per passenger.

      Keep in mind that trains tend to be a lot heavier and less densely populated than planes. i.e. a fully loaded train is way higher than 40mpgpp, but planes are already fully loaded to get that 40mpg per passenger.

      Freight trains are about 100x as fuel efficient as trucks on a freight ton/mile/gallon basis.

    20. Re:Efficiency by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1
      1. Even taking into account losses on the wire and potential AC/DC conversion losses, the efficiency of a power plant vastly outstrips that of any single vehicle's engine.
      2. By separating power production from power usage, you don't have to upgrade everything at once. If the vehicle produces the power, and you want to upgrade, you have to replace the entire fleet. If the vehicle runs on electricity, you can replace the power plant and suddenly all the vehicles are cleaner. And you don't have to do it all at once; most power grids are supplied by multiple plants, so over time you can slowly increase the proportion of clean energy used to drive the vehicle as old coal plants are decommissioned and replaced with newer, presumably cleaner technologies.
      3. Electrics run smoother, with less vibration and less gunk from the burned fuel gumming up the works. So they would presumably last longer.
      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    21. Re:Efficiency by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Where's the electricity come from? If its like most US cities, its Natural Gas or Coal power plants...

      The trains are to be built in Japan. Their grid is 30% nuclear with a plan to go to 60% nuclear in 2050, 20% Geothermal and the rest other renewable, its one of their "National Priority" plans.

    22. Re:Efficiency by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia says, Passenger airplanes averaged 4.8 L/100 km per passenger (1.4 MJ/passenger-km) (49 passenger-miles per gallon) in 1998. The new fuel-efficient Boeing 787 is expected to achieve 100 passenger-mpg.

      In comparison, the TGV achieves on average 0.15 MJ/passenger-km, which is 543 passenger-miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent. Unless you factor in the inefficiencies of generating and storing electricity, which would drop the efficiency by two-thirds to 181 passenger-mpg.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    23. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about trains referenced in the article, but Amtrak has a PDF with BTUs per passenger mile:

      http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/Energy_Efficient_Travel.pdf

    24. Re:Efficiency by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check your math. The glide ratio impacts the efficiency the whole way, uniformly. (Technically the L/D ratio, but they're nearly the same thing; I'll treat them as such here.) Assume your glide ratio is a conservative 10:1; the Gimli Glider demonstrated 12:1 with a 767-200. Climbing to 10 km at a slope of 1/5 uses 3x the cruising fuel for the first 50 km (3x the fuel per km travelled, but mostly done at lower speed; it's not a 3x change in throttle setting). The glide down then uses no fuel for the last 100 km, or half the fuel for the last 200 km. Either way, you get the energy back.

      Energy losses in aircraft come from drag, and not much else. There's a second-order effect resulting from reduced L/D during the high AoA ascent, and another due to reduced AoA at low speed / high air pressure. As a result, you get the majority of the potential energy back, but obviously you don't recover the energy lost to drag -- but that portion is properly accounted as the cost of covering distance, not the cost of the climb and descent.

    25. Re:Efficiency by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      4) Still need fuel, whether it's fossil or otherwise.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    26. Re:Efficiency by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I am not a pilot, nor do I have any aerospace training.

      Apparently the 747 has a glide ratio of about 15:1 or 17:1 which is better than many birds.

      And the "Gimli Glider" (a 767) did 12:1 sustained when it ran out of fuel.

      12:1 is a rather unstonelike glide.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_ratio

      So airliners do not have to fall out of the sky like a stone when they are out of fuel.

      The trouble with airliners is, it's far easier to find a safe landing spot for birds than for airliners.

      If you're out of fuel it's hard to have a second try at a landing spot.

      Jet fighters might not glide as well (and even if they do have good glide ratios I suspect they might require high descent rates while doing so - which would make the process of landing a bit more stressful ;) )...

      I think the F4 was notorious for having a bad glide ratio - some people say about 5:1.

      --
    27. Re:Efficiency by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be usefully true if jetliners had a decent glide ratio. as it is, once the engines cut out, they fall out of the skies like stones. So, sure, you get to "come down for free" but nose down at 800 mph..
      I doubt you could find a stone with a 15:1 glide ratio. From 35,000 feet, a 747 can travel 99 miles with no power. And the best glide speed is variable based on weight (but always the same angle of attack). On a 747, it is somewhere between 200 and 300 knots, nowhere near 800.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    28. Re:Efficiency by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      As soon as you use electricity for propulsion, you remove the requirement to get the energy from fossil fuels. It then becomes possible to get the energy from alternative sources.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    29. Re:Efficiency by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to account for the share of costs of the ATC system of radars, centers and towers to track and route the jet. This would significantly outweigh the cost of similar systems for a maglev train.

      Actually, trains have a fairly sophisticated traffic control system of their very own to prevent a fast train from getting behind a slow one, to prevent two trains from towards each on the same track, etc... etc... it's a big job because there will always be a lot less 2D train track than there is 3D airspace.
       

      I won't go into airport congestion, weather delays and other cost additions for aircraft in flight.

      Nor do you go into congestion at the train terminal (cars, pedestrians, and trains), or weather delays on the track, and other cost additions for a train in service. (Not to mention that airspace is free, while tracks require considerable maintenance.)
       
       

      A maglev train parked on a siding should absorb only sufficient power for safety, communications and environmental (comfort) systems.

      An aircraft parked on the apron only draws sufficient power for safety, communications and environmental (comfort) systems.

    30. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The climb to 10km actually saves fuel. It doesn't take more than 10min or so to reach that altitude, a small proportion of the fuel used in a long trip, and the drop in air density decreases the drag on the airplane. Range for jets is proportional to 1/sqrt(density) and at 10km the density is about 1/3 that of sea level, increasing cruise range by a factor of 1.7

    31. Re:Efficiency by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be usefully true if jetliners had a decent glide ratio. as it is, once the engines cut out, they fall out of the skies like stones.

      You've just won the award for the most idiotic comment of the day. Congrats!

      Here's 12 incidents of jets losing all engine power and gliding to a landing. Several with no serious injuries to passengers or crew. That's one hell of a flying rock there.

      http://www.airsafe.com/events/noengine.htm

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    32. Re:Efficiency by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to account for the share of costs of the ATC system of radars, centers and towers to track and route the jet. This would significantly outweigh the cost of similar systems for a maglev train.

      Actually, trains have a fairly sophisticated traffic control system of their very own to prevent a fast train from getting behind a slow one, to prevent two trains from towards each on the same track, etc... etc... it's a big job because there will always be a lot less 2D train track than there is 3D airspace.

      TFA referred to a point to point maglev system not a network of railroad tracks. Deconfliction planning is similar for trains and aircraft, however, enroute deconfliction is harder for aircraft as their options for pulling aside and waiting are quite limited.

      I won't go into airport congestion, weather delays and other cost additions for aircraft in flight.

      Nor do you go into congestion at the train terminal (cars, pedestrians, and trains), or weather delays on the track, and other cost additions for a train in service. (Not to mention that airspace is free, while tracks require considerable maintenance.)

      I was addressing the efficiency of the crafts, not the stations which feed them. A plane in flight must land within a reasonable safety margin and burns significant amounts of fuel while in a holding pattern. Whereas, an electrically driven train may remain on a siding at idle indefinitely without burning any on-board fuel. Take-off and landing slots are not free for commercial airlines. Additionally, each terminal gate time block reserved, whether used or not, is chargeable.

      Good point about the track maintenance. I've no idea what the maglev track maintenance is projected to be. Likely on par with ATC system maintenance costs.

      A maglev train parked on a siding should absorb only sufficient power for safety, communications and environmental (comfort) systems.

      An aircraft parked on the apron only draws sufficient power for safety, communications and environmental (comfort) systems.

      An aircraft in flight holding for weather or congestion was the primary concern here. Additionally, an aircraft APU will consume fuel while awaiting take-off clearance. More than once, I've been forced to return to the terminal for fuel (below safe minimums) after waiting (APU running) for a projected break in the weather at my destination.

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
  7. The US already has a maglev by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Our university has had this technology on our campus for almost 10 years now. If you're wondering how it works check out Dr Lawrence Weinstein's page on maglevs. Our current problem is vibration which makes riding at any speed intolerable. AEN

    1. Re:The US already has a maglev by coppice · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The one from Pu Dong airport in Shanghai has no vibration problems. In fact its super smooth at 430km/h. However, they have used an enormously thick concrete structure to be stiff enough to achieve that.

    2. Re:The US already has a maglev by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Japanese have solved the vibration problem along with a host of others. There have been a few other problems that crept up like quenching and the not insignificant problem of cost.

      Quenching appears in magnets when they're jiggled enough that the atoms lose their orientation and the material stops being magnetic. According to their blog, that happened to them at least once a few years back (around 2001-2002). At the time, one of the American inventors, Jim Powell, told me that his partner and co-inventor of superconducting maglev, Gordon Danby, thought that the Japanese had not used pure enough aluminum. Using purer aluminum, of course, drives up the already high cost of the technology.

      Contrary to what you might think, the roadbed is not magnetic as that would have made the cost far too high. Instead, they line the roadbed with aluminum plates that become magnetic in the presence of a moving magnetic field. The magnetic field is provided by superconductors on the train. When the train is moving slowly, it runs on rubber tires as the roadbed can't generate enough lift to support the train.

      Cost has been the key factor that his stalled this technology. I've seen cost estimates as high as almost $1 billion/mile. The Tokyo-Osaka link was estimated at $200 billion. This proposal coming in at $50 billion for the short route from Tokyo to Nagoya of 160 miles is saying they can build it at .3 $billion/mile. The detours, of course, will drive the cost up as well as slow the train down.

      So if nothing else, the Japanese will provide the world with real data for both construction and operating costs. Their test bed already provides lots of interesting video. Best part is at 5:30.

    3. Re:The US already has a maglev by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 1

      This is valid for long haul maglevs, short track maglevs such as the one at ODU does not rely on superconducting magnets. Read the link I posted.

      AEN

    4. Re:The US already has a maglev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one from Pu Dong airport in Shanghai has no vibration problems. In fact its super smooth at 430km/h. However, they have used an enormously thick concrete structure to be stiff enough to achieve that.

      My mind, it's full of dirty!

    5. Re:The US already has a maglev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our university has had this technology on our campus for almost 10 years now. If you're wondering how it works check out Dr Lawrence Weinstein's page on maglevs. Our current problem is vibration which makes riding at any speed intolerable.

      AEN

      Yeah... tell me about it. I've been on this campus for 10 years, and the train is STILL not in operation. Although we've HAD it for 10 years, at this point, it seems like it will never be done.

  8. Re:magic trains by PatLam · · Score: 5, Funny

    You were able to take out 3 letters from Magnetic but you got Levitating right...?

  9. Oh Fast by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About seven years ago I would have thought this was the epoch of cool. Now I think it's cool, but not even in the top 100 of cool civics works projects. Once I started riding my bike to work fast doesn't impress me like it once did. On the other hand Copenhagen has redid it's infrastructure to have protected bike lanes all over the city and residential districts are close to work. Now that's cool.

    --
    We are the Borg...
    1. Re:Oh Fast by entgod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bikes are nice but they are an option only for people who live relatively close to their working place. Weather can also be an issue. Here in Finland it can be a real pain cycling to work through half molten snow.

      Also, trains can carry at least hundreds of people at the same time. Also, a crowd of hundreds of japanese riding their bikes to work would look funny :)

    2. Re:Oh Fast by LinuxIdiot · · Score: 1

      "work through half molten snow."

      That's-a some hot snow!

    3. Re:Oh Fast by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. A good safe bike path network blows all this high tech stuff away easy. I ride 6.1 miles each way and it is only about ten to fifteen minutes slower each way--and way more fun and relaxing.

      I'd want to ride a maglev once, though! It would be really cool from NYC to DC.

    4. Re:Oh Fast by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    5. Re:Oh Fast by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Weather, I don't have much of that in Southern California, so I tend to forget about it. It would make it hard for part of the year, so using the car some times would still be necessary. I think the real problem for making things bicycle friendly is city planing. Big box stores and strip malls that have "no bicycle" signs, combined with suburban sprawl make it almost imposable be a bike commuter.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    6. Re:Oh Fast by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks, next time I will use pinnacle or zenith.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    7. Re:Oh Fast by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it's somewhere between 273K and 373K.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    8. Re:Oh Fast by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Except that all this high tech stuff works in in climate weather, for many people, over great distance. 6.1 miles in decent weather for one person isn't bad, now take 20 miles, in a place with terrible weather, for the other thousands of people, not to mention the elderly and disable, who, if you happen to use public transit in the US, are two major rider groups.

    9. Re:Oh Fast by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Weather can also be an issue. Here in Finland it can be a real pain cycling to work through half molten snow.

      We have the opposite problem here... it's pretty much impossible to bike to work and not be drenched in sweat when you get there. Heck, just walking in from the car can cause that during the summer--not from effort, but just heat and humidity.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    10. Re:Oh Fast by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Ok, so how about bikes and walking for any one in good health. Buses and trains to augment the bikes and to provide transportation for those who can't ride. And lastly cars for stuff like picking up furniture or wood from lows.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    11. Re:Oh Fast by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Works for me, and every link is just as important to the picture as the last.

    12. Re:Oh Fast by isorox · · Score: 1

      Bikes are nice but they are an option only for people who live relatively close to their working place.

      I live 45 miles from my work, but a bike is integral to my commute. The first 2 miles are bike, which I then fold, then get on the train. Arrive at terminal in the centre of a major city 40 miles away (30 minutes). The final 5 miles are also by bike.

      Total time one hour. If it's a good traffic day I can do it in 1h15 by car.

      Weather can also be an issue. Here in Finland it can be a real pain cycling to work through half molten snow.

      I went to Canada earlier in the year (admittadly May), and the French alps at christmas. lots of snow, but I didn't notice any on the roads. Don't you have Mr Plow?

      Also, trains can carry at least hundreds of people at the same time. Also, a crowd of hundreds of japanese riding their bikes to work would look funny :)

      This is a valid point. Unless lanes are wide enough to allow easy overtaking of slower bikes, it's a right pain. Cyclists vary massively in their speeds. The 3 cyclists in my office average 15-20mph (higher than average taxi speeds, which are the fastest form of road transport in London), and will take a longer route to avoid traffic lights/stop signs/give ways etc.

      Most cyclists in London pootle along at 5-10mph, which is a right pain if you don't have the room to overtake.

    13. Re:Oh Fast by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so how about bikes and walking for any one in good health. Buses and trains to augment the bikes and to provide transportation for those who can't ride. And lastly cars for stuff like picking up furniture or wood from lows.

      Well this is exactly how it works in cities in Germany and many other European countries. For eg. Munich is covered in bike lanes, has buses, subway trains, suburban trains *and* trams as well as plenty of wide 'ring' roads in the city/suburbs and the autobahns outside it.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  10. Re:magic trains by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?

    Not really. Though now you reminded me of Hogwarts Express.
    To make it worse, I had to concentrate so I wouldn't type "Hogswatch Express", which would have been pretty embarr... oh, never mind.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  11. Re:magic trains by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, to most people, they would be Magic Levitating Trains...

  12. Re:magic trains by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    Freudian DiscWorld slips are more embarrassing than reading Harry Potter?

    I like both, but DiscWorld definitely has more geek-chic.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  13. monorail by Paralizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. And, by gum, it put them on the map.

    1. Re:monorail by Kratisto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well sir,
      There ain't nothin' on Earth like a
      Genuine,
      Bona fide,
      Electrified,
      Six car,
      Maglev Train

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    2. Re:monorail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mono-- ...DOH!

  14. Wow by boristdog · · Score: 1

    I didn't think the Japanese could do anything to make the bullet trains (Shinkansen) any more awesome. Those things are fun to ride. Smoother than France's TGV.

    1. Re:Wow by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

      Lucky bastard. When I was a student there I wanted to take the Shinkansen from Akita to Tokyo but I really didn't have any extra scratch and it was cheaper to fly.

  15. Re:magic trains by acklenx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks, no really - I wanted my milk to come out my nose

    --
    Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
  16. Obligatory by InspectorxGadget · · Score: 1

    Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...

    Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

    Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

    Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

  17. Re:magic trains by tzhuge · · Score: 2, Funny

    What are you going to mistake 'Levitating' with?

    • Magic Levi's Train
    • Magic Leviathan Train

    That's all I can think of.

  18. MagLev rollerblades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that supposed to be funny? Do you really want to travel 500kph on rollerblades? If they're "maglev", can they still be called "rollerblades"? Why do people post interesting articles and then follow it up with a f*cktard-ish comment like that?

    1. Re:MagLev rollerblades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, CmdrTaco is an idiot. Also, he should proofread... "I wonder if they'll let me test out of maglev rollerblades on the track.

  19. Slashdotted? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1

    Well at least their trains will go faster than their server!

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  20. Re:magic trains by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny
    • Magic Leviathan Trolls

    Those are really hard to kill.

  21. Re:magic trains by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?

    I read that as "Magnetic Leviatans"... whatever that means.

  22. Stupid blog post is slashdotted by level4 · · Score: 5, Informative

    And I hate those stupid blog stories anyway.

    Here's a real article with actual information:

    http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20081022a1.html

    --
    Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
  23. Transport Tycoon Deluxe by Captain+Spam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, looks like Transport Tycoon Deluxe is a few years late in its estimates, strangely. I guess that makes up for SimCity 2000 being (apparently) more than a few years early with microwave power.

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    1. Re:Transport Tycoon Deluxe by baka_toroi · · Score: 1

      Anyone else learned firsthand with TTD about maglevs?

    2. Re:Transport Tycoon Deluxe by orudge · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. I remember the excitement of playing TTD having only played the original version for years, and learning of this strange new train type, "maglev". Sure, 400mph trains zipping around full of coal is perhaps a bit unrealistic, but it's fun...

  24. Re:magic trains by NekSnappa · · Score: 0, Troll
    Hey, leave Sarah Palin outta this!

    Or the poor woman might have to go on another shopping spree, causing McCain to pull his ad buys from yet another state.

    --
    I want to shoot the messenger!
  25. kph? by Stormx2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "...approved routes for the 500kph maglev trains..."

    What the hell kind of unit is kph? kilos per hour? What is that supposed to mean? I appreciate trying to use SI units, but this is just silly. How hard is it to do km h[sup]-1[/sup]?

    (obviously make the [sup] bit an HTML tag. /. seems to eat it when I use it)

    1. Re:kph? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 0

      "...approved routes for the 500kph maglev trains..."
      What the hell kind of unit is kph? kilos per hour?

      Yes, it's kilos per hour. They had to use a unique fuel source to get it to go as fast as they wanted it to and Cocaine was the only fuel that would keep it running through the night.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    2. Re:kph? by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Other people have posted, but to confirm, kph stands for Kilometers Per Hour. A metric version of Miles Per Hour.

      And who in the IP Address Space* marked this as Insightful ? "Provides insight into the stupidity of some /. posters"?

      *I was going to say "Who on earth", but it occurred to me they have 'net access on the ISS too. Though hopefully they know the metric system.

    3. Re:kph? by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

      Other people have posted, but to confirm, kph stands for Kilometers Per Hour. A metric version of Miles Per Hour.

      No, it doesn't. meter is a unit, k is a prefix (standing for "kilo").

      In the same way, kilojoule is kJ, kiloamp is kA, kilosecond is ks.

      I work in metric normally. I'm european.

    4. Re:kph? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      You're point might have been better if you'd settled for km/h (as seen on everyday signs and the dial in a car) rather than the more scientific notation.

      I make a point of using metric because it pisses me off that this country hasn't finished converting yet (the UK).

    5. Re:kph? by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

      It annoys me too. I'd find the transition a little tricky, as I still think in miles, but meh. If the rest of europe can cope, why can't we?

    6. Re:kph? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      We could all cope just fine, there's no issue with education, the cost of conversion is not a problem (Ireland, Australia, New Zealand all managed). It's become a political issue though, so the politicians won't risk it.

  26. Meanwhile, in California, by gmor · · Score: 3, Informative

    we have a ballot measure this November to borrow $10 billion dollars (and receive matching amounts from fed) to build a bullet train line half a century after the Japanese did it. According to the planners, maglev was rejected because there are no large-scale deployments. Why do we never get to leapfrog technology in the US?

    1. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Do we know what the interest payments are going to be on that bond? California is going to have a day of reckoning if this taxophopbia goes on for much longer.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Why do we never get to leapfrog technology in the US?

      You actually might ;-)
      Maglev isn't noticeably faster than wheels-on-rails any more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4zn-qw1oM

      Skipping the "maglev is cool" phase and immediately building a system that is orders of magnitude
      (well, about one) cheaper and integrates well with existing infrastructure sounds like a good deal.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Why do we never get to leapfrog technology in the US?

      Technophilia is BAD... We don't want or need "new" technology for the sake of "new technology".

      Maglevs really aren't any faster, unless you're operating in a sealed vacuum tube, thanks to air resistance dominating. But they are certainly far more expensive to operate.

      IMHO, to technologically leapfrog other countries where trains are concerned, would actually take a much smaller step... Running high-voltage power along the full length of the tracks. Then, you can completely eliminate the ultra-massive diesel engine in the locomotives, AND as an added bonus, dynamic braking (which all trains use) can dump all that energy back into the grid, rather than wasting it as heat. Think of it as an ultra-giant electric car, where no batteries on earth are large enough...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, the system planned for California will use a variant of the same trainsets used on the TGV system in France, which will allow safe operations at speeds around 200 mph, the near practical limit for steel-wheel electric trains.

    5. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      IMHO, to technologically leapfrog other countries where trains are concerned, would actually take a much smaller step... Running high-voltage power along the full length of the tracks. Then, you can completely eliminate the ultra-massive diesel engine in the locomotives, AND as an added bonus, dynamic braking (which all trains use) can dump all that energy back into the grid, rather than wasting it as heat. Think of it as an ultra-giant electric car, where no batteries on earth are large enough...

      It's a good idea but you wouldn't be 'leapfrogging' anybody, electrified lines and electric high-speed trains have been operating in Europe for decades.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    6. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by evilviper · · Score: 1

      electrified lines and electric high-speed trains have been operating in Europe for decades.

      They never have full coverage. So, they're still restricted to carrying along all the weight of the engine, generator, fuel, etc. Hence the leapfrogging.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Meanwhile, in California, by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      No, all the high-speed trains in Europe are electric only (Eurostar, TGV, ICE, Italian 'Pendolino' trains) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
      The same is true for most of the slower mainline and commuter trains - they are purely electric. Certainly you can still find lots of diesel-electric systems around, but they're hardly the majority. So no you're not leapfrogging anything, just catching up with other parts of the world.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  27. Security? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not only of the passengers, train, and endpoints/stations, but now you have to protect the entire track too. All it takes is some terrorist group with RPGs going around blowing up sections of track, causing train derailments.

    1. Re:Security? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Okay okay...build the track underground?

    2. Re:Security? by Sperbels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technically, this can be done now.

    3. Re:Security? by robinsonne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many times have you seen terrorists blowing up train tracks with RPGs in the U.S. or Europe lately?

    4. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and this is different from current railroads, how?

    5. Re:Security? by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those are vulnerabilities of existing rail and road structures too, though. I mean, damaging a major road bridge at rush hour could probably cause as much havoc as derailing a maglev. More so floating bridges like the one out in Seattle. And aircraft aren't exactly reknowned for their imperviousness to rockets.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Security? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      All it takes is some terrorist group with RPGs going around blowing up sections of track, causing train derailments.

      At least you can't steer a train into a skyscraper.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RPG's? shit, if you want to derail a train in the US and kill a lot of people you can do that now, with power tools from your local harbor freight....

    8. Re:Security? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Not only of the passengers, train, and endpoints/stations, but now you have to protect the entire track too. All it takes is some terrorist group with RPGs going around blowing up sections of track, causing train derailments.

      How do you think the Europeans and Japanese have been getting by without terror attacks on their HST lines? Hint: It's something to do with foreign policy.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    9. Re:Security? by cavePrisoner · · Score: 1

      As it stands now, a motivate individual could probably send a loaded amtrak train to the bottom of the Hudson with nothing but a heavy crowbar and a sledgehammer. Derailments happen often enough just through wear and tear.

      To be honest, I would trust the aluminum and concrete in the maglev system more than the wooden ties used now. At least it takes more than a crowbar to destroy.

  28. US in the dust... by demonbug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great, it finally looks like we might start catching up to where the Japanese were 40 years ago, and now they have to go and make the jump to MagLev.

    Yeah, I'm voting for Prop 1A - been following it since '97 or so (the proposition was originally supposed to appear back in 2000 or so, but they keep pushing it back). Expensive, and I doubt it will get the ridership they are projecting until a lot of additional work has gone into local transit in the destination cities, but I'm hopeful that it will kick-start our state and local governments into looking at options besides "build more roads".

    1. Re:US in the dust... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      US builds a rail comparable to a 40 Japanese one - "US in the dust" (i.e. WE SUCK)
      India builds a lunar orbiter comparable to a 40 year old US one - "INDIA! The new awesomeness!" (i.e. WE SUCK, because we aren't still doing it)

      Amazing.

    2. Re:US in the dust... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      but I'm hopeful that it will kick-start our state and local governments into looking at options besides "build more roads".

      Yea because we wouldn't use the roads to drive to the train station. Nor would we use the roads to truck goods from one town to a neighboring town...

      My point being, High speed rail should replace commuter air service not roads. The idea being that if train travel was quick and cheap enough, people would use it to travel within the country rather than drive on the interstate..

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  29. For all ye Americans out there.. by Piranhaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    500 kph(km/h) = 310.685596 mph

    1. Re:For all ye Americans out there.. by Blimey85 · · Score: 1

      But how long does it take to hit the top speed? If we can go from 0 to top speed in less than 30 seconds and immediately go into a tunnel and do an inversion or two, I'm thinking ticket sales will be brisk. NHRA cars can do this in around 4 seconds... I think they've gotten up to something like 324 in right about 4 seconds, but they don't take you upside down... in the dark. You could even get Cedar Fair or Six Flags to sponsor it... longest fastest coaster in the WORLD!!!! I wonder what it would do to your body if you were on a coaster for 10 hours... even if it was butter smooth I think you'd feel some serious effects.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    2. Re:For all ye Americans out there.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea! You learned how to type something into Google! We're SO proud of you!

  30. Re:magic trains by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wanted my milk to come out my nose

    Milk out of nose? Okay...
    NOSE
    Change N to P: POSE
    Change S to L: POLE
    Change P to M: MOLE
    Change O to I: MILE
    Change E to K: MILK

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  31. Transrapid by mattMad · · Score: 1

    The Transrapid technology is still ahead - it already has a running commercial system in Shanghai, China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid

  32. Re:magic trains by robinsonne · · Score: 1

    Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?

    Glad i'm not the only one going crazy and read it that way. Is it the weekend yet?

  33. It moves? by paxswill · · Score: 1

    I've only heard of it moving, not actually winessed the act. And it's outside my window...

    1. Re:It moves? by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 1

      I used to work for our drunk university a few years ago before I moved along to better opportunities. Dr. Alberts is brilliant and they have made huge strides in getting the maglev operational. I will be highly impressed if they get the maglev working without reinforcing the concrete, alas I do not think that is possible. I am planning to return to the norfolk area eventually (civilian contract work for the Navy) and pursue my masters in Physics.. When I do, my goal is to work with Dr Alberts and his Maglev...

      How are the parties on 42nd st? It's a shame the brickhouse (42nd and Powatan) got condemned.. they had the best parties in my day (I sound old already).

  34. Maintenance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not only of the passengers, train, and endpoints/stations, but now you have to protect the entire track too. All it takes is some terrorist group with RPGs going around blowing up sections of track, causing train derailments.

    Deaths and injuries from train derailments due to poor maintenance and simple human error vastly outnumber deaths and injuries due to terrorists.

    In fact I'd go so far as to say, to the best of my knowledge, the number of deaths and injuries due to terrorist attacks on trains in the United States is, ummm, zero.

    And that's with virtually no security at all.

    1. Re:Maintenance? by memristance · · Score: 1

      Indeed, all rail-based systems have a single point of failure (the track) which can be taken out with nothing more complicated than a sledgehammer. The only novel bit of concern for these maglev tracks that I can see is the higher cost involved with their construction, which might raise their value as targets. However, if the track can be engineered such that subsections can be replaced fairly quickly/cheaply (also a good idea for maintenance), it might mitigate that a bit.

    2. Re:Maintenance? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Train travel isn't currently popular in the U.S. for passenger transport, for a variety of reasons, so a terrorist attack on one wouldn't make much sense. Most people would just say "Okay, I was going to fly anyway." But if these things catch on and do become as popular as air travel for common routes, I'm sure someone will start targeting them. All I was saying was that security implications of protecting a rail line are much bigger than protecting the endpoints of air travel.

      I fully agree with your point about track maintenance.

    3. Re:Maintenance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Train travel isn't currently popular in the U.S. for passenger transport, for a variety of reasons, so a terrorist attack on one wouldn't make much sense.

      Even if you count subways and commuter rails in the United States, and we have significant passenger subway and commuter rail systems, the number of terrorist attacks are still, to the best of my knowledge, zero.

  35. Much better than 500 kph... by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... would be only 250 kph with zero wait, nonstop direct. The huge expense (and questionable success... see what happened at ODU) of maglev would not be necessary.

    To do that, you have a main line, and then side branches with stations. On the side branches, people get on, and an engineer takes them out onto the main line in front of the train. The trains dock (basically at full speed), and lock together.

    Meanwhile, the back unit drops off the back, to proceed to the next station. Trains could go through, basically every half hour, and all rides would be one way, nonstop, direct at 250 kph (150 mph).

    When you get on the train, you slide your ticket through a reader, and are instructed which car to proceed to. Additional color coding can also help.

    That's for Japan, which would use a basically linear system.

    It's slightly more complicated for continental countries, requiring the main trains to travel in circuits -- but basically the same.

    With electric propulsion, and today's computers, GPS, and measurement, the system shouldn't be all that difficult.

    You end up with less wait than a nonstop flight, much cheaper transport, a lower carbon footprint, and comfortable travel.

    Add into that the possibilities for ordering meals and having them delivered piping hot, and it would replace most of your short-hop air travel. Now use the meals to make the tickets significantly cheaper the way Vanderbilt did on his NJ-NYC ferry, and you'd have a huge commercial success.

    That's not to say that one wouldn't need to design in certain protections, and that there wouldn't be hurdles to overcome, but the design would far outperform a 500 mph train that travels twice a day, at costs close to that of airfare.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by Paolone · · Score: 1

      The trains dock (basically at full speed), and lock together.

      That's not a dock, that's a trainwreck.

    2. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by barzok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's done in LEO several times a year at 17,000 MPH, in 3 axes.

      Managing it in one axis in a more controlled environment at 2% of that speed, should not be difficult.

    3. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "Several times a year", not "several thousand times a year", mind you. When you multiply your trials a thousandfold, safety becomes an issue. And in orbit you have the advantage of vehicle behavior you can simulate to the micron with a pencil and paper, unlike rumbly old trains. Fascinating idea though, if you could make it work.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Damn - that's one hell of a concept. I have to admit, I don't see a downside to it. Just like there aren't any more railroad crossings where a little guy runs out and moves the barriers up and down each time a train comes by, there's no reason to manually dock train cars at rest for the entire trip.

      I'd also love to see this applied to cars, but it would actually be easier to implement on trains:
      - single, dedicated tracks already exist
      - trains are already centrally monitored and controlled
      - trains are already electronically controlled for a large portion of the maneuvers

      It would work awesomely in japan, and even on the coasts in the US, which are basically one long, narrow corridor.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one get on in the valley and get off in San Jose, if the train is LA -> SF direct?

    6. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by barzok · · Score: 1

      unlike rumbly old trains.

      MagLev trains are neither rumbly nor old.

    7. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do passengers get through the locomotive?

    8. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Manual coupling isn't necessary any more anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_VrHVh1CZ4
      It shouldn't be too difficult to get that thing to work in motion.

      Logistics would be more complicated -- what happens when more people want to get off at the next station than will fit in the trailing carriage? Or when more people want to stay on than will fit in the leading ones.

      In Europe long-distance trains often split and join (as in the video), but only at stations (usually large stations where the longer-than-normal stop -- say, 3 minutes rather than 1 -- is more useful).

    9. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It's done in LEO several times a year at 17,000 MPH, in 3 axes.

      LEO doesn't require you to compensate for turbulence, rolling friction, hills, valley, wind, rain, etc., etc.

      Connecting moving trains, on a routine basis, is at the very edge of current technology, and would still fail on a regular basis ("Sorry, something broke, you're not getting on the train today!").

      Never mind the extremely complex management of cars continually joining and leaving the mainline for stations. We can BARELY manage to coordinate a handful of low-speed freight trains, with many miles in between them, without any counter-moving offshoot vehicles, on the main lines without collisions.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I meant, literally rumbling trains that are old, not maglevs. The OP was suggesting that by keeping the rolling stock in motion you wouldn't need maglev speeds at all, and therefore you could do this with the existing railway setup.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by isorox · · Score: 1

      When you get on the train, you slide your ticket through a reader, and are instructed which car to proceed to.

      I assume you're on about compulsary seat reservations then? I've got on some trains in the UK with a first stop 2 hours away (about 220 miles) where people were left on the platform due to the train being so busy. Commuter services can be much worse. There's no way you can pass through a chocked 12 car train, even without luggage. You'd have to give more space over to gangways, reducing seating capacity even more, which increases the price.

    12. Re:Much better than 500 kph... by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I don't think you could do it with the existing railway setup. First of all, the existing railway setup is at ground level, and at high risk for object accidents. Second, at least in the US (and many European countries) the rails are badly degraded.

      Rather, you would have to build an elevated rail setup, and you'd have to have a much better tolerance than the existing railway setup. Indeed, the tolerances would probably have to be basically the same as what you'd have for maglev. On the other hand, you don't need all the magnetics, and your energy expenditures would be far less (approximately 25%, point to point).

      Aside from that... when I say you dock basically at speed, please note that there is no serious time delay for dropping from 150 mph to 30 mph for the docking, and then accelerating back up to speed. If you do this once every 20 miles or so, you're talking about 19 mi/150 mph (7.6 min) + 1 mi/30 mph (2 min) = 9.6 min = 125 mph avg speed. So NY-DC would be a 2-hr trip; NY-Boca Raton would be a 10 hr trip; NY-Chicago would be a 7-hr trip, and the docking all done at 30 mph.

      For those in Europe, Berlin-London would be a 6-hr trip; Paris-Rome would be 7.5 hrs.

      Not that docking has to be done at 30 mph -- but it can be done at whatever speed is found to be consistently safe.

      But you could start as soon as you were ready (within 20 minutes, or so). Compare that to airfare, which might get you there in 1/2 to 1/4 of the time, but is far more expensive, and you still have to wait 3-4 hours to start.

      The thing to remember here, is that key is not how fast a person can get to the destination, but how soon. This method increases the frequency of traveling units 10 or 20-fold, without increasing the energy expenditures at all.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  36. For some of ye Americans out there.. by internerdj · · Score: 1

    I know we post on slashdot but at least a couple of us can do the conversion...

    1. Re:For some of ye Americans out there.. by M8e · · Score: 1

      I can't convert kilosomethinghour to kilometer per hour. How is it done?

    2. Re:For some of ye Americans out there.. by internerdj · · Score: 1

      This should at least get you started. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kph KPH is a valid abreviation for kilometer per hour so the conversion rate is roughly speaking 1:1.

    3. Re:For some of ye Americans out there.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they meant kilos per hour, or kWh? As in P=Power=Watt

    4. Re:For some of ye Americans out there.. by jasmak · · Score: 1

      Google search: "500kph to mph"

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    5. Re:For some of ye Americans out there.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500 kilopoundhours = 310.7 millipoundhours?

  37. Predicting since 1982 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wow. I did maglev trains as a science fair project in 1982. I predicted they would reach speeds of 400kph and radically alter the real estate markets.

    I almost killed myself making one seriously intense transformer while making a metre long magnet from flat bar and plugging it into the wall. Pop! A 12v car battery was the better solution.

    It's about time!

  38. I though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MySQL ERROR:

    Error Number: 2013

    Description: Lost connection to MySQL server during query

    Query: SELECT field_id, field_name FROM exp_category_fields WHERE site_id IN ('1')

  39. Re:magic trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muggle spotted!

  40. Re:magic trains by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Discworld has geek chicks in it?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  41. Who will use them? by DustoneGT · · Score: 1

    Japan is becoming a nation of old people because they embraced zero-population growth theory while taking advantage of technology that keeps people around longer.

    Can the old Japanese people handle the ride on a train that fast? Perhaps the maglev trains will be good for shuttling the geriatric care droids around.

    1. Re:Who will use them? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Can the old Japanese people handle the ride on a train that fast?

      Well, it's much safer for old people to ride a train than to drive a car themselves...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  42. Re:magic trains by somersault · · Score: 1

    LOTR was one of the most boring books I have ever read. I didn't even reach the third book, I stopped about 20 pages from the end of the second. It's one of the few books where I consider the movie to be better (despite not being a fan of the movies either). I hope they don't screw up the Hobbit anyway, which I have always enjoyed. All fantasy stories these days could be referred to as a poor man's Tolkien, if you're going to think of things that way.

    The Harry Potter books are much better than the movies. I'm glad I read the first 4 before the first movie was out, otherwise I probably would have a low opinion of the whole thing too. The last movie was particularly poorly directed I thought.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  43. Re:magic trains by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    You can do it in fewer steps.

    Change S to L: NOLE (means "head"; also a municipality in Italy).
    Change N to M: MOLE
    Change O to I: MILE
    Change E to K: MILK

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  44. Hmmmm by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    It's not the flying car I wanted but this will have to do for now.

  45. Because an exponent requires markup by tepples · · Score: 1

    How hard is it to do km h[sup]-1[/sup]?

    (obviously make the [sup] bit an HTML tag. /. seems to eat it when I use it)

    It appears you answered your own question.

    1. Re:Because an exponent requires markup by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

      No. Slashdot editors aren't limited to the same markup restrictions as regular users. What would be the point of that?

  46. Re:magic trains by dgatwood · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You forgot "at taxpayer expense".

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  47. Look at those magnets by Requiem18th · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it safe to bring my laptop or any magnetic media storage device?

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:Look at those magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, but your aluminum foil hat may magnetize, focusing tumor growing EMF into your brain.

  48. Other than cushioning, how is this better? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I used to ride on SkyTrain in Vancouver BC, which is maglev, but only enough to provide propulsion, not a float cushion.

    Is the lift and reduced friction worth the extra energy to actually levitate it?

    And, if we put the new invisibility cloaks on these ... won't they kill stray cows and small boys and girls trying to flatten pennies on the tracks?

    (meanwhile in the US, we get zilch)

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Other than cushioning, how is this better? by AgentGibbled · · Score: 1

      I used to ride on SkyTrain in Vancouver BC, which is maglev, but only enough to provide propulsion, not a float cushion.

      Wrong. The SkyTrain in Vancouver is NOT maglev.

      MagLev = Magnetic Levitation

      Being maglev *implies* the levitation, or "float cushion" as you describe it.

      I think you are confusing maglev with linear induction motors
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motor
      which the SkyTrain does use. While these type of motors are often (usually?) used in a maglev system, they are also used for more conventional railed systems like the SkyTrain.

      Is the lift and reduced friction worth the extra energy to actually levitate it?

      Anectodally - Yes. Why else would they bother? The company is obviously not going to spend trillions of yen building a line that they know will be less profitable than the existing one.

      More concretely, an earlier poster provided a link to the math, however I can't seem to find it just now. The point was that eliminating the friction is a very big deal.

      And, if we put the new invisibility cloaks on these ... won't they kill stray cows and small boys and girls trying to flatten pennies on the tracks?

      I realize you're kidding, but just because they'd be invisible wouldn't make them silent. The air displacement alone would ensure that these trains would make a nontrivial amount of noise. Furthermore, placing pennies on the tracks wouldn't be too effective in flattening them since the train isn't touching the track. That being said, in the highly unlikely event that I'm ever asked for my opinion in the design of these sort of trains, I'll be sure to suggest that they keep "invisibility cloak" off the feature sheet.

      (meanwhile in the US, we get zilch)

      The problem in North America is that the vast majority of it lacks the concentrated population centers in fairly close proximity to make this sort of thing even approach economically viable. There are some exceptions to this. In those cases, we're left with:

      1. Lack of political will to foot the massive up-front cost for something that won't be completed until someone else's term.

      2. Rampant NIMBYism which would make it next to impossible to come up with a viable route through a populated area without getting sued into oblivion.

      3. An irrational societal addiction to the automobile despite higher cost and risk to life and limb.

      Given enough time, #3 will probably be overcome for one reason or another. #1 might be overcome by some visionary. #2 is a tough one because it either pushes costs even higher, or forces you into a route that is far away from where it's needed. Anything is possible, I suppose.

      Basically: I wouldn't hold your breath.

    2. Re:Other than cushioning, how is this better? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you were to go along the I-5 corridor from Vancouver BC down to San Diego CA, you have more density than you would along the line they're talking about for Japan.

      Glad someone did the math to show that the float cushion energy use is less than the energy gain due to reduced friction. But is this as true at 500 kph as it is at more typical 300 to 350 kph speeds for bullet trains?

      Air becomes more of a wall at such speeds, although some of that might be obviated by a pointier nose cone design and the length of the train (less resistance per meter if the length is more).

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Other than cushioning, how is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you were to go along the I-5 corridor from Vancouver BC down to San Diego CA, you have more density than you would along the line they're talking about for Japan.

      I'm not convinced you're right about that. Tokyo is a VERY populous urban area. The Chuo Shinkansen would run from Tokyo to Nagoya. If we neglect the smaller cities in between and just take those two urban areas, there's around 43.65 million people in the service area.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population

      Taking your I-5 corridor and being a little more generous in our definition of service area (since I'm too lazy to add up all the metro populations along the way) and just totalling up the provincial and state populations we get 51 million people, which is indeed more. It's a little exaggerated because of my unfair definition of service areas, but it won't matter.

      The Big difference is that Tokyo to Nagoya is around 350km which gives us somewhere around 125,000 population per route kilometer. Vancouver to San Diego is close to 2250km which is only 22,600 population per route kilometer.

      Unless I've done something horribly wrong here (very possible given my really rough calculations) I think you're off by an order of magnitude.

      With all that being said, if I were forced to pick a corridor to do this sort of thing in North America, some portion of that one would certainly be one of the frontrunners. I might consider the eastern seaboard first, though.

      But is this as true at 500 kph as it is at more typical 300 to 350 kph speeds for bullet trains?

      Air becomes more of a wall at such speeds, although some of that might be obviated by a pointier nose cone design

      I agree with this. There's obviously some breakeven point where the absence of friction is offset by the increased aerodynamic drag. I believe some of the more exotic designs get around this by having the train run inside a tube with no air in it. This is *not* the case with the Japanese design, which is an open-air train. There's a half-decent youtube video of a test run of the Japanese train here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwnT3KdWHQU

    4. Re:Other than cushioning, how is this better? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      that's at the ends of the lines.

      I was referring to the I-5 corridor - with Vancouver BC, Seattle WA, Portland OR, San Jose CA, Los Angeles CA, San Diego CA ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Other than cushioning, how is this better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... yes.

      And I'm saying that the combined population of California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia (including all of those cities you listed and more) is only slightly larger than the population of just the two endpoints of the line in Japan, and it's spread out over more than six times the distance. Thus - much less dense.

      I'm not saying you're wrong about it being a favourable rail route -- it's nice and linear and has lots of people on it. I'm just saying you're wrong about it being more dense than Japan.

  49. We shouldn't try by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    America is one of very few places in the world with sprawling suburbs that make transportation projects like this unfeasible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it will be exponentially more difficult than for us than for a country like Japan, or even most Eastern European countries.

    The 'exponentially more difficult' part is why we shouldn't try to use rail to solve transportation problems. We're just too spread out. Rail only connects a very narrow corridor of people, and moreover, fixes their location indefinitely. If cities re-configure, the rail can't be reconfigured without lots of money.

    If, on the other hand, we reconfigured cars so that they were capable of forming dynamic trains, we could get a lot of the benefit of trains without the drawbacks. For instance, trains move lots of vehicles more cheaply than a single vehicle because the locomotive bears the cost of pushing air out of the way. That not inconsiderable expense rises exponentially with speed. In a train, it's spread out over the vehicles following the locomotive but in a car, the single car bears the entire expense.

      If cars drafted behind each other, they could share that savings that trains have. For that to work, it would require the cars to be able to communicate between themselves to sort out common destinations and speeds.

    In practice, you'd jump on the highway per normal and your car would start querying other cars how far down the road they're going. When it found another car that was headed the same way for more than a mile or so, they'd sort out who would be lead car and who would draft and arrange themselves accordingly. The person in the lead car would continue to drive, but all the cars trailing him would be tucked in within an inch or two of each other. Their car's computers would be telegraphing to each other what the lead car was doing in terms of accelerating/decelerating so that they would do the same at the same time. When someone's destination exit arrived, the car would telegraph to the following cars that it was peeling off and the other cars would momentarily disconnect while the car pulled out of the train and then the remaining cars would re-connect. In the case of the leader, second car up would become the leader. Tail car peeling off wouldn't affect the train at all.

    For a car to be allowed to join a train, it would have to carry a digitally signed certificate saying when the last time it was checked out for safety so members of the train would be confident that one of the cars wouldn't fall apart while they're within inches of it and that it was able to stop itself within a standard distance. If you didn't want to join a train, or you joined a train that made you uncomfortable for some reason, you'd turn off the feature and just drive yourself. But if you're a commuter, letting someone else drive the same route day after day, has a lot of appeal. A common commute of 20 miles would give you 20 minutes to yourself to do whatever while someone else drove.

    With reaction times removed and cars bunched up within inches of each other, highways can carry more cars at higher speeds. Currently, we slow down when the highways get congested because we have to account for reaction times to propagate down the road. With the cars handling reaction time issues, they can speed up quite a bit.

    Add a little intelligence to our cars and suddenly our highways become much greener.

    1. Re:We shouldn't try by dukieduke · · Score: 1

      A common commute of 20 miles would give you 20 minutes to yourself to do whatever while someone else drove.

      It sounds wonderful, and worthy of the mods. The only problem is that it doesn't reflect reality. At some point (the exit) the commuter has to take control of his car again. This system gives the commuter the ability to veg out for 20 minutes, typing replies to /., watching a PBay download, getting some "stimulation" from another passenger or "whatever" as you said, before they have to immediately take control of the car again. We have trouble enough with cellphone usage in cars today distracting drivers. A situation like you have described is perfect for responsible users. Ask any driver today if they are responsible drivers. I will bet they almost all say they are. Yet we still have so many highway deaths annually.

    2. Re:We shouldn't try by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Wrong solution, IMO.

      Trains are mostly efficient because they have one or three massive powerplants pulling the entire train, instead of each car pulling itself (and the weight of its engine).

      Also, trains benefit a great deal from vastly reduced rolling friction and infrequent stops/steady speed.

      A train CARRYING cars would be more efficient than a train OF cars.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    3. Re:We shouldn't try by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      Trains currently have 4 key advantages over cars

      1. Single powerplant
      2. drafting as cited earlier
      3. Smoother roadbed
      4. Steadier speed

      The idea I'm suggesting has drafting and steadier speeds working for it. Drafting is a huge win as air drag becomes a major factor at high speed. You gain steadier speeds because people aren't over-reacting to speed ups and slow downs and you're eliminating propagation delays.

      Currently, if you're in a mile long queue of cars that has completely stopped, it takes over 2 minutes for the tail car to get the message that the lead car is moving. That's two minutes for one complete stop that a car could be moving but can't because it takes time for people to react to a change. Multiply that by the number of times the queue comes to a complete stop to see how much just reaction times alone add to your commute time. This proposal eliminates all that and smooths out the commute. Smoothing out the commute gives you a steadier speed.

      So that's two out of 4 advantages that trains would give up. On the negative side, trains are damn heavy and it takes energy to get them moving and to stop them. Their weight makes them much more expensive to build and to maintain as well as maintaining their infrastructure. Moreover, they only go to designated locations.

      The European trains only work because they're subsidized. Take away their subsidies and the trains become too expensive a means to carry people. Dynamic trains would be self-funded. Tax the fuel the cars consume that use the system places the cost on the people who actually use it. Down the road, as the federal budget gets squeezed by Medicare and Social Security, self-funded programs will be the ones that survive.

  50. Re:magic trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cherry Littlebottom and several of Vetinari's female friends should qualify.

  51. Terrorists? Get real! Real problem is cost by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Regular commuter trains are just as good a target, and instead of fancy high-tech attacks you can dump piles of rock or logs on the tracks to derail them. (I think one of the US militia-wannabee groups did that once in the 90s, but it's really rare.)

    The real problem has been that maglev trains are fabulously expensive, and the couple of them that have been deployed around the world are typically showpiece airport people-movers. While the US probably could have built one in the late 1990s boom when there was free tax money and venture capital falling from the sky, but now that Bush has added about $5T to the Federal debt and the Crisis is costing us another $1-2T, we won't be able to afford that for a while, even if Obama does get elected.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  52. Re:magic trains by ronanbear · · Score: 1

    Chic and chicks are different but I wouldn't worry about it as neither concept are relevant.

    --
    the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
  53. The end of these silly comments by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they'll let me test out maglev rollerblades on the track.

    If you keep cracking these jokes, and it comes down to money, we'll chip in.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  54. Re:magic trains by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Besides the fact that LOTR is a set of three books, boring is completely perceptual. Tolkien wrote as though he were a storyteller, speaking to his audience. His target audience was not you, rather adults with a higher reading level in a time where attention to detail was well-regarded and the story-teller style was somewhat popular. Besides this, one can get a very strong insight into how Tolkien felt about property from his traditionalist standpoint.

    The Hobbit was written for children - more specifically, his kids. It has a much lower reading level, slightly above the Harry Potter books.

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  55. Great! If only politics where less intrusives! by ghostbar38 · · Score: 0

    40 years after they can use it because politicos already got paid enough... If weren't because of intrusive governments we could have got better technologies a lot time ago...

    --
    ghostbar page.
  56. Re:woe discordia by scatteredsun · · Score: 0

    oh sure, -1 just cuz you didn't get the reference..... ah well, thats what I get for posting before coffee

  57. Re:magic trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sorry, neither obscure Shakespearian words nor proper nouns are allowed.

  58. Re:magic trains by Firehed · · Score: 1

    Or just dyslexically transform "levitating" into "lactating".

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  59. 40 years of drawing board occupancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They've been on the drawing board for 40 years"
     
      And how on earth did they not get erased by the over-zealous janitor?

  60. NOT a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    the 500kph maglev trains to replace bullet trains

    The maglev trains will NOT replace the bullet trains; they will take an alternative route between Tokyo and Nagoya, which will increase the bandwidth between the two cities. The current route is very close to being saturated with bullet trains.

  61. Re:Efficiency - not bad gliders really by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    Actually, jetlineners glide just fine, they have big long wings and a very low drag streamlined shape. LD ratio (= lift/drag ratio = roughly the same as glide ratio) of a Boeing 747 is about 17. That translates to gliding about 110 miles from an initial altitude of 35,000 feet with no engines. Not as good as a modern sailplane (LD > 50) but a lot better than our most expensive and famous glider, the Space Shuttle which has an LD of about 4.5. For a truly amazing example google "Gimli Glider"

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  62. Germany by ktoepke · · Score: 1
    Who needs Maglev trains?

    I'm currently in the 2nd week of my 2 week vacation in Germany. I've gone 300 kph on a conventional train powered by electricity from overhead power lines (ala SanFran Trolly lines). In fact, the only lines I've ridden on that weren't electric were "the last mile", and they were diesel electric (a middle diesel generator providing power for adjoining electric trains). Wonderful system. Never want for a car (maybe a bicycle though).

    The US needs to start building high-speed rail between cities and funding those rail systems at the same (or higher!!!!) levels then they currently fund the interstate system. If so, maybe in 20 years we'll have a public transportation system that matches Germany today.

    Pissed that I have to return to the congestion and pollution in American cities in a couple days...

    1. Re:Germany by hfranz · · Score: 1

      And, if I may add, there has been an experimental maglev train in Germany for more than 15 years: the Transrapid.

      Too bad it wasn't economically feasible to operate when compared to conventional trains like the TGV or ICE which both run at 300+kph in regular service.

      Now the Transrapid has been running in China for several years. Looks like Japan playing catch up with China to me.

    2. Re:Germany by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Well, as much as I am amazed by maglev technology: It's more or less useless by now.
      Tracks are hugely expensive, can only be used by custom-built trains, and
      cannot interconnect with the existing rail network.

      And speed also isn't a valid argument any more:
      An experimental version of the french TGV last year achieved 575km/h (and could probably have reached
      600, but ran out of track ;-) on a "plain old (very high tech) steel track" which is used for regular
      330km/h service.

      Advantage: Those tracks interconnect with the rest of the network (that also means no need for new tracks or
      stations in the towns), can be used by existing trains as well (e.g. by freight trains at night) and are considerably
      cheaper to build.

      Maglev technology is - I say it again - fascinating, and I'm in awe of the engineers that actually made it work.
      But considering today's state of readily available "plain old rail" technology - and its expected progress in the
      next couple of years - maglev is a solution in search of a problem.

  63. Re:magic trains by internerdj · · Score: 1

    Or you know familiar to anyone posting here.

  64. Re:magic trains by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cherry Littlebottom? Sounds like the sluttier sister of Strawberry Shortcake.

  65. Re:magic trains by theun4gven · · Score: 1

    Besides the fact that LOTR is a set of three books

    This is obviously some strange usage of the word 'fact' that I wasn't previously aware of. It is a set of six books in three volumes.

  66. Re:magic trains by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

    not to be confused with the other MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real nice, and the tomato is fresh...

    --
    - Mike
    Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
  67. Re:magic trains by xaositects · · Score: 1

    not for Gnome 2.22.2

  68. I'm sorry. Do you know how much rail costs? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    On the flip side of that, one would need MASSIVE bridges to cover many of the dips and rivers in Quebec and Ontario.... It is just all around cheaper to fly over it all.

    Google for "rail cost per mile". You're talking tens of millions per mile. Of course it's cheaper to fly.

     

    --
    Deleted
  69. Re:magic trains by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    Yes, in a technical sense, there are three volumes of six "books", but, as for almost the entire history of the printing of the tale, these six books were printed in three volumes, there are effectively three books. In case you care, Tolkien himself called it a trilogy.

    English speakers should note that when a volume is bound for the purpose of distribution, it is called a book.

    book: a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume (m-w)

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  70. Re:magic trains by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Cuugh, it's more then 3 books bound into three covers.
    The publishers at the time felt each book was too short.

    The reading elvel is the same, but the harry potter books are more intense, appeal to what a child experiences, and have more action.

    I just finished readng 'The Hobbit' to my son, and there are some pretty long and non relevant parts in 'The Hobbit'. We find out a lot about Bilbo
    s family we dont need to know, the same thing with LOTRs.
    Is knowing Lobelia stole silverware any way relevant to the books?
    I mean, giving someone who stole your silverware a parting gift of silverware is funny, but only if you have a connection with the character.

    I enjoyed the books, but 'The expected party' is not relevant until the last few pages.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  71. Re:magic trains by geekoid · · Score: 1

    So whats an eBook?

    In the process of typing up a scathing post telling you exactly why you are wrong, filled with insult and facts that would cut you to the quick...I realized that you are correct, and that I am wr..wr... well less correct!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  72. Mag Levs can be Green and Planes never will be by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

    Peak oil is here to stay. Flying will soon become just for the rich as fuel prices rise. Mag Levs on the other hand will run on whatever kind of source you care to use, and it could be green from solar and wind. The buses in Calgary AB run on wind power now. These giant projects would produce a boom in tourism, travel, commuting, transportation, shipping, and more. Building them would create not just jobs and wealth but new technologies. And it just might be the kind of dream that people could get behind. Are you listening Obama? Can you hear me Mr. Harper?

    1. Re:Mag Levs can be Green and Planes never will be by forceman130 · · Score: 1

      Don't the sails on the buses get in the way?

      --
      Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
    2. Re:Mag Levs can be Green and Planes never will be by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      I should have said trains. No. Not only is the C-Train run on street level emmision free electric power, but the electric power for the trains is generated by wind power. Electric power generated from wind turbines powers all of the overhead wires for the trains pantographs to pick up. This program (aka "Ride The Wind") is well known and something that the City of Calgary and Calgary Transit are very proud of. http://www.re-energy.ca/ridethewind/about.shtml

  73. Re:magic trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In about one week, my gaming group will hate you.

  74. Re:magic trains by DougF · · Score: 1

    ...MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real nice, and the tomato is fresh...

    MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real LEAN, and the tomato is fresh...
    There, fixed that for you, AND sentence you to watch "Princess Bride" 2 more times...

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
  75. Re:magic trains by hador_nyc · · Score: 1

    doh!
    at least I know someone got my reference!

    --
    - Mike
    Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
  76. Re:magic trains by clem · · Score: 1

    You were able to take out 3 letters from Magnetic but you got Levitating right...?

    It was a net loss.

    --
    Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
  77. Re:magic trains by nmg196 · · Score: 1

    > Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?

    no

  78. Re:magic trains by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    So what would one do with a magic lactating train?

  79. Re:magic trains by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    lol let me know how it turns out

  80. Wake me up when they build a vactrain by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

    Maglev? That's so 20th century. Wake me up when they're building a vactrain across the Pacific.

  81. Re:magic trains by Sethumme · · Score: 1

    Getting 'lactating' from 'levitating' would fall under the "hearing what you want to hear" department, not dyslexia.

  82. Re:magic trains by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

    "So what would one do with a magic lactating train?"

    I don't know.
    But I DO know there are probably pictures on the internet!

    I DON'T wanna know, so I ain't gonna Google it!

    --
    The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  83. Nice answer but the problem is: by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

    Liability. It is the problem that will kill any idea that moves liability from the driver to anything else. A fully automated machine? It's the company that makes the machine. In the train scenario, it's the lead driver.

    I'd prefer that the vehicles automatically follow, and closely, however I want better roads. We need to add track-like features to our roads for two reasons:
    1: Gives automated vehicles a chance and being able to stay in the lane.
    2: Gives better stopping performance.
    A regular asphalt/concrete road greatly limits how fast a car can stop. We need some kind of a track that will allow us to lower our stopping distance. So many accidents would be avoidable with a decent way to stop quickly (3g-4g deceleration. Previously I'd thought that sucker cars might be the way to go, however those tend to throw rocks around and would have difficulties with our pothole filled roads.

    --
    They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    1. Re:Nice answer but the problem is: by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      You're right that liability issues would have to be addressed.

      It's a soluble problem if it's taken on at a Federal level. Congress would have to lay out a program that handled liability pre-emptively. For example, there could be a tax levied on gas that funded a no-fault insurance program similar to the way vaccine liability is being handled. If you're injured, you're entitled to a payout from the fund. Sans courts and lawyers, it's much cheaper than the way tort litigation is handled.

  84. False by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We have loads of places for maglevs. We just do not have loads of places for EXPENSIVE maglevs. The GA's approach is a fraction of the price. In fact, the GA may actually be cheaper than putting in more highways in a number of places.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  85. I want a compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about long-distance train systems with railcars where I can drive my car up on and park (similar to the ferry system in the puget sound area of seattle), then get off and walk into the passanger area. That way I could train from seattle to los angeles for X amount of dollars and still have my car available to drive around without having to rent.

    It would be cheap, fast, and convenient. Especially for us long-distance vacation loving americans.

  86. Re:magic trains by BlackusDiamondus · · Score: 1

    What are you going to mistake 'Levitating' with?

    • Magic Levi's Train
    • Magic Leviathan Train

    That's all I can think of.

    Magic Lactating Trains FTW!

    --
    Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
  87. 500kmh ... that's fast !!! by yvesdandoy · · Score: 0

    but by 2025 ... the French/European TGV "traditional" train on wheels will probably travel at the same speed.

  88. Not So "Permanent" Magnets? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    If I left a car floating on top of a pair of very strong opposing "permanent" magnets (made of the kind of stuff driving tiny headphones or those potent little refrigerator door magnets, but large enough to float a car with its wheels off), how long would they stay pushed apart? After some years or decades, would the magnetic force on each magnet eventually force the magnets back to a disorganized magnetic domains state, and let the magnets to lose repulsive force, so they eventually didn't push apart at all, and collapsed?

    Or are these magnets really "permanent"?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  89. Km/h or Kmph if you prefer by biancmb · · Score: 1

    Hello America.. it's Kilo meters per hour. This and the original article seem to assume the unit is meters, by specifying Kilo only. Why levitate on a speedy train if you do not even know the basics for measuring your speed?

  90. Kph!? by noundi · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to be a dick but to our UK/North American friends: it's called km/h (kilos per hour doesn't make sense).

    --
    I am the lawn!
  91. Re:magic trains by somersault · · Score: 1

    When I was reading up on LOTR on wikipedia it actually said that Tolkien wrote is as one book, but split it into 3 parts because of the war going on, maybe people at the time had less to spend on buying books, or making books.

    I perhaps would be able to get through LOTR better these days as I have better spacial awareness and geographical knowledge than when I first tried to read it, but the idea still doesn't entrall me. There are hundreds of other books that I'd rather read or even re-read first.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  92. Re:magic trains by cp.tar · · Score: 1

    Though she does qualify as a geek (CSI dwarf), her name is Cheery, later modified to Cheri.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  93. Re:magic trains by cp.tar · · Score: 1

    Kind of.
    Then again, so does Harry Potter. Not just Hermione, but all the Ravenclaw girls as well.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  94. Re:Efficiency - Thanks to all by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    it's what I love about slashdot.

    I had no idea jetliners could glide at all - for (literally) decades I figured they dropped like rocks.

    Good to know this isn't so.

    best to all who set me straight on this.

    Rs

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  95. Re:magic trains by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

    eBook - has its own definition now, sadly.

    You would think that, by combining the two words 'electronic' and 'book' one would be able to safely figure out what an e-book is.

    Unfortunately, the idea that comes across when one says that is something like an electronic tablet via which you can read a book.

    It is too bad that those puissant word-makers seem to be able to control even what we say. They should be called oBooks or even iBooks (Apple would have a fit though). Oh well, next time the Academy calls me for word acceptance, I will disallow bastardizations like that!

    Ship it!

    --
    "Little is much when little you need."
  96. Re:magic trains by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    When life gives you magic lactating trains, make magic milkshakes.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  97. Maybe... by default+luser · · Score: 1

    Anyone else read that as "Magic Levitating Trains" ?

    I was thinking Magic Bus myself.

    I WANT IT, I WANT IT, I WANT IT, I WANT IT!

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.