Slashdot Mirror
Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US
fantomas writes "The BBC reports that 'US President Barack Obama has announced his "vision for high-speed rail" in the country, which would create jobs, ease congestion and save energy.' Can rail work in the land where the car is king? Would you travel on the new high speed lines?"
Yes.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly. The process of doing it with "private enterprise" or a "public-private partnership" always kills anything good that could come out of it. Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France to the farce that is privatised railways in Australia for a good example.
Ah, yes. A rail project. Beloved by pork-barrellers at the local level for decades, now brought to the national stage.
Sorry to break it to any Obama fans here, but you clowns elected an empty suit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
is going to be thrown away on the Disorient Express.
Our country is unique in the fact that people don't tend to live more than an hour away from their work. This would mean that each trip would be very short, eliminating the benefit of high speed rails.
I would love to see high-speed rail though, if only for long trips. Getting to see other parts of the country in a day rather than 2 or 3 days would energize the travel businesses.
If I wrote something witty, you would say I stole it from somewhere.
Here.
Best Slashdot Co
Hell yes!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If it is priced less than air travel and it provides service to places I need to go.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
Didn't the Simpson's already do this?
You'll be given cushy jobs!
Duluth, MN to Mpls/St.Paul will allow our state to participate in the future! It's going to happen. I have tech students using open transport tycoon to model this as a high school IT / Game design project
Personally I like rail.. the bad part however is it will cost ALOT.. and Amtrak isn't exactly doing a 'great' job thus far.
Will it create jobs? Absolutely.. will it lower congestion at airports, absolutely..
Will it work as a mass-transit system (be sustainable, profitable, used): I'm willing to find out, but it ends up horribly mismanaged and failing or inaccessible because of it; I'm gonna slap someone.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
Germany is a pretty car-obsessed country but even here the fast trains have a nicely working system. One could say that there are many things wrong with it: tickets are expensive, it has cost that state a lot of money to build it, and for anything longer than a 6 hour drive, taking the plane is just as fast. That said, I use it with cheap early-booked tickets (30-60 euro independent of distance), it has onboard wlan for T-Mobile customers, per every pair of seats there is a power outlet. And when I arrive, I'm completely relaxed, in shape, and in the center of the town I want to be. Overall, it's a win. The US has a different geography though, many suburbs etc, not always a connecting public transport system. But if they start in places like california or the east coast, and build up from there, it could well work.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
The ring came off my pudding can!
Is this the new line that's an express from disneyland to vegas?
Yeah, that benefits the average US citizen and isn't corporate pork in any way shape or form.
I think this is a good thing, because I'd rather take a train from Detroit to Chicago than fly it, due to the price and pain-in-the-ass that is flight security these days. I'm not sure how this is big government other than the price tag. We paid for the highways in America and people don't bitch out government for that these days. I see some of these being much more effective than others. The Chicago hub would be wonderful for the Midwest but some of the others(Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Philly? Really?) seem destined to flop. In short if I can take a train that takes just as long as a flight, avoid airport security and not have to pay to check my luggage, I'm a happy camper.
Where is there mass transit that works in the U. S.?
Boston to Washington corridor, Chicago, LA and Frisco. That's about it. Most people haven't seen it and therefore won't trust it.
If it is cheaper and more convenient that flying or driving medium distances, it might have a chance. If it can be built.
Add in that it's another massive spending program that there is no money to pay for and this idea just won't fly.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Give me something at least resembles the Shinkansen and I'll ride it.
Would this thing go through Texas as well?
The World is Yours.
Is it affordable? Is there a line to where I want to go? If not, will there be one in the near future or is there at least connecting services?
It's certainly an interesting idea for connecting cities. Once in a city, I think there are better transit methods (there are still lots of places that don't have these yet) like bus service, taxis, subways, or monorails. I could see these services combined with high speed rail making a change in how people travel IF it's more affordable than flying and less of a hassle.
The other thing is the current rail service in between these proposed lines. I don't know how it is now, but I know the Amtrak train that goes between Texas and Southern California used to be late constantly, up to a day in some cases, due to being considered lower priority rail traffic by Union Pacific who owns the rail. High speed may get you to one city but if the existing rail lines from there are slow or even cause you to come in late then theres a problem.
If I could go from Chicago to San Jose for half the price of an airline ticket, Yes. In other words, the train would have to be close to me and go where I need to go in order for me to use it.
But the economy's still all cracked and broken!
Sorry guys, Obama's spoken!
Monorail... Monorail... Monorail!
Summation 2
Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke?
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
rail is king is japan and europe because these places are so much more dense population wise than the usa. however, this is on average. rail can be king in the usa in dense areas like california, and the northeast. rail doesn't make sense in kansas or nebraska. still, a high speed rail link between major urban centers has some value. fast enough, and they can compete well with air travel. it will be very expensive to set up, but once the infrastructure is in place, its nothing but gravy savings
even with all of that considered, the usa still has to look beyond the automobile in an age of ever increasing energy insecurity, and rail and nuclear are neglected and unsexy but utterly solid alternatives to oil funded geopolitical problems and oil fueled atmospheric degeneration: never mind the CO2, air quality in our cities is a valid reason to go to more rail. when you fill up your SUV, you fund russian neoimperialism, you fund islamic fundamentalism, you fund trolls like chavez in venezuela. who funds the enemies of the usa in this world? soccer moms do. this is an insanity that has to end, and if it means we ride more trains, then its a no brainer
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In a flash, PROVIDED there's none of that security theatre crap that goes on in the airports, and whatever entity that runs the rail system doesn't treat people like the airlines or commuter railroads...
The only big highspeed I know of is the Acela, which goes from NYC to Boston or D.C.
The price: $90 each way, no wifi.
Or you can take a bus for $20 that has Wifi.
I hear the Acela is nice, but I'd rather buy a DS for my bus ride, and i'd still save money.
With services planes consistently becoming more unbearable, and trains plagued by delays and generally slow transit times, roughly the same as driving, this really is a great idea. I would love to be able to to have more of the country easily accessible, via a quick, easy to use, and hopefully not too expensive, travel network, without all the hassle of going to an airport. The US is sadly way behind on the times when it comes to rail.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Only if these "High Speed Trains" are cheap. If I am driving alone from NY to washington DC it will cost me less than 40 bucks. Can these train prices will be comparable?? In Europe flights cost almost the same as TGV or Thallys. It will definitely create good competitive market in US and more JetBlue like flight companies will be formed in US and we "The Consumers" will get good prices for the flights.
Back in the late 80s early 90s there was a big push for a rail system between Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio. Basically Southwest Airlines and their Lobby killed it. Possibly with the Airlines hurting like they are, they may not be able to "derail" it like they did in the past, but it will be a war.
I live just close enough (one suburb to the next) to work that there will be no rail. I live just far enough (about 8 miles)that a bike ride across 2 two canyons is a serious work out, and there are no shower facilities at a job that requires 'business casual'. My hours are just irregular enough to make carpooling problematic. I am required to go to different sites almost every day. Pretty much need to have a car available to me.
+1 fashionably cynical
In the USA, the speed of air travel is a compelling advantage over rail. That's why passenger rail in this country declined from a major industry to a government-sponsored museum hobby.
If passenger rail travel were economically viable here, it wouldn't take tax money to keep it alive.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Just look at Amtrak. Prices are too high and it is going broke.
Hardly anybody really uses a transit system in the U.S. That is why they have to paid for by the taxpayers. More people pay for bus and train systems than actually use them. The city I live in, opted out years ago because it was costing about $35,000 per year per rider. Whenever you look at actual cost per user, it isn't worth it. Just more waste of my money.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Heck yeah. Why wouldn't I? I love the train.
Bring it. I don't even care if they're not such high-speed trains. (Remember the silly claims about the Acela so-called high-speed trains in the Northeast corridor? Laughable. I'll just take the regular trains that get there ten minutes later and cost half the price.)
All I want is more connections. If I could take the train to work I would. Even transferring to a local bus would work for me. Presto: I now have an extra couple of hours per day for reading, studying, whatever I want. My commute is just wasted time.
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
What makes anyone think that Amtrack:TNG is going to be a better idea? It's going to be a huge buildout expense, disrupt many communities, and in the end will still be slower than airline travel.
If you want something visionary, how about supporting large scale consumer adoption of small regional airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city? It's like the dream of the flying car but with practicality behind it and yields a lot more flexibility.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What list? Parent said "Yes"...
Take off every 'sig' !!
How is it that places like Japan, Shanghai, Germany, and various other places have High Speed rail systems, and the United States doesn't? Anyone else find it ridiculous that the trains we have now, go the same speed they did 150 years ago?
High Speed Rail could change the face of travel and industry. A Mag-Lev train doing 260 miles an hour would generate faster travel (and will aleviate the nerve-wracking experience of flying for people like me) and delivery time for industry. It's a win-win situation.
For a site so dedicated to progress and competition in technology, there sure are a lot of people who're too afraid to look at the positive sides of this.
High speed rail sounds really good.
The problem is that the U.S. is huge. There aren't too many routes that make high speed rail profitable.
I suppose a number of lines going to Vegas and Florida could come close to breaking even.
Let me be the first to name this a Train To Nowhere.
We already have Amtrak. Remove grade crossings and update the signaling and anti-tampering systems and the locomotives can go 'high speed' on existing infrastructure.
Finally, it is quite hard to have 'high speed' rail when it has to stop in every congressional district multiple times.
Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION annually.
CSX confirmed that all track repairs had been completed in mid-2006.
Believe me, I'm heading back to Houston from Tallahassee for Mother's Day and I'd love to grab a ride on sunset, but it looks like another airport shake-n-dance. Amtrak has 3 more months to offer a "plan" to restore service...wanna bet that no one ever asks for this plan?
A government controlled-business does not make it some magical, ne'er-do-bad business.
import system.cool.Sig;
1) US loves cars people won't commute by train...
Okay accept for in the North East where its pretty normal and that line from Boston down to Washington that people use.
2) America is really big
What do you mean you can get across Spain, France and Germany at speed (a pretty large area).
3) People will prefer to fly
Go to London, think about going to Paris, think about checking in at the airport... take the train
4) Trains are imperialist as they always drive on the left
Got me there, its true they do indeed always effectively drive on the left on a 2 track system.
So the real reason it won't work is because of 1776.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The US is sadly way behind on the times when it comes to rail.
It's because any form of public transportation requires a certain population density. Most of the US isn't densely populated enough.
If a plague killed six in seven Britons, they'd have the same population density the US has now.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Since when has it been the President's job to act a dictator of what the USA's market should do and/or wants? Suggesting infrastructure project (bridges, pipes, etc.) were one thing, but this just sounds like the President is intentionally trying to step on the free markets toes.
If a government sponsored high-speed rail could be /half/ as efficient as the private sectors already established (and profitable) rail system (think Amtrak) it still wouldn't be worthwhile. I mean, if more highspeed rail were profitable (e.g., the free market has a damand for it), don't you think Amtrak would have already expanded to accomodate the additional income? Granted that true, then it's proven not profitable and will fail no matter which entity funds it (Amtrak OR the government).
In other words, even /more/ of your tax dollars flushed down the toilet (just like the AIG "'bail-out" bonuses, etc., etc., etc.)
Sorry to break it to any Obama fans here, but you clowns elected an empty suit.
On the other hand, even an empty suit is better than what we've had for the past eight years.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I hate owning a car. Cars are a pain in the ass. They burn fuel, need repairs, require me to get them inspected, cost tons of money to clean, dirty easily, have to be parked, etc.
I have been to nearly every state in the U.S. either by car or by plane. I've crossed the country four times from end to end by road. In nearly every one of these cases, rail would have been my first choice, but Amtrak always costs significantly more than plane or car.
I LOVE the rail systems in Europe. I LOVE the relaxation, the space, the reasonable air and relaxed rules (unlike plane travel) and the fact that I get to see lots of places without having to be stuck in traffic in them. It's damn nice to go by rail.
Within cities, I love commuter and transit rail systems. I took the BART when I lived in San Francisco and I took the TRAX when I lived in Salt Lake City and I took the TriMet when I lived in Portland and I took the El when I lived in Chicago and I now use the MTA Subway system heavily in NYC.
I love, love, love rail and it would be a dream come true if someone at the top of this country could put together a working rail system that's affordable between major cities in the way that Europe's rail system is.
If the price can even match the actual purchase price of air travel, I'd take rail instead at least 75% of the time.
If rail ends up being 2x or 3x more than air, as it has been, though, I'll still end up driving or flying. Right now in the U.S. long-distance and inter-city train is a luxury mode of transportation.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Out of curiosity, and for historical comparison's sake, does anybody remember what the critical reception of the 1956 interstate highway scheme looked like? In the longer term, its judgement seems to have been highly favorable(with huge amounts of commercial traffic dependent on it, and even fairly hardcore anti-fed free marketeer types not saying much about it, despite it being a gigantic federal public works project).
I'd be interested to know how the reaction to this scheme compares to the reaction to that one.
And have instead been relying on Philadelphia's Regional Rail to get to work. It's so much nicer than having to drive into work. Consider the following:
- 25 minute train ride versus a 45-60 minute drive
- I can read or sleep on the train. Can't do either when driving!
- I no longer have to worry about maintaining my car, insurance, gas prices, etc. Not only do I have more peace of mind, but I'm saving hundreds of dollars per month now.
I've noticed something else when dealing with public transit companies, they respect us more than car companies. Every time I took my car in for maintenance, or when I would buy a new car, I would also feel like I was being taken advantage of--it was just this unpleasant vibe I got from doing business with the dealership. But with public transportation, I don't get the same feeling.
Don't get me wrong, SEPTA has tried raising its rates and cutting service a number of times, but when that happens, there is a public outcry as passengers criticise the company en masse, and SEPTA backs down. That's the way it should be, and it's worked out pretty well so far.
Please, Mr. Obama, build more trains. I'll ride 'em!
Trains are so much efficient on fuel, the typical claims of a gallon of diesel to move a ton of freight some 400 miles. Imagine driving a typical two ton car on to a flat bed rail car at the intersection of say I-76 & I 79, and the train hauls it for some 200 miles non stop at some 70 MPH and drops off at some major intersection like I75&I80. Fuel cost to the railroad less than 10$. Given volume, the rail roads can and should be competing with your interstate highway. Add high way toll, savings on rental car on destination, savings on motel stayovers along the way, etc that will give enough pricing power to the railroads to make a play for a significant chunk of medium distance road travel by car. Then they can add internet connections at 5$, DVD rentals and food concessions for additional revenue. Once they have a basic service that breaks even and makes a modest profit they can play for higher fee first class service. Most truckers drive their trucks for 8 or 10 hours and take a mandatory rest break. They would gladly park their trucks on flatbed railcars and cover some 200 miles while they sleep if it is cost effective
Instead they are looking for another pie in the sky high speed train to compete with airlines. This has the potential to steal all travel less than 200 miles from the airlines.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Absolutely, yes.
If I had to travel to anywhere it serviced, or had friends nearby the service areas, totally. It is so much more efficient for my time to sit on a train and read a book, type on my computer, or sleep than it is to be forced to pay attention to the road. Or, for air travel, I have a lot of stop and go action, driving to the airport, waiting in the security line, getting on and off the plane, inability to use electronic devices for large swaths of travel, etc. (Plus, no power.)
To make it analogous to computers, think of the brain as a processor. It's hella wasteful for it to be sitting idle. Public transportation lets it be more productively active. Parallel work flows.
Yes, but it's much harder for the "older generation" to see it. (You can define older generation for yourself.) As a 25 year-old, I grew up with congested roads, idiot drivers (you don't even know who you are!), and 30-minutes or more as a standard driving time. Hello suburbia and rural areas. Conversely, my father grew up when gas was 23 cents a gallon, and folks bought cars every other year because they were so cheap. Sunday drives "just because" were common, and, at the risk of getting flamed, with a slightly richer average socio-economic status associated with cars then, also came a slightly more educated and conscientious crowd -- i.e. less idiots on road in general.
I won't claim that I'm the norm, but I do claim that I'm on some part of a trend that will eventually be the norm.
Public transportation will happen, whether it's the rails this year, maglev in 20 years, or something else. Like a lot of other socially stagnant issues, the timeline is associated with the old ones digging their heels in. Change is hard, but when they die, it gets easier. Kind of like racist attitudes. (With exceptions, racist people generally don't change their minds. They die.)
I like this modernisation that's been happening recently with the new city in Florida and now this. I think it's very important to update our technology with emerging needs, and it's difficult in a highly conservative society.
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin
Obama's plan simply will not work because he plans to mix freight and passenger rail routes. I would not call the examples in Japan and France a _financial_ success, but they are indeed impressive technologically. However, neither of those systems would work if they did not dedicate their tracks to passenger transportation. Freight would slow everything down dramatically.
While I like the efficiency of trains, the US moved freight traffic to the highways because it created more flexibility in placement of factories and retail outlets. We built our houses and our lifestyle in a manner that took advantage of individual transportation vehicles. We don't have the density or the lifestyle desire to move to a hub and spoke system of fast rail. Air traffic has a better ROI for moving people over large distances in a largely rural nation. For high speed rail to work it has to link urban cores where the flexibility of driving or the speed of flying are compromised. The northeast corridor can support rail inflexibility because it can be faster than flying and as flexible as driving because you are moving between urban cores with solid public transportation. It won't gain critical mass between NYC and Chicago because it is faster and cheaper to fly. It won't work between Atlanta and Birmingham because limited pubic transit in those cities make driving more flexible. Unless there is the willingness of the local communities to rezone around transit, invest in dense public transit, increase the cost of flying and decrease the flexibility of driving then high speed rail will only work where it works now. In other words you have to invest in more than the track to make high speed rail work. Effort, money and time have to be spend rebuilding the nation to fit the hub and spoke infrastructure of rail traffic.
I think it would be accepted if it was a drive-on/drive-off train: The kind where you drive your car right onto a flatbed and park it, and the sides that you just drove over from the platform then flip up to hold the cars in place. You, the driver, ride in a passenger car with WiFi, food, etc.
I would be delighted to have another option than Greyhound, Airlines, and renting a car.
If we could have a system as nice as the TGV in Europe, that'd be fantastic.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
While I believe that high speed rail could work, especially if it can compete with the airlines in terms of time and convenience.
I think that there is a better as yet unconsidered alternative. In discussions with my friends, I have coined them 'Land Ferries'. the idea being that you want to go on a longer trip but you want your car there with you at the end, so you give your car to the parking valet, they park it in an auto transport rail car, you go hang in the seating/restaurant/sleeper cars and relax for the duration of the trip. Because of the efficiencies of rail you won't need to pay very much, in fact the numbers work out cheaper than paying for your own fuel at a very superficial level. Anyway thisis the best of both worlds, you get to have your car and drive it too (to bastardize a phrase).
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
Agreed. By the time they are finished building it, there will be cost overruns, performance-killing compromises, and delays. The finished system will be late, slow, overpriced, and empty.
Conventional rail uses the least energy to move from point a to point b. If "high speed" rail doesn't match or beat this energy efficiency, what's the point? More speed alone? We need a rail system because cheap oil is going bye bye, not necessarily to get anywhere faster. The problem is going to be moving goods (i.e food) more than it will be moving people quickly.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Yes you can, but you need to keep both the scope and the context mind.
Regarding scope: high-speed rail is mostly interesting for journeys in the 50-400 mile range; for shorter journeys, the many stops would bring down the average speed too much, and for longer journeys a single-hop plane transfer is faster.
I regularly travel the high-speed net in Europe, and I love it: No of that checking-in business; I get to the station 10 minutes before the train leaves, sit down on my reserved seat, and soon I am speeding through Southern Germany at 200 mph. Still, a ~400 mile journey (case in point: Zurich-Aachen) takes me 6 hours downtown to downtown. The main reasons for that slow ~70 mph average are slow links in Switzerland, and the relatively high number of stops in densely populated Germany. Still, this is 70 mph average, at (when planned somewhat in advance) EUR 120 for a return ticket.
Now, in the US, the SF-LA corridor and the East-cost are excellent choices for such a network. Especially the SF-LA link could do with only a few stops (LA, Bakersfield, Fresno, (Stockton), San Jose, SF, say), so one could push for >80 mph average. This would bring down travel time from _downtown_ LA to _downtown_ SF to 5 hours. Such a journey would be the efficiency limit for a fast train though, since there is a good flight here. Perhaps LA-Bakersfield (~120 miles) in an hour would be a better example.
The thing to remember though, and that bring me to the "context" part of the title, is that high-speed rail cannot exist on its own. Although the connections for larger distances already exist (planes), one definitely needs connections to shorter-distance transport modalities. Examples are fast commuter train for a metropolitan area (relatively high number of stops, but fast acceleration and deceleration), tram/bus networks in the city (and _adaptations_ to the city for that, so that trams and busses are never in traffic jams, etc.). Not having this latter modality leaves you with a "last mile" problem. If you cannot get to the station fast, often, and safe, you won't use your high-speed train, and you could hardly be blamed for that.
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
Sure I would. The IH-35 corridor from D/FW to Austin & San Antonio is a real pain in the ass to drive. I've lived in the Dallas area for 20 odd years and I've never driven it w/o encountering construction delays. But hop on a 100+ mph train for a trip to my hometown (Austin) ? Sign me up!
The post above is not a troll. Someone needs to read the moderator guidelines.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I rode the Amtrak for the first time last month. The train was delayed 12 hours. it took 35 hours to get from whitefish montana to minneapolis minnesota. yes for high speed tracks. yes for better public transit. yes for quality apple juice.
No... Las Vegas is not planned to be incorporated into the high-speed train system. Core Cities are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, Boston, and Montreal.
See the map at the bottom of this page.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Wonder how they will handle the snow ont Northern New England corridor
they proposed...
Overuse of the Pumping Lemma causes blindness
Amtrak has one -- ONE! -- Auto Train in its system, which allows vacationers from the DC area to go to Disneyworld and take their car with them. Like so much of the Amtrak system, the Auto Train uses outdated 1970's equipment, and can't be expanded in its current form.
What's the one thing everyone needs at the other end of a trip? A car. Unless you're going to DC, NYC, or Chicago, you're going to go straight from the airport gate to the car rental counter.
The one thing that would turn Amtrak from an inconvenient lark into a viable transportation alternative would be nationwide expansion of the Auto Train system. Let me go from Dallas to LA and take my car, and it doesn't take long before the cost of airplane + rental car is greater than the cost of taking my own car.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
...this must be part of his plan to save the auto industry.
I like trains!
Seriously, I can take an Amtrak train to Dallas/Ft.Worth for $25 now. Driving would cost slightly more.
The problem is speed; the train stops a dozen times and rarely exceeds 55mph. The trip takes longer than by car.
A high speed rail line with 120mph trains would be awesome.
I am my own gestalt.
On short and medium distances, trains can still reach their 350 km/h, and you'll be much FASTER than an airplane, because you have no check-in, no baggage handling, and passport controls (if any) are done while you're moving!
That, plus increased leg space, no luggage limitations and more frequent departure times means that possibly the prices go up a bit.
But trains are beaten by airplanes on distances over, say, 600 km... so then the higher price isn't worth it anymore.
Many people don't see all the benefits of trains compared to an airplane.
I love how people complain about how rail will be subsidized or that the government will have to pay.
Who do they think pays (ie SUBSIDIZES) for ROADS?!?!?!
And the population density argument is bollocks. Maybe the US a whole has low density, but enough of the population are packed into large, sprawled urban areas that would work well for rail.
Plan for the future...
MORE places for terr-a-wrists(tm) to blow things up.
and more places to have our shoes scanned.
great. just great.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
But better late than never. The Europeans and East Asians are way ahead in high speed rail and it's just such a shame that there hasn't been a single serious attempt at this in the USA. Even as we speak the 819 km Beijing-Shanghai (top speed 220 mph/360 km/h) is being constructed. Wouldn't it be great to have something like that in the USA? It will cost many, many billions but it will be something useful that the nation can be proud of. Unlike wasteful overseas adventures that have caused only pain and shame.
My one concern is that instead of borrowing from the considerable experience of the Europeans and Japanese, time and money will be wasted to reinvent the wheel. High speed rail is a mature technology and it will be best to do what the Chinese have done: bring in and adapt what the Europeans or Japanese already have.
Another vote for rail lines. Cars are simply bad: dangerous, expensive, wasteful, and harmful to the environment. We're going to have to get a decent rail system in this country eventually, and the longer we wait the more expensive it will be to switch.
The whole problem here is that you are applying 19th Century thinking to a 21st century problem. We love the car because we can go where we want (assuming there is a road to it) when we want and take as much or as little time doing it as suits us. The New Society envisioned by our betters says that thinking is wrong, we need to travel in a regimented, directed manner. Society is developing according to the directives of chaos, in a more and more individual, creative, ungovernable and surprising manner. This must be stopped, we must have great leaps forward, 5 year plans, a New Socialist Man who is subject to the collective. Until we give up our ideas of individual choice and thought we can not truly be free. Slavery is Freedom.
and cities like chicago and new york, where public rail was built into the city's dna, will do a lot better in the future than places like dallas and phoenix. places like dallas and phoenix aren't even really cities. more like huge sprawling suburbs connected by insane amounts of multilane highways with insane amounts of lanes
such "cities" are unsustainable in an era of gas prices that are only going to creep up. the late 20th century was a special era of cheap energy that led to the creation of suburbs and highways and the love affair with ICE automobile. previous eras and eras after won't know such cheap energy, and we will see a return to more compact living. which is good for the environment: pack the humans into cities, let the earth heal. suburbs are ugly and alienating places anyways
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mass transit working in LA? Ha!
All transit in the greater LA areas is based on a faulty assumption, namely that everyone wants to go downtown.
Those who want to go from, say, the Valley to the Westside, or vice-versa (and there are a lot of them), or maybe out to Ventura County, etc., are screwed.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I would probably use a new high-speed rail system occasionally if it was built. The problem I see is that major US cities are typically not very close to each other (with exception to the NE coastal area, California and Texas). In those areas I could see rail networks being very sucessful. For just about everywhere else it seems as if it would be a struggle. Anywhere else isn't going to get the business traffic needed to be profitable.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Brad Templeton looked into the subject of mass transit and wrote about it here. He has a fascinating graph there.
An excerpt from that page:
What I learned about public transit in the USA shocked me. I've been a fan of public transit, taking it where it's practical for me, and feeling green about it. That transit is a significantly greener way to get around than private car travel almost goes without saying in our thoughts and discussions. Disturbingly, this simply isn't true.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
It might have a chance if the TSA is kept away from it.
Cars are invaluable because they offer so much freedom. That's why it's such a shame that the overwhelming percentage of miles driven are the same damn route at the same damn time almost every day. Light rail can solve that.
The real answer, of course, is that cities have to be re-designed. The suburbs are the cause of the problem (Go to Hell Robert Moses) and they will have to change too.
There must also be REAL criminal penalties for graft and corruption in spending this money and the letting of bids.
Trains are awesome; you just have to ride one someplace other than the US to realize it. Don't be afraid; no one is going to take away your precious car. If they did you might very well lose your identity, so no one will let that happen. You owe Detroit nothing: America's Century was built on American intelligence, creativity and belief in the future. Not on Detroit or Financiers or Exxon. People excoriate Obama because they've lost the brains to understand how very little separates dreams from reality. Eight years of those carpetbaggers will do that to you.
you don't need to get in a car once you arrive at your destination in a well-planned city like new york or chicago. the newer car-dependent cities like dallas and phoenix: yes, you need a car. but dallas and phoenix, any low density city (really not cities per se, more like large suburbs), will be the dying cities of the 21st and 22nd centuries, while more compact cities will become more attractive
and yes, population density is most certainly the reason why japan (and now china) and europe have embraced rail more than the usa. do you have some alternative theory?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This eerily sounds like the beginnings of the "San Sebastian Line".
(well not literally door-to-door, but within a short walk)
Thats why it works well in Europe. They don't just have a great continental rail system, but each city has subways, buses, bike paths etc that make getting around it without a car easy.
But you have to start somewhere!
I already use rail transportation as much as possible now because it is cheap, easy, and about as green as transportation can realistically get right now. I've gone from Albany to Chicago many times and taken the train. While it may not be the fastest thing in the world, $75 gets you one way, with extremely lenient baggage policies (two large carryons, three huge checked bags, and up to 3 extra or oversized checked bags for $10/each). My girlfriend and I were able to move out to Chicago for summer work and back for just the ticket price each way, since we could pack and check everything as baggage on Amtrak. I try to use rail travel whenever I go anywhere longer distance. I may be going to Texas to check out some job stuff down there (from NY), and I'd probably even consider taking the train down for that. Even moreso if some day there were more high speed rail options (whereas right now there are very few high-speed rail options in the US)
High speed rail would be awesome, and I'm sure people would use it. I know I would.
I've loved trains ever since I was a kid. Interestingly enough, the most successful railroads were built WITHOUT government help. The most notable was the Great Northern developed by James Hill. The Union Pacific and the Southern Pacific were heavily subsidized, and this subsidy seems to be directly responsible for cost overruns, poor quality and outright theft. Despite all this, rail ended up being a "good thing" for America.
If Obama wants to create more efficient rail, I would rather see greater tax breaks for the railroads and the people using them (both travel and shipping), rather than subsidies.
An interesting tidbit I read in an Economics book a while back: Rail is the least expensive way to travel. It may not seem that way when we are paying for it out of our own pocket, but the actual cost per mile of traveling by Air or Auto is much higher when you consider the "externalities" we are paying through taxes rather than directly as a portion of our fare.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I would eagerly use mass transit again, if the inefficiencies can be conquered. I gave up local mass transit finally at 25 and got a car, because of those inefficiencies. Of course those same inefficiencies also drove me to consider human-powered vehicular options and led to my rediscovery of one of the best activities I ever enjoyed, bicycle touring, so those inefficiencies had at least one positive outcome for me.
Yes. And if we lay the rails using only manual labor it'll create even more jobs.
There's not a fixed pool of jobs available, demand for labor is infinite and react to wages.
Know what would "create" even more jobs. Having people pedal in the train to power it.
N.B. I'm not making a statement on trains here, I'm making a statement on the stupidity of "job creation" as an argument.
Technology hopefully diminishes the demand for labor, that's the whole freaking point of it.
\u262D = \u5350
Hopefully we're not talking about a bunch of city based "train to plane" ideas like what NYC did for JFK airport. Hopefully we're talking about city to city like the TGV in France. But no, I haven't read the article yet :P
Trains that pick up at 3am, on two days a week going in opposite directions. Sometimes never making it to the end of the run (Sunset Limited,) if it runs at all, most of them not going directly to where I want -- but I can take a bus for the third, last, or some leg.
Yeah, I do not think I will be partaking at all if the new high speed rail runs the way the government runs it like Amtrak, or allows it to be run like Amtrak, in most of the country.
I like the freedom to set my own schedule. Even flying is better than rail travel. I am afraid I have little faith in a monolithic enterprise. And with the government invested so heavily, it will be too big to fail against better methods of travel.
Unless the competitive methods are taxed so much that travel is no longer economical. And the subsequent wackiness which ensues.
Actually trains are never going to compete with NY to LA, airplanes are going to almost always make more sense for such a trip.
So the focus should be more regional in nature.
Anyways I agree that we should worry more about getting 'moderately quick' trains. The current Amtrak service is horribly slow: its just borrowing the tracks from the freight train companies so on a typical ride you have to get off the main track and wait for a 100-car coal train to mosey on by once or twice.
Its essential that passenger trains have their own tracks. I suppose if your making that sort of investment, you might as well go a little bit farther and make it high speed.
Make wifi standard so that I can be productive (or at least entertained) while on the train. That would give it a major advantage over driving.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
At least in the US. High speed rail has little to do with our "obsession" with cars. It has to do with the fact that we jumped on the regional airport route back in the 60s. Look at between NYC and Boston. You have at least 8 airports capable of MD80/737 or larger aircraft in a radius of like 120 miles. Compare the US to anywhere else in the world and while you can point out that our rail system stinks and you can't get here from there, the plane coverage more than makes up for it. The airline industry has shown that it can be healthy and profitable, though things are rough now but they are everywhere.
From my experience trains are not much cheaper (if at all) than to take a plane for anything that is high speed rail worthy. Why would we spend boat loads on infrastructure to do trains where the end result is more expensive travel, and tons of potential job loss in the airline industy. High speed rail is nothing but pork. That's reality.
Now if you want to talk commuter, that is different altogether.
First allow me to say that I would *love* some form of rail transit. Where I live in Indianapolis is on the complete opposite side of town from most IT work, and it would be great to not have to maintain a car just for the "privilege" of driving to and from work every day. I'm not 100% certain that this initiative is going to do anything to alleviate that pain, but, for the sake of argument, I'll assume it is.
What scares me, though, is that this is going to end up being a big mess. Even if it does attempt to address the needs of, say, 50% of all people, I'm wary this will turn into some complete money sinkhole. I hope that, in the end, we don't end up with an overbudget, overdue, and mostly working system that far less people end up using than expected.
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
I don't what Americans are expecting to get for 8 billion dollars. I'd say, not much.
The high speed (TGV) line from London to Paris clocked in around $8bn. Last year Poland managed to spend about $1.3 on it's railway network. Poland. Think about how far that 8bn is going to go in nation size of the the USA. I'd say that 8bn is going to buy a railway system Albania would be ashamed of.
will the high-speed rail system come with highspeed internet also!?
good, at least when you compare it to the market. Like Medicare has far less overhead then private insurers. Or the obvious fact that our current interstate highway system was built the government.
Obama is just a regular politician, not thinking things through. This is flashy pork without thought behind it of how it would actually work.
If I want to go from Stuttgart to Bremerhaven it's easy. I can take a streetcar quickly to the train station, an ICE all the way to Bremen with only a few stops, a regular train to Bremerhaven, and a streetcar or bus to within a couple minutes walking distance of my destination.
Having only high speed rail without the rest of the well-connected train systems will mean too many stops, or always stopping far away from your destination with no way to reach it. Doing it without metro transit systems will leave you a good distance from your destination in the city in almost all cases.
If considering the argument that airfare is cheaper, think about our peak oil future.
Yeah, governments always spend cash for all their projects.
Loans are the territory of the Optimist.
No... Las Vegas is not planned to be incorporated into the high-speed train system. Core Cities are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, Boston, and Montreal.
I think that one of these cities are not like the others. That being said, I would love a high speed rail link from my province to major urban areas in the US. If Montreal is to be included in some sort of upgrade, then the rail line from Montreal to Albany needs some serious repair. I took the train from Montreal to Phillydelphia a few years ago and was shocked at how slow the ride was. In Quebec, the train crossed Autoroute 20(freeway) and once the train got into the US and the Adirondacks, it snaked along between the mountains and Lake Champlain.
If the Canadian dollar improves in value v. the US dollar, weekend shopping trips to NYC could be a common occurence.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
The US is too big to pull it off. It works in Europe because of the small size. Regional rail could work, but capital costs are too much for regional states to absorb.
The US federal government is too corrupt and ineffective to pull this off.
Europe's population is FAR more evenly distributed than the US, where the majority of the population is clustered around large urban centers (cities).
In large urban areas, high speed rail is essentially meaningless. Commuter rail is more important and is going to go nowhere near 150 mph.
In the NE United States it MIGHT make a difference, as the population there is fairly tightly packed in the BosWash area.
In the Western US, it's simply faster and more economical (barring stupidly huge subsidies) to take a plane.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If mass transit in Chicago "works" I HATE to dream of what it is like elsewhere.
If you want to go to a few specific places it is alright, but the city has ignored the system for decades and decades. It is breaking down and awfully slow, and that's just the El (elevated local train). The Metra? ARGGGH!!! The cars are ancient, inefficient, and if it weren't for the old rail system could run twice as fast!
Chicago has the ghost of a mass transit system. Had it been expanded responsibly as the city/suburbs grew we could have been a model for public transit, taking people where they want when they want. For some people in the city that works.
Many others have commutes of 2 hours each way because the system needs updating BADLY. They've axed running times because of budget shortfalls when what they should be doing is pumping lots of money into it for updates.
If you think one of the most corrupt politicians in America (Mayor Daley) is going to give two toots either you'd best think again. He's got this city on a course for financial disaster of epic proportions, and mass transit will be the last thing on peoples' minds when they realize that many of the city's assets have been carved up and sold off to private investors for short term gain.
-
Can rail work in the land where the car is king? If we don't have car companies in a few years, what alternatives will we have?
Required conditions for a reliable high-speed rail network :
- Long distances between cities - high-speed rail is only reliably for travels over 300 miles;
- Flat, spacious terrain - it's much cheaper and cost-effective to have straight tracks on plains than curvy ones over mountains/tunnels, etc.
I believe most of US territory has ideal conditions for high-speed rail.
If I were a US citizen, I would definitely support this idea. It will save gazillions in oil.
I live in North Carolina, one of the states apparently considering this. I'd love for this to happen, simply put. I hate driving and our public transportation isn't so hot. It'd be great if I could just hop on a train and head up to Maryland or Illinois to visit my family, and in the process avoid the airlines.
Doing the things a hypotenuse can.
YES. We need more trains.
If its not cheaper than driving or flying, then no I wouldn't use it.
If it's cheaper i'm all for it. But as long as driving is cheaper than rail, i'll keep driving. I was looking at a cross country trip earlier this week. Its cheaper to drive or fly than take the train.
Rail needs land, maintenance, and a polite and observant populace to keep the rails clear and the trains tidy.
But what it needs most are big cities with defined urban centers. Decentralized and rural areas are still better handled by bus, but having bus routes and inter-city routes in New England covered by shinkansen would take a burden off the airlines.
It could also allow AmTrack greater flexibility in negotiating transit agreements and rail sharing for its smaller lines to have more people on the rails.
How about something I can use every day, like a Personal Rapid Transit system?
And we will :D
High speed rail may not end up being profitable, as the history of Amtrak tends to show, but the positive effect on surrounding growth (industries, commerce, etc), may well make it a system worth subsidising.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Price, destination options and schedules.
If I could take high speed rail back home to visit (about 1,100 miles) instead of driving or flying I would, assuming there was a route and it didn't cost more or take longer than driving.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Last I heard it would connect St.Paul and Chicago by way of Madison. I would probably end up traveling every other week.
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
Hope you still have trumpet winsock!
Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati are core cities in Ohio on the Chicago Hub line, not just Cleveland. Five dots in Ohio. People never seem to realize that Ohio is actually a pretty highly populated state with six metro areas greater than 650K people. This rail plan is going to be great for my home (but not current) state.
No. Rail lines and companies were systematically dismantled by the auto companies, GM in particular. GM participated in anti-competitive practices and all they got for it was a slap on the hand.
The great myth is that this kind of FUD has existed for so long.
I can go to Chicago (six hours by car, probably 10 by rail) then to St. Louis (nine hours by rail).
Rail slower than car? What is it that Amtrak does wrong? City to City travel is almost always faster by rail than by car in most developed part of the world (at least in Europe, Japan etc.)
Having lived in the Seattle area, I'm not that enthused on rail travel. In one of the most liberal states in the country, the rail projects that were supposed to be so beneficial for the state's environment and economy has served neither purpose. Huge amounts of money has been dumped into environmental impact studies, in acquiring lands for the project and then SO MUCH overspending such that the voters eventually have tried to kill it. And of course since all that land had been grabbed the government then makes a decent profit off of selling prime real estate back to people--when they can't complete the project.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Unquestionably a modern, high-speed rail system connecting major cities would be a wonderful thing to have. But are we even capable of such massive, national projects anymore? Especially with a government that basically dances to the tune of big labor unions?
Imagine Boston's "Big Dig" project to submerge I-95 through that city, with all its corruption, delays and cost overruns -- times a thousand. Hell, times a million. That's what it would be like to build a national high-speed rail system in the U.S. It would be a complete clusterfuck.
Truly I say unto you: we'll see the damn Twin Towers rebuilt before anything like this gets done.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Too bad, even 'they always drive on the left' doesn't work:
http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/#trains
Caveat Emptor: this message won't selfdestruct if you memorize it!
Done right, and for short haul travel, rail is way better than air travel. What you lose in sheer speed of the plane, is more than made up for, by the time saved by not getting to the airport, checkin, luggage screening, and that sort of thing.
I've found that going to Paris on the Eurostar (French TGV bullet train that links central London and central Paris) beats air travel in just about every way. I had my parents insist on catching the plane to Paris.
This is what happens when you go from London to Paris by air:
1. Catch bus or train to airport (1hr)
2. Allow three hours to check in, get through security, board the plane, and have your plane sit in a long queue to take off (2-3 hours)
3. Fly to Paris (50 minutes)
4. Disembark at Roissy, go through immigration, get to the RER train (30, 40mins)
5. Get an RER ticket, catch train to Gare du Nord, trying not to get robbed by pikies on the way (40, 50mins)
Compare with catching the Eurostar:
1. Go to Kings Cross St Pancras, go through French immigration on British side, security screening (20 minutes). Immigration is no more than waving an ID card or passport.
2. Train trip (a bit over two hours)
3. Train arrives in middle of Paris.
Price wise, you might save a few quid catching the plane, but if you factor in airport transfers, security screening hassle and all that rubbish, then train travel comes out way ahead.
With what money does Obama intend to build this railway network?
Biden. (prior to becoming VP, Biden took the train into Washington every single day.)
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
America is too big for this? The prices are quite reasonable, it seems.
Yes. America needs high speed rail.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Note to those comparing on the basis of the current U.S. rail system: don't, because it's crap.
For e.g., Josh proposes linking San Francisco, L.A., Seattle and Portland...well hey, they're already connected. Have been for near a century, by the line / train now called the Coast Starlight. It's a beautiful journey from Seattle to L.A. through all the major (and some not so major) towns on the way, the ride is pleasant, the scenery is incredible...and it takes 26 frickin' hours. (I still prefer that to flying, but I'm in a minority there). That's because it's running on tracks that haven't been upgraded, it feels like, since 1926, using trains from 1963 through stations from 1886. It never gets past sixty miles an hour.
A proper Japanese- or European-style high-speed rail network would do *the whole trip* in, oh, seven or eight hours, maybe. Meaning many of the useful internal trips would be 2-3 hours. That'd be huge.
I would really, really love for the U.S. to build this, and for similar upgrades in Canada. I like to travel and I frickin' hate airlines, it would be so nice to have a pleasant, civilized way to cover this continent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078697/
Having seen the proposed plan, there is no coast-to-coast high-speed service. Dumb. But for me, the biggest problem isn't lack of high-speed runs. It's Amtrak itself. No competition for passenger service discourages innovation. Guaranteed federal funds results in a laissez faire attitude. They still haven't restored passenger service between New Orleans and Jacksonville which were damaged by Katrina. It's no different that the puddle-jumper airline that offers service to a major city that's within 2-hours driving distance which is serviced by shuttle vans. That airline has on average one passenger per trip. One. Dumb.
In principle I think this is an awesome idea. Whether or not it works out in practice remains to be seen, especially with the way things are done in the US.
In Taiwan, just a few years ago, a high speed rail line was built from Taipei in the north to Kaohsiung in the south, nearly spanning the length of the island. It's done fairly well, almost meeting expectations. It's hurt the domestic airline industry somewhat mainly because the rail line only takes marginally longer to travel the entire distance; it takes a bit over 1 hour versus 45 minutes by plane.
The high speed rail line had a few advantage however. Nearly all of Taiwan's major cities run down the west side of the island where the land is flatter. It makes it easy to reach all the key population centers.
Secondly, unlike the US where Americans are used to having to drive long distances, Taiwan generally feel the 200+ distance is too long to drive. People do it all the time, but to them they might as well be driving from New York to California. And the cities are dense enough that it ends up being a hassle to drive around anyway. When I was in Taipei, for example, they had 2 or 3 cars for every parking spot. It's an exercise in frustration just finding a parking spot, let alone negotiating the dense, hectic traffic. The south is a bit better, but it's still a problem.
Third, many people already took buses or the existing, slower rail line, so the jump to high speed rail was a logical one. The question was if Taiwan, who generally are quite cheap, would be willing to pay a good deal more for a significantly reduced travel time. It turns out they are, but if I recall correctly the high speed rail company did lower rates at some point.
Construction was just beginning when I was living there between 2000 and 2002 and it was open to the public in 2007. The line itself runs just over 200 miles. The total cost was in excess of $15 billion. There's no way in hell we'd see a high speed rail line built that quickly and for that price in the United States.
Take the piece of garbage that passes for a high speed rail line in the northeast, the Acela. It runs on existing rail lines with slight upgrades and they still managed to finish it well behind schedule. The Wikipedia article claims it was a year late, but from my recollection of announcements at the time I'd say it was at least 2 or 3 years late. The Acela has to slow down at every single station it passes, so in my area it's barely going faster than traffic on the highway. All the trains on this line are consistently late, to the point that the scheduled times are more of an identification for the trains than an actual indication of when the trains will arrive. The best part is how every so often a train pulls down the power lines.
And I'm reminded of yet another issue, common courtesy. In Taiwan food isn't permitted on subways and most trains. And people respect those rules. In all the years of riding there I don't recall ever having seen graffiti more than a handful of times and very limited. I never had to worry about sitting in the mess someone left behind. Public bathrooms were always clean both because people weren't slobs but because they were also cleaned on a regular basis. If someone makes a significant mess someone will be by to clean it up in short order.
When is this ever the case in the US? People seem to have no respect for anything, like it's their duty to deface and vandalize. And imagine suggesting to any rider that they should wait 30 minutes, until they get off the train, before they eat. Instead they'll sit there slobbering over their food, making a mess and then have the audacity to leave the garbage sitting under the seat.
My point is that Americans turn public transportation into a miserable experience. Expect this money to be spend poorly and in the end still not provide the sort of experience that the European or Japanese high-speed rail lines provide. And just wait until every last town starts fighting for their own stop on the line. Or
I would like for rail to be popular but it's not going to be, as long as air travel is faster and cheaper rail is dead. As long as a private cabin is cheaper on a cruise ship per day than rail, it's not going to happen. Except for a couple of rare locations like the North East. Pretty much nobody has time for rail in the states. And even the Acela when I've been on it was empty and I can't get anyone to understand why I would rid that when flying was cheaper. When I need to go somewhere I fly in and rent a car. Rail works in Europe b/c they don't work as much as Americans and it works in Asia b/c they don't mind being packed in like sardines. Americans just won't go for it, we'll drive some battery powered crap box before we ever set foot on a train and that's just the truth. If you don't understand this truth then you are either delusional or in some small delusional minority like residents of San Francisco or some such pocket of insanity.
Look, South Florida is a weird exception because it's economically tied to the Northeast Corridor while geographically isolated. However, even in Florida, a bunch of areas would work. We used to drive to Orlando (4 hours @ 55 MPH), instead of fly (1 hr) because by the time you got to the airport, boarded, flew, landed, and got a rental car, it was a wash. Replace that with a high speed rail line that you arrive at 20 minutes early, not an hour, and you have a 2.5 hour trip by rail that ought to be cheaper than flying. Combined with shuttles to the Theme Parks (like all the hotels run in Vegas) or cabs, and you could take a bunch of vacation travel off the turn pike.
How about a Fort Lauderdale -> Naples high speed line, connected to Miami-West Palm Beach via Tri-rail. I live 10 minutes from 595 and it took me two hours to get to the business park district outside of town. We've done plenty of meetings in Naples where a quick rail line into downtown and back would save time, gas, and aggravation... you can't do anything while driving, you can read a book, work, etc., on a plane.
South Florida is only connectable via Rail to Naples/Fort Meyers/Sarasota and Key West (if we wanted to modernize the keys economically, they need a real connection, I don't know that we do, however), and Orlando/Gainsville. Maybe a line up to Jacksonville and Tallahassee would be helpful as well. You're never going to beat air travel to go from South Florida to the rest of the country, but we are WAY more connected to the rest of Florida than we were 30 years ago.
There are concentrated hubs where city-to-city travel makes sense. The old NYC-Boston shuttle (pre 9/11) rocked because you showed up 3 minutes before your flight... there was a flight every hour. 9/11 security didn't destroy the shuttle, but it made it WAY less convenient and isolated Boston from a major city... A Boston->NYC high speed rail that could take you from downtown Boston to downtown NYC in two hours would really re-connect Boston to NYC... since getting to Logan, the 1 hour shuttle, plus getting downtown from Laguardia was about 2 hours anyway. You could also connect Hartford to both cities, etc.
Those are plenty of routes that get frequent business travel that might move from driving to the train, since two hours on the train can include 90 minutes of billable work, and you could include high speed internet on the train... that compares favorable to driving and possibly air travel.
The Interstate system created TREMENDOUS economic growth in the US... these are the types of infrastructure projects that can produce wealth... Far better than bigger and bigger Amtrak subsidies that do nothing but indirectly subsidize the shipping companies that own the rail.
I would love this for when I go to visit friends at other colleges, if it is fast enough you could say go from cleveland to chicago for the day,I doubt it would be a 300 mph rail, but even if we can do something like 150/200 I think it would increase interstate commerce/tourism if implemented such that it was not super inconvenient to use and was cheaper than driving
Last and current administrations spend us into oblivion and **now** we need high speed rail? WTF?
I would.
Monorail cat approves...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The infrastructure costs of rail versus air are quite different in the "cost per network mile"... air has more energy cost per mile traveled but the infrastructure is just the "stations" and not the rails in between. Outside a few of the busiest paths like NYC-Chicago and Northeast corridor, the many necessary paths between stations makes air more affordable.
As a Californian, I voted against a state rail measure because I have doubts that even the LA-SF corridor is viable for rail due to the number of track miles and routes versus the number of different airports people make use of today.
To really make rail viable, it is the subsidy of the highway system that needs to be reduced. Market forces need to allow money to be directed towards rail in a competitive manner, so consumers make choices of rail versus car with a true comparison of costs. Rail networks need to be built bottom-up to compete with cars in the metro and regional links, and the main cost is infrastructure and not fuel.
Then again so did Acela. The reality underwhelms. The only thing Acela had in common with REAL high speed rail was the completion time & final pricetag. I don't doubt that such a project is doable, however I'd be stunned if the political (porkbarrel) process allows it to be done right. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we must keep a close eye on it to prevent it from becoming another "Big Dig"
Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION [latimes.com] annually.
Keep in mind that federal highway spending is around 100 times that.
The US spends 1-3% of its transportation budget on rail. In countries like France, UK, Germany, Japan, etc- it is more like 20%.
Please help metamoderate.
This administration again seems to do things without thinking things through. They are spending money building this out with NO IDEA if people will actually use it. There must be reasons why rail passenger travel died in the USA last century. What makes this administration think they can revive it? I hope people do use it so the money is not wasted. It seems to me that if you want to get there fast and have to deal with getting local transportation, one would choose the fastest way. If you are not in a hurry then I would think one would prefer to have your own car, filled with "supplies" for your trip and useful for local travel when you get to your destination. As I said I hope the money spent is worthwhile, I just think it probably won't be used much and we will be stuck with subsidizing it for the next century.
In Europe, there's typically one train station per city (larger cities may have more, of course). The "last mile" is travelled by bus, taxi, bike, car sharing, tram or some other type of public or non-personal-car transport.
The cities of Denton and Dallas are about 40 miles apart and there is significant commuter traffic. Travel time is 45 minutes in good traffic, much much longer in rush hour.
They are building a rail or light-rail line from Denton to the suburbs in North Dallas. This will tie in to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit line allowing trips to downtown faster than by car in rush hour. It will also connect to The T commuter rail, allowing travel to DFW Airport and Fort Worth, although for those trips a car will probably be faster.
The cost per person per day will be under $10. Compare with 75-80 miles of depreciation on your car and it's a bargain, assuming your destination is right on the rail line or you don't mind waiting for a bus or paying for a taxi to get you where you want to go.
There are perennial proposal to link Houston, San Antonio/Austin, and Dallas/Fort Worth with commuter rail. To things stop it: Cheap airfairs courtesy of Southwest Airlines, and decent, relatively non-congested highways connecting these cities. Morning-out/evening-back round-trip next-day airfare from Houston Hobby to Dallas Love is in the $140-$150 range. The flight is 60 minutes not counting in-airport and to/from airport travel time. Compare to 3:40 each way by car or bus with a 480-mile round trip. Even a train going 200 mph would be nearly 2 1/2 hours each way. Greyhound takes 4-5 hours each way and charges $90 for the round trip. I'll pay the extra $60 plus airport parking and security fees to fly thank you.
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail! What'd I say? Ned Flanders: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: What's it called? Patty+Selma: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail! [crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically] 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. Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs? Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs. Abe: Were you sent here by the devil? Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level. Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can. Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man. I swear it's Springfield's only choice... Throw up your hands and raise your voice! All: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: What's it called? All: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: Once again... All: Monorail! Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken... Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken! All: Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! [big finish] Monorail! Homer: Mono... D'oh!
After living in Europe for several years I really miss the rail system. Amatrak has a monopoly on passenger rail here so don't hold your breath.
What the US really needs is to have a network of high speed trains that carry cars between cities. That system would be a real alternative to air travel. You could take your car with you and let the train do the boring and long driving for you in much less time. I wonder why people are not considering this system. A people-only system is not suitable for the US suburban metropolis.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Speaking as a Midwesterner (Fargo, ND to be exact), this would be AWESOME! Suddenly destinations like Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Houston, etc, etc, would be day trips instead of overnighters. The prospect of visiting family/friends in Chicago over a weekend would actually be possible, but due to cost and time requirements, it's completely out of the question now. And actually, my most common out of town trips are to Minneapolis, MN or Sioux Falls, SD. Four hours in the car isn't terrible, but if I could cut that down to two or less and actually NAP during that time, instead of arriving at my destination exhausted, it would be excellent. So, looking at time saved in both the cutting down of travel time, and the ability to do something else OTHER than be the driver, I am VERY excited at this prospect. What would keep me off the rails though is if they cannot keep it cost effective. To take my family of four on the rail, the tickets need to be reasonable, or else the time on the road, and the two tanks of gas it takes to get where I'm going will still be the lesser of two cost evils... especially when I factor in the cost of a rental car at my destination.
A daily commuter with no luggage save a suitcase or laptop who paid with a credit card and who has flown the same trip recently should be able to spend less than 30 minutes in the airport on the way in and only long enough to find the exit on the way out, unless there is a line at security or the gate. If he's a seasoned traveler on that flight he'll know what the lines are usually like and which security checkpoints have the shortest lines.
This assumes of course he didn't get put on a government watch list since his last flight and it assumes he's printed his boarding pass and done all his other prep before arriving.
In busy travel seasons, such as the light-travel days during Christmas when the parking lots are jammed, he may spend longer in the parking lot than in the airport.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The US rail system is broken not only in terms of the speed at which trains travel, but in terms of the costs associated with getting goods loaded and unloaded as they make their way to consumers. What is needed is greater efficiency in this process so that the value of fuel savings offsets the cost of freight handling.
Look at the map of planned routes in the TFA. They are not that long, and the whole network will be shorter than railway network in Germany or France.
Then why is it the responsibility of the FEDERAL government to pay for a REGIONAL transport solution?
Why is this something that a coalition of states could not work up instead, if it's actually of use?
Instead we just want something to spend money on, that will primarily benefit the eastern seaboard. Gee thanks.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
I suppose the Federal highway system makes money? No. It costs us several hundred billion dollars a year.
How about the airline industry, which has been a bailout baby for decades?
Please help metamoderate.
Please take Vancouver, Montreal, and any other city I might've missed off that list. Thanks.
Apologies for replying to an AC troll, but as a Canadian living in Vancouver I was very pleased to see that Obama's high-speed rail map included trains into our major cities from the USA. Next step would be a porous border between the USA and Canada like the one made possible by Europe's Schengen Agreement, but one step at a time :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
Under a certain distance, high speed rail is actually faster than flying. Because getting on a plane is so much more time-consuming these days, that maximum radius is considerably larger now than when people first realized this fact about high speed rail.
So as long as there is a high speed rail service to a place I want to go that is under that particular radius, then the high speed rail would be faster than making the same trip by air, so of course I would use the service. For destinations beyond the critical radius, probably not.
Passenger rail only works in densely populated areas. Most, if not all, of the US doesn't qualify. This would be another program that costs a boat load of money to put in place, and never turns a profit.
Just got back from Taiwan where they finished a bullet train system in the last few years. The train is extremely impressive with an unbelievably smooth ride even though you are going 150 mph. It's also very convenient in Taiwan because the population corridor is along one side of the island with the two largest cities on either side. However, tickets are expensive-$30 or more each way (expensive for Taiwan). The terminals remind me of small airport terminals and are actually pretty pleasant. It's nice to go from one end of the island to the other in 2-3 hours.
But there's no equivalent in the US. I'm from the midwest and I can tell you that it never really came up how long it takes to get from city to city. For one thing, there's little tourism and so there's no reason. Maybe for a few months in the summer it would be profitable. You can drive city-to-city in a few hours and even if you're by yourself it's going to be way cheaper than the train. If you've got a whole family you'd be crazy to take the train.
Midwestern people would much rather have a route down to Florida. Get in the train on Friday night and sleep. Wake up and spend the day on the beach or at Disney. Then get back on the train and sleep on the way back. You could easily fill a train like this every weekend year-round.
We had a passenger rail system. I suppose we still do but barely. They've been losing money and shrinking for decades. Is this going to be different? Or will it wither up and die once the tax money stops flowing because Americans don't really want to use it? I took a train from Boston to Toledo once. It was ok for the first hour or so then the sun went down and the scenery went away. So boring... I said I would never do that again, it wasn't worth the price difference between that and flying. Getting a ticket in a sleeper car might have been ok but then it really wouldn't have been cheaper than flying. But, that was years ago, flying is more expensive. Maybe train's time have come again? I guess like everyone else I will just have to wait and see just how fast these things are and how much they cost to ride. If it happens I sure hope it does succeed because we tax payers are buying it either way.
You can't crash a train into an office building!
America says YES WE CAN!
No. It won't work, and I won't ride.
The problem with adding additional load to the air is that our air traffic control systems are already many decades old, overtaxed and in need of overhaul. You want to add more to that?
If you put as much money as it would take to implement high-speed rail into improving air infrastructure, you don't think it would get better?
As you say, the systems are many decades old and in need of overhaul already. So why not meet two needs - fix the air infrastructure, and provide better regional mass transit, with one use of funds.
I dislike federal funds spent on anything not truly national - air traffic control is a truly national problem where federal involvement makes sense. Spending my Denver taxes on making sure DC shoppers can get to NYC a little easier - that's a rough sell compared to the idea that those states should get together and work out a rail system if it makes sense for them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How many people's yards, barns, houses, etc... will have to get chopped up to make room for the rails? Maybe that's not an issue, maybe there are enough existing lines (perhaps a decade or two out of use) which could just be repaired and put back into use. Even reactivating an old abandoned line still could cause some people issues though I suppose. How about property values for adjacent homes? I don't usually go for that argument but having just bought my first home I can kind of relate better. It would really suck to end up upside down on your mortgage because a new train line was put in. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just some more issues to consider.
Your argument is flawed. You are assuming door-to-door rail transit. People who fly to a destination have to arrange for local transport - be it taxis, rentals, local sales reps, or friends & family. If the point of highspeed rail is to replace airplanes and not, per se, for local commuters, then the extra needed 'to invest in more than the track' would be a parking garage at the terminus with car rental companies. Heck, make it extremely competitive - make the termini the airports!! (Along with the city centres' "Grand Central" station or equivalent, of course.)
as long as the train has transport cars so i could take my vehicle with me to my final destination, absolutely. that way, no undesired long distance driving, no car rentals w/associated expenses, and full mobility once i get there
But you can't use it to commute or go shopping. We need regional rail systems, like the New York MTA, which people can use to travel around their local areas.
That's what improving regional air travel also helps with, only it's not just YOUR region. It's all over the US.
High speed rail only makes sense in a few more dense places, like the DC-NYC corridor. If that makes a lot of sense, by all means have the citizens of those states work out how to put together a regional rail system. If groups of states work on a problem you may in fact have real innovation in that they will all come up with somewhat different solutions to the problem of how to put it together. You can do that with Rail, unlike air where you need a truly national standard since a plane can go anywhere and a train goes where the tracks it's put on end up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My family of three was going to go to the city for a day. We considered taking the train. We could park at the nearest Amtrak parking lot, and then ride the train into the city, where we wouldn't need ( or want ) a car.
Problem: The ticket cost of going by rail for 1 person alone equaled the cost of going by car alone. Paying for three tickets would have cost as much as all going to the city by car *in three seperate cars*.
So we all rode in the same car, and parked at a parking lot near a subway station.
...
Clearly what works in the rest of the civilized world (nationalized health care, nationalized high-speed rail, etc.) cannot compete with America's "exceptionalism" - note spellcheck doesn't like that word, or spellcheck...
Don't forget that a railway also allows goods transportation, in significant volumes. It may thus impact heavy goods transport by taking a lot of it off the road.
As for passenger travel, as long as they keep paying attention it'll be OK. If you want to see how NOT to do it, have a look at the UK, or the current mess in Germany. The former is simply no investment whatsoever over decades, the latter is (AFAIK) screwing up on due diligence and QA on procurement.
The Swiss appear to get it right - even with heavy snow their trains tend to be nothing more than mildly inconvenienced so nobody ever had to invent an excuse like "the wrong kind of snow". But I'm uncertain the Swiss would like to deal with the US right in supply or consulting terms now unless the funds are deposited in a Swiss bank - of which there are now none willing to operate in the US.
And there is, of course, the fear factor that needs to be kept up to ensure everyone still buys the terrorist line, so expect heavy guards, two cameras per seat, arse pattern and waste analysis on the toilets and retinal scans for anyone wanting to buy as much as a candy bar..
Maybe the Japanese?
It's not just enough to build the hi speed rail. When you compare US public transportation to other countries the key difference is readily apparent. In Europe you can use a taxi, bus or local rail to connect to long distance rail, and airports. When the public transportation system is interconnected and easy to use, more people will use it. But right now the train stations are downtown, the bus station is somewhere else, and the airport is out in the 'burbs. If you want to get from one to the other it's difficult, time consuming and not easy. Once this is solved then there will be more users.
Where I live in Portland, OR, they are starting to solve this problem as now the light rail systems has a line into the airport. Now if they can put a light rail stop across the street from the train station they will start to have something very useful. But this change needs to happen everywhere, not just in one location.
This is one of those myths about capitalism, that it will solve all problems and find the cheapest solution. In this case the airports, trains, buses, and seaports were all controlled by different corporate entities and they all wanted to be "king" so they built their terminals in different places.
In the Northwest, Seattle was the seaport and the train barons didn't like that so they built all their train lines into Tacoma instead.....
I live in Tampa and commuting to Orlando would be great on a high speed rail system. However the problem is that Orlando itself is a very spread out city and the public transportation system isn't very efficient there. I think in most urban areas if a better local transportation system is developed and then linked to other urban areas by high speed rails, it would work out nicely.
In Europe we run already at 200mph. USA can't be left behind that!
Interestingly the article mentions Japan, Germany and China but misses France which runs that service.
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
There is no doubt that it's better to take the train from DC to NY city than to fly. It's as fast, factoring the dismal security process and where you end up at the end of the trip.
Agreed. It is usually not better to take a train than to take a bus, especially when you can do it round trip for $35 through one of the Chinatown-to-Chinatown lines. A little cheaper and nicer than Greyhound, and much cheaper than a train.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
...it'll only work if it's made from Reardon metal.
All of the points you raise apply to bus service which we also have already, especially as you don't care about speed - or you can take Amtrack today since the new systems would use the same rail lines.
So why spend money, if you aren't willing to take it now making it a little nicer would hardly improve things.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I suppose as long as America is broke ( or technically insolvent ) he can propose anything at all that sounds good and buys votes.
Here is the corridor map. The rest of the details can be found here.
This is a great idea. Where I live, (Georgia, US), the commuter train system absolutely sucks. On top of which, I don't understand why the government won't use the existing rail line to ease the traffic burden. MOST people live way out, and for someone like me, the nearest subway is about 15 - 20 miles. Hell, if I drive that far, I might as well drive another 10 miles to get to work, instead of driving 15 miles, getting on a train, going ALL the way downtown, catch another train to another station, then take the bus, and the bus will drop you off, about 2 miles from where I work, meaning I have another 20 minute walk. All this would take about 1.5 hrs each way. It has saved me any time, and it is EXTREMELY inconvienent. On top of all this, why can't they just have a "regular" train run at set times in the morning and evening. This way, people can get to downtown, from the boondocks and not have to worry about all the hassles of driving an hour just to get to the subway. Who owns the rail lines that AMTRAK and CSX use?
Obama with stimulus money is like a mule with a spinning wheel...
High speed rail won't work in America for at least two reasons. First, you need centrally located train stations in all the big cities. Then you need ubiquitous public transportation, like subways and buses that originate from the train station and radiate out through key points in the city. Just going really fast from Dallas to Houston does nothing for congestion in Dallas or Houston, as most people will have to rent a car once they get to their destination anyway.
Before the market realizes the dilution of the dollar's value from Mr. Obama's previous "visions" (we call them "hallucinations" here), he's going to keep printing and spending Federal Reserve Notes with wild abandon on things we don't even need.
Millions of people will have money taken from them to fund a train that will be used by thousands. If this concept made sense, the private sector would have done it already. It doesn't make sense.
The upshot of all of this is that we may finally get the revolution we've been waiting for. The tree of liberty is parched!
I think high speed rail is more of a competitor with airplanes (and their potentially high costs should energy costs spike again).
Denver to Vegas: $0
L.A. to Vegas: $0
Chicago to Vegas: $10 for lunch
N.Y. to Vegas: $100 for accomodations
anywhere-you-are to anywhere-else: 2x the energy cost to get there
Let the casinos build it out and it will get done fast and under budget and won't be run like the trains in Soviet Russia (like Amtrack)
We really need your help
http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
Alas, he just spouted off a "vision". The Economist covered this in depth in the current issue. In a nutshell,
I can already tell you what is going to happen:
Really nothing to see here. Which is a shame.
Advice: on VPS providers
One: The existing rail infrastructure in the united states is ill-suited to speeds above 100 miles per hour (i.e. no banked curves, street level crossings, not enough straight stretches of track, etc).
Two: The existing rail infrastructure is owned by the freight companies who don't care about passenger service. Here in California I once took the Amtrak from San Diego to San Luis Obispo, a distance of ~325 miles, and I must say that the experience was a test of patience. There were three hours of delays, making for an eight hour total trip. We had to pull over and stop for half an hour on side switch tracks so that freight trains loaded with sugar beats, a higher priority than making 1000+ people wait in the eyes of the freight company, could pass us by going south...twice. If high speed rail is to happen here in the United States then it will need dedicated and exclusive tracks like shinkansen in Japan or TGV in France...period.
Three: The United States is the land of lawsuits and we are a nation of NIMBYs who will not want to see their neighborhoods "degraded" or their property values reduced by a noisy high speed train passing nearby. If a train is traveling at 200+ mph with steel wheels on steel rails then it is going to make a fairly large amount of noise when it passes. In Europe they make it more difficult for individual special interests to stand in the way of progress on such issues, but here in the United States just getting the right-of-ways established for the tracks would be a nightmare and just about every community along the proposed route will sue to prevent the train from exceeding 80 miles per hour along the stretch passing through their neck of the woods. So, what you will end up having is the high speed train that can do 200+ mph, but in practice is limited to no more than 100 along much of the route due to NIMBYs and their lawsuits, which mostly defeats the purpose of high speed rail.
Here's the actual plan documents:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31
If you read the first PDF, hsrstrategicplan.pdf, go to page 18, under Section 301, 501, 502 you can see that up to 80% of funding may come from the government. The exact amount depends on how closely it matches the goals of the HSR plans and/or benefits other types of rail service.
While nothing excludes provide companies from getting involved, they MUST involve the states and have the project added to that state's Rail Plan. This means the project will have a stronger local component and firmer commitments by everyone involved.
Applications are due August 2009 with a draft national rail plan out in October 09. They plan on at least two phases of projects, with the 2nd phase accepting new project applications starting January 2010.
I live outside of Louisville and would love to be able to get to Indy in an hour or Chicago in 3 hours or less. I would be much more likely to go to out-of-town concerts and events if I didn't have to spend hours behind the wheel. Being able to nap in a train and especially being able to stretch my legs a bit without stopping the car would be idea.
Driving ~6hours to Chicago is not appealing and after getting to the airport early, the 1.5 hour flight turns into the same 3 hours as a train ride.
The other thing is that trains are rarely grounded by fog or storms. I can't count the number of my flights that were delayed by weather.
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
Just maybe, he's attempting to create the sprawl: Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis
It's part of his name, after all...
Am I misremembering Neuromancer, or wasn't high-speed rail critical to the sprawl's economy?
I support the plan if:
1. It is paid for entirely by riders.
2. It does not use eminent domain to seize land.
I hate owning a car.
Me too, which is why I stopped owning a car about 20 years ago. When I need to get somewhere that I can't get to by foot, bike, or bus, or if I just feel the need to get away, I'll rent a car. Mostly I bike, and this has been great for my health and well being. So imagine, you could give up your car and your gym membership!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Rails are perfect targets for terrorists. You just muck up one little line of steel, and you can injure and kill lots of people. And you can do it out in the middle of nowhere, minutes or hours before the wreck is to take place, and have plenty of time to make your escape.
How long do you think this would go before a major incident would cause knee-jerk legislation? They would impose such ridiculous requirements as to make it totally impossible to make any money.
Which is really too bad, because trains are inherently way more efficient than any other mode of land transportation/shipping we have. If it were done right, it could bring the price of transportation and shipping way down, and the speed way up. And reduce the carbon footprint considerably at the same time. And reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And reduce air pollution in a big way. I would love to see this happen. But it won't.
The problems with rail in the United States are not technical issues. They are political issues. Railways have been HIGHLY regulated ever since they were recognized as possible sources of serious profit back in the 1800's. The laws they have to deal with and the rules from the unions and taxes and fines and such make it pretty much impossible to make any progress.
If Obama is able to create a new system that doesn't have all that political baggage, it just might work... until some disgruntled rail worker (or anarchist, or terrorist, or mercenary contracted by some big oil tycoon) decides to rip up a track. Then you'll have to arrive 3 hours early and take off your shoes...
Why is everyone buying into Obama's hype? He is dedicating, get this, 1% of the stimulous plan to high-speed rail. Out of $800 billion, only $8 Billion is being spent on this. If we were actually serious about getting some high-speed rail,we'd need to spend a lot more on it.
Mornington Crescent?
The US is a large, decentralized country. A light
sprinkling of hi-speed rail will do nothing to get
people out of planes.
If Obama was serious he would be pushing for
incentives and regulations that would discourage
face-to-face meetings or commuting in favor of
internet conferences and remote workers. That
would make a significant dent in traffic. Rail
is just another way of flushing money down the
toilet.
But what not? After all, it's our grandchildren's
money. We don't need to conserve that.
High speed rail works in Europe because it is only one part of a bigger public transportation system. You need regional trains and bus connections to get people to the main (high speed) train station without them having to use their car. If you need your car to drive to the train station you might as well drive all the way. Where I live (Belgium) nearly all flights to London, Paris and Amsterdam have been discontinued because the trains are simply faster in talking you from one city center to another.
Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.
Nope. Have a look at France or Germany. Traffic congestion just as bad as the USA. A rail line typically only reduces traffic congestion by a few percent, and that slack is simply picked up again.
You see if you do not live very near a station and are not traveling exactly along the rail corridor, rail turns a 30 minute commute into a 2 hour commute.
Deleted
This is the same argument about not having as high internet speeds as Japan and Korea. You could do it for a few areas at first and work on it over the next 15-20 years.
The federal government has invested more than $10B/year in air travel since 1990. Let me repeat that. Each year since 1990, the federal government has invested at least 10 Billion U.S. dollars in air travel. For 2007 it was about $13B based on the graph in the HSR plan on page 13. (http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf)
I'm going to use passenger ton-miles to distribute that cost so that I'm using real numbers. If we spread $13B over the 84B passenger ton-miles from 2007 listed on that website it that comes out to $0.15/ton-mile.
The website said there were 769M passenger-flights, so the average flight over 84B passenger ton-miles was was ~108 ton-miles. So the federal government actually subsidized the average one-way flight by $16.70.
That means the federal government paid for 16.7% of your hypothetical $100 average flight. Ramp that percentage up or down based on actual average flight prices.
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
Wait a minute! Aren't businesses supposed to come up with the visions, not bureaucrats in Washington? Obama's "vision" reminds me of the commie apparatchiks who had plans on what to build. The only reason their plans appeared to work was because they'd actually force the poor citizens to use the fruit of their "visions". However, in America we still have some freedom left and I can tell you that Obama's "vision" will be a big waste of money, the contracts will go to the best lobbyist and the people will hardly use it. Apparently we don't have such transportation system for two probable reasons: either the government will not allow it (laws that make such enterprise difficult/impossible to benefit the car/airline industry written by lobbyists) or there is simply not enough demand for such transportation that would make it profitable to build and operate. All the Washington bureaucrats be damned for your idiotic central-planning commie-era garbage. Obama, my advice to you is to just sit down and chill. Stop bailing out Gold-man Sacks, and the other banksters. And for god's sake, stop with the idiotic central-planning "visions"! The market knows better than all you morons!
Okay, I went and hit Slamtrak up for pricing and transit time info.
Chicago to Sacramento.
California Zephyr, no changeovers. Actually the cheapest fare.
Chicago to Sacramento: $145
Sacramento to Chicago: $145
Total transit time: 102 hours (4 DAYS, 6 hours).
Approximate distance (via Google Maps): 2045 miles
Approximate Speed: 20mph
Reason? LAYOVERS (approximately 30 of them between Chicago and Sacramento) to pick up more passengers. Trains, save in a VERY few cases, are NOT non-stop.
Also, as the rail enters into urban areas, it has to slow from max speed as well. If you're lucky, the train will spend, at most, 20% of it's trip time at maximum speed.
Raising the average speed of the train will reduce the travel time, but it's not as simple as factoring miles/max speed.
Now let's hit Southwest (Fly the Turbulent Skies!)
Chicago to Sacramento: $231
Sacramento to Chicago: $99
Total transit time: 12 hours
As the old saw goes, it's cheaper (by about $100) only if your time is worthless to you.
Note: Had to double-check because the first time the pricing for Amtrak was kind of out of whack. So, like you should with an airline, you check well ahead of when you need the ticket and the price comes down.
For last-minute fares, yes, Amtrak is cheaper. However, you have to still be comfortable with a 2.25 day transit each way.
I know of one case where a certain artist came over from Europe and naturally hopped on a train from the east coast to the west. On his third day into the trip he realized exactly how big this country actually is and what kind of mistake he'd made taking the train.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hi,
I think the railway is a good idea. It's not original idea though, as Japan, China, Korea and lots of country have a very good railway system.
Just as information here. The largest Railway network in the world is in China. China has the most rail track, the most wagon, the most locomotive, and it employs more than 5 million employee.
It's funy that america as the world leader in everything playing catchup with China in Railway.
http://www.indohuaren.org
I've looked into Amtrack a few times for traveling. I live in the SF Bay area, and it would be appealing for a trip down to LA (friends) or up to Portland (Dad). I've typically found it would be more expensive than either flying or driving, and actually takes longer than driving. It'd be $220 round trip to Portland for me and my son but that's for a coach seat. Have you ever sat in a coach seat for 17 hours? It'd be about $650 to get to Portland and back in the smallest room they have.
Right now a flight on Southwest would cost about $380 for both of us and takes 5-6 hours including security, waiting, and other hassles. So I was wrong a bit cheaper and much slower than flying. I can drive in about 10 hours, for about $80 in gas.
High speed rail would be more attractive if it were comfortable and reasonably priced unlike amtrack. Here's the real bummer, I'd love to take the Coast Starlight train to Portland, but $650 do do it in minimum style is pretty over the top.
-- QED
I hope they take a look at non-superconducting maglev based rail. LLNL scientists apparently developed the original idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductrack
I think a proper system would need dedicated rail lines anyway, so if they must be built perhaps the new rails could be put to use. I don't know if this sort of system is really technically viable, but this seems like a good time to find out.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
There were MANY reasons why the rail system gave way to highways. The biggest was that trucks were MUCH faster, since they ran point to point, and even ran faster than our trains (use to go at 80-100 mph). But more telling was that the railroad companies got complacient and allowed a NUMBER of cars to be lost. Constantly.
I have to say that I feel that this approach to high-speed is wrong. I think that the smart thing is to put up a grid of 3 rails east-west and 4 north-south. Then no stop except about every 500 or 1000 miles. From there, buses, regular trains, or trucks can take cargo and/or ppl.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If I can have more leg room and skip the anal probe, I would happily choose rail over air travel. I would much rather spend twice the time (or more) traveling comfortably and with dignity than spend half the time being treated like meat in a can (and packed nearly as tightly).
I'm workin real hard in my basement on beaming.
The idea is this:
You put your money into a phone booth sized device. It scans you, reassembles a copy of you on the other side with the data traveling along the existing internet. The device then does a checksum to make sure that there is an exact copy at the destination. If there are no errors then the original copy of you is hit over the head with a big automated hammer and resold as "green" fertilizer to make the process carbon neutral.
I haven't come up with a name yet to market it. I was thinking about just calling it the re-spawn gadget.
The only down side is the Plutonium requirement, but I'm workin on that too ;0
I looked at taking the train the last time I wanted to go home:
- it would have cost $70 more than flying
- I would have been stuck in coach anyway, and advertised legroom was comparable to aircraft
- it would have taken two days longer.
- I have no clue what the markup on getting a hot meal on the train would have been compared to the airport, but I doubt it would have been favorable.
Look, if it can get me from Denver to NYC in less than the 12 hours flying would take (sure, it's maybe 5 hours in the air--but by the time there's hops, security screening, dealing with checked bag hassles...), be cheaper, *AND* not have to deal with any TSA getstapo load of shit--I'll contemplate it.
If I see a single checkpoint, xray machine, or have to deal with 48 hours of lousy leg room...forgettaboutit.
Mono...D'oh!
Funny how the government never does the analysis. It will be a high speed Amtrack, and lose money similarly. Politicians are so freaking stupid.
But the US government is currently "creeping" somewhat faster than your average rumour.
You assume that the TSA is concerned only with terrorist threats. It is a government agency first and foremost. Once federal funds are proposed to build high speed rail, then there will be a definite need (in the minds of TSA admins) for some additional "security" to be provided by them. And of course, once they handle the high speed trains, they will realize that anything that "transports" people should come under their purview.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
It is a simple rail system that would intermix with roads. In addition, a earthquake would derail a train and with massive loss of life, ppl would quit it.
Instead, a maglev from GA that wraps the rail and travels from 150-300 mph would make more sense. It would be easily elevated where needed and then ran on the ground where cheap (any valley or plains in the west).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Let's charge enough to leave the homies ranting on the curbs, though. Seriously, I'd settle for just nationalizing rails infrastructure and charging cars and semis by the mile for rail system upkeep.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Dictators always like trains. Not saying Obadiah is dictator but....Anyhow we now have some change. I guess that gets spent too?
The reason is that Cargo, not passengers, PAYS BIG. My guess is that if we have a system that travels at 200 mph+, then we will see it take on numerous cargo like Mail, FedEx, etc. What it will not haul is cars, quantities of Chemicals, Lumber, Steel, etc. IOW, it will not be used for BULK freight. For things that do not require a fast time, they will use trucks, boats, or even regular train. It is for this reason that the absolutely FIRST line should go between milwaukee to chicago, continue to Detroit to NYC. That corridor is where more money flows except for perhaps SF to SD.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
More smaller planes flying means less security as they cannot do as much damage and are slower so problems can be determined quicker.
They are already poised to remove the liquid restriction, let's make air travel better again all around and everyone benefits.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes! I spent a week and half in Europe last month and traveled exclusively by rail to get from Paris to Munich, and then to Amsterdam and it was a great experience (and my first long distance travel by rail).
After that experience I would much rather take the extra time to travel by rail because it was a much more enjoyable experience than the nonsense we endure in order to fly.
Regardless if it would actually work, I'll predict that...
- We spend millions of dollars in environmental impact studies over several years before anything actually ever starts.
- When/if the environmental impact studies are done, we'll spend millions in litigation when people are told that the government is forcing them to sell their house to put in the rail.
- When/if the government is able to purchase the houses being demolished, we'll spend years in litigation for the houses next to the track when they realize it will be noisy and their houses will be devalued.
- When/if the lawsuits are done we'll begin asking for bids. Massive accusations of corruptions will happen from everyone against everyone else and will prompt lots of journalists to run investigative stories. In the end we'll waste an incredible amount of time & energy pointing fingers & complaining that someone is wasting money.
- Now, assuming we get this far we can begin construction. Massive cost overruns will happen. They always do.
- Somewhere along one of these lines a rare species of rat or tree will be found, prompting further environmental studies and the possibility of either rerouting the rail or moving the rat (yes, I've seen this happen).
- Construction on a few lines will finish and people will be able to ride the train. The people in favor of the train will claim victory if two people ride it. People opposed to the train will say it is a failure if the cars are not packed.
- Eventually everything (probably) will be finished. It will probably work in some places and be a complete waste in others. The people who use it will call the ones who don't nasty names. People who don't use it will call the people who do use it nasty names. People who live near it will hate it because of the noise. People who don't live near it will complain it is too far to be useful.
Now, keep in mind we're talking about a project that will need to be funded heavily. It will also probably need to be subsidized (most public transportation does). It will also require the support of administrations following this one and that will be challenging. I have no idea what the administration will look like in 4 years, much less 14 years.
You also have the problem is that most of the time railroads are not in use. Trains just don't run constantly and when they are in use they are only in use a short period. I'm not saying that they can't haul a lot of people or material, just that you only run one train every few hours between cities.
It isn't like an interstate that pretty much always has traffic and anyone who wants can easily use it. I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a fact. This gives people who don't like them a really nice thing to point at and say "see, nobody uses it, so why are we paying for it?"
I have my doubts that it will work, but if we are going to build it I hope it works better than my wildest dream. I'm also afraid that it will be like local mass transit where there is constantly a fight to keep the funding. If at any point we cut the funding we're talking about a lot of wasted money.
You realize there's a good 300 miles of California north of the bay area, right?
The largest advantage of traveling by rail vs air is not having to spend time getting from a city center to a suburban airport. Train stations tend to be in the city center and better connected to local mass transit (in my experience).
For those of us in the northeastern US having local transit agencies link there payment cards also seems like a good idea.
I'd travel high-speed rail in a heartbeat.
it makes so much sense. mag-lev trains make sense economically and for areas which have high congestion, metro to suburbs, they could be a great boon to the economy.
if, and big if, American lowest-bidderism doesn't screw it up or make it unsafe.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Exactly,
And trains are not currently as big a target as planes.
Security to board trains (and Buses) is not as time-consuming as it is for a plane.
However-- planes are frequently 20 to 30 miles away (due to noise, safety, and land for runways). I think the comedienne Kathleen Maddigan (sp) said something like,"I flew in to Denver Airport this morning-- tho I'm not sure why you guys put it in Canada".
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This proposed system is not a new creation. It consists of funding for old proposals all over the country. The proposals have not been funded by their respective states for a very good reason: they are massively expensive to build and unlikely to operate at a profit. My own state (Georgia) is a good example. Several rail projects connecting Atlanta with other cities come up in the legislature every year, and some have already had federal funding for much of the development costs. Operating costs and maintenance, however, would be the responsibility partly of the state and partly of the cities and counties through which the rail passes. Year after year, no politician in his right mind will volunteer his district to fund rail operations, so it never even comes up for a vote. The same politicians may not be able to resist the kind of money Obama is offering up this time. The urge to have a hand in spending that federal money will outweigh the fear of backlash several years down the road when local taxpayers are burdened with the ongoing costs. In fact, in Atlanta we just had the spectacle of the state trying to claim some unused track to make it possible to connect commuter rail with Amtrak. However, that track is part of an unfunded proposed beltline of light rail around Atlanta. So the state backed off in favor of a suggestion to add more rail to an existing freight line through the heart of the city, even though doing so would require upwards of a billion dollars in property condemnations. Would they even contemplate that if there were not federal funding on offer? Certainly not--the city is nearly bankrupt.
What's the point of putting the country into deeper debt, to create an inefficient new industry, that will only put more downward pressure on the airline industry (which will inevitably result in more bailouts to keep them afloat)? He's creating two new problems in order to provide a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Not to mention that there's no way this is economically viable due to geography and eminent domain issues. If the government should be investing in anything right now, it should be in industries that sell products abroad and help restore our balance of trade. This does exactly the opposite. If I were China, I'd be cutting off our credit right about now, until we produce a viable business plan on how to run a country.
Milwaukee, WI built a airport station. Flights leaving there (and thus reducing Ohare's congestion) have gone up because of it. I think what really needs to be in the mix with this plan is airport stations all around. Think of the smaller cities in between these cities -- Lafayette IN., Racine WI., Bloomington-Normal IL., etc.
Hop on the train from Madison, WI and head to ohare for an international flight... or Minneapolis or Milwaukee... Or heck, sometime you see goofy prices IN Madion, or Indy, or Louisville...
is that Cold War strategists realized that military equipment movement within the US was limited. The Eisenhower Interstate System was to connect major US military bases with roads spec'ed to carry military equipment.
How in FSM's name does this guy get to post something SO LONG?
There's already a train from Portland to Seattle, operated by Amtrack. I took it last winter and it didn't take significantly longer by car -- in fact it was probably shorter
The thing that everyone seems to miss is TRAFFIC. Rush hour on the highway is terrible. However, trains scale much better. If there's a huge rush hour between 4-6 PM, have a train leave every 10 minutes rather than every 30. Solves the traffic issue and in doing so, makes it even more convenient.
Next time you're sitting in gridlock, imagine going to a train station and leisurely getting on a train (oh darn, I missed the train...another one comes in a 5 minutes) and surfing the internet...and getting to your destination in half the time.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
right now
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123987956572324825.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20090415/DA9992115042009-1.html
all that interfered before was economic ability, that's the only reason china lagged behind japan and europe in rail adoption
india likewise is similarly dense, and as it matures economically somewhat behind china, watch india too make a massive increase and rail in a few years/ decade or so
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
its about who supplies russia, venezuela, the middle east
if the liberal west gets its energy only 1% from russia, but russian revenue is 60% from energy exports (bullshit made up numbers to make my point), it behooves the liberal west to starve russia of energy revenues by investing in alternative sources for ideological and geopolitical reasons, since russian ideology is artificially propped up by, and pointed against, western liberal democracy
its good foreign policy to starve your ideological enemies economically. its not good foreign policy to fund your ideological enemies. it doesn't matter where the majority of our petrol comes from, it matters where the majority of your ideological enemy's funds come from: us
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Driving from SF to LA is *hell* on holidays or in bad weather, but it's short enough that high-speed rail will get you there about as fast as flying (considering the extra check-in and security burden at the airport)
Chu vi parolas Vikipedion?
Public transportation in the US is a huge money loser - so I'm guessing this is going to be as well. How much is this going to cost? Are the additional taxes going to be worth it? Do we need another, massive government bureaucracy?
Tax users of the interstate highway system proportional to their wear-and-tear (i.e. tax trucking more appropriately), and the free market will solve the rest of the problem.
We have so many cars and trucks because we, as a society and through our government, have chosen to subsidize the highway system and distribute its cost to every American instead of primarily to those that use it.
Trains, planes, and ships don't get that level of subsidy and therefore we ship things on trucks and drive 45 minutes to work.
There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the modes of transportation -- but the last thing we need is another government 'subsidy' to prop up competition (against other government subsidized industries).
I lived and worked in far North Dallas / Collin County / Denton County for the biggest part of a decade. Thankfully I live and work in a much less densely populated area on the northwest of the metromess and only have a 12 minute commute to/from work these days. Everything on the entire north side of the metromess is still so spread out that commuting to work, shopping, visiting friends and family, etc, pretty much requires a personal vehicle. I don't think the "A-Train" will be anywhere near as successful as they wish it'll be.
I travel to Houston frequently, and after you've done it many times, the drive isn't so bad. Once you get there, you still need a car to get around, and by the time you've added a rental car into your plane/train/bus expenses, you're still much better off just using your own car, and accounting for the 7+ hour round trip drive time. And BTW, Houston rush hour traffic drivers are, in average, much better behaved, politeful and skillful in heavy congested traffic than Dallas drivers. Down there, they've learned to realize that when traffic is bad, everybody stuck in traffic is screwed anyway, so it does no good to get all upset and bent out of shape. Houston drivers have (mostly) learned to relax and be much more laid back. Unlike in North Dallas when you need to get over a lane for your exit, drivers see your turn signal as a command to step on their gas and cut you off and prevent you from changing lanes. In Houston, they instead let off the gas, open up a slot and smile and wave (with all fingers) to let you over a lane.
Right there with you. I wonder if people consider how many calories it takes to haul their fat asses up stairs, and then how many calories it takes to haul their fat asses and a 2,000 pound steel cage up a shaft. The amount of electricity used is so wasteful, and the number of calories burned by these fat asses is too small.
The worst is in the buildings where I work, where there are multiple elevators separated by about fifty feet of hallway. People will walk 100 feet down the hall way to hit three separate buttons to call three separate elevators, then turn around and walk 100 feet back to the first one if it arrives first, all so they can get to their office quicker. The fact that they're unable to make these mental computations infuriates me.
.
Because I know I can get a flight between LA and SF (for example) almost every freaking hour, today.
.
In the US it's not a speed problem, it's a volume problem. Remember the Concord vs. the 747? We know who won in that scenario.
What about the high cost? The additional taxes? The new massive government bureaucracy? Public transportation is a huge money loser.
I would instead prefer tax incentives be use to spur the private sector.
This has to do with the work that's already been done for this route. There are local forces, especially around Pittsburgh, which have been doing studies and pushing high speed rail for years.
The route would really be better if it was DC/Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Detroit/Chicago/etc since it is the fastest way to bisect the east coast from the major midwest cities. It would have also given them a chance to alleviate the I-270 corridor with a stop in Frederick. The people who want to go to Philadelphia could then take the east coast corridor up (DC/Baltimore/Philadelphia/NY/Boston).
But this would leave Harrisburg, the state capital, in the cold. You know what happens when you piss off the local government... Also, they probably figured the 240 miles between Pittsburgh and DC can be done by car instead. Anyone in between would be able to drive to Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, or DC in under 2 hours.
Putting 'Amtrak' & 'High-speed' together kinda makes me nervous. I guess when the fatal rail accidents start to happen one can say "it happened so fast they never saw it coming".
Most of the suburban residents I know take the Metra to work, which doesn't go very fast, but is far faster and easier than driving.
You're right that high speed rail simply doesn't make any sense for work commutes.
I might be, too, but how long before the security theater farce moves to the rail station, too? We're willing to give up just about anything for a good security theater.
You won't have to wait long at all. The Security Theater will be implemented from the get-go. After all, this rail system will a federal govt project... or did you miss that part.
If you won't RTFA, here is a nice website with some pretty pictures:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31
but not high speed rail: incredibly expensive
but forgive me beforehand, i'm rather ignorant of anything outside the northeast, transitwise
i can see high speed rail between major cities all throughout the country though
and the midwest does have the benefit of being flat, lower property values, straight property lines, and no critical mass of nimbys
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sorry, Obamafans, rail has less priority than the War against Af-Pakistan.
Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout
sinecure. How do you pay off an assemblyman for backing you on the pork barrel bypass? You fix a tollbooth job for his worthless son in law. Those jobs are highly necessary. In fact they make the world go around.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I didn't read all of the posts here but many people are referring to local mass transit issues. Obama's plan is a regional mass transit solution. For people that need to get to major cities within a region. I think it's a good idea however I'm worried about the actual viability of the solution.
I could see California and the New York/DC Corridor having one but some of the others I'm not so sure of. This is also coming from a person living in the south.
no sig yet
... so let me just say, do you remember that guy down the street who was always talking about building a helicopter hat, or having brushes under all the cars to keep the street clean, or making self-zipping pants?
Aren't you glad he didn't run for office and get into a position of political power?
He what?
Damnit.
Seriously, folks, it's a dunderheaded idea - I'm not saying all rail is, but we've got too much ground to cover and too many people spread out too far. As much as some people would like to, we're not going to move everybody around so they fit the needs of a rail system. And we aren't going to build a rail system big and complex enough to serve enough people.
I don't want people to give up their dreams, I just don't want to pay for them - especially for the really silly ones.
From the article: "List of potential routes: California corridor : Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego" Just last year, CA voted and passed a proposition for a high speed rail. It looks like this is just a way of shifting the cost to the Fed. I bet the other high-speed rail lines are also planned routes by regional governments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High_Speed_Rail
If they can't be bothered to include the 5th largest city in North America, they obviously aren't serious. :) Add Toronto to the list, and we can talk. Hooking the Northern New England corridor to the Empire corridor, as Canada builds the Quebec-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor line, then link the Windsor line with the Chicago hub network via Detroit, and you got a major network. Fun? WoW
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
And all the relevant details will be in the "but".
When you consider the buts, you also discover that the question really isn't "Can rail work in the land where the car is king?", in the sense of "can train compete against car?" because the answer is a simple "No". Population density in any area that features large acres of suburbia is too low for the train to be a meaningful competitor for the car. Simply because the US have been grown that way for about a century. There aren't going to be any trains for commuters from the suburbs to the central business district, or even from the suburbs to the industrial areas.
The question is rather: "Can we find corridors in which the train will be competitive with both the car and the airplane". And the answer to this question is: "Yes, certainly.". The trick is to find heavily traveled routes that currently have a moderate to poor level of service. For example the Boston - New York City - Washington DC corridor would be well suited for a high-speed train that can travel in, say, 3 hours from Central Boston to Central Washington and which will also stop at Logan Intl., La Guardia, and RR Intl. Being able to reach both the airport and the city center will be crucial. The city centers because that's where most people need to go anyway, and the airports because they allow the train to provide access and egress to the air transport network.
The interesting thin is that a good train connection can be both quicker than air, bus, and car. Air because a train link can (if done right) dispense with time-loss due to check-in and the constant juggling for departure slots, boarding, and taxiing that's inherent in air travel. Buses and cars because both cars and buses are will be affected by congestion, and because of the speed limit on the highways.
It's possible to build a successful rail link in that corridor, but it will either take about 10 years to build because of all hard infrastructural problems (read acquisition of land and demolition of anything that's in the way of access to the city center and the airport) that need to be solved to get to the desirable areas (city centers, airports) or it will not connect to those vital points. If the envisioned rail service doesn't connect to the city centers and the airports, it will offer a service to take people from where they aren't to where they don't want to go.
So, yes, it's possible to build a successful rail link, but it's much easier to build one that's an absolute disaster. Financially, politically, and transport-wise. So don't get your hopes up too far.
Sigh. Are Slashdotters getting terminally lazy or what? Supporting arguments of gone from lame to simplistic to a single-word statements of opinion.
Your opinion contradicts all the evidence. Why should your opinion matter when you can't be bothered to back it up with actual arguments or facts.
Mind you, I'd love for you to be right. High Speed Rail has been a boon in every country where it's established itself. Aside from all it's obvious benefit, the French system has ended up costing its taxpayers zilch (it was built with government bond money, but these have long since been paid back out of fares), unless you count all the negative costs of not having to deal with so many cars, buses and airplanes.
But France is not the U.S. (Cue the usual lame French-hating jokes. Go away, the grownups are talking.) Their cities are closer together, the French are used to paying huge amounts for gas, and they don't have America's cult-like worship of the automobile. They've always depended more on trains the we have — they went to faster trains mainly because it was the only practical way to expand the carrying capacity of their existing network. Americans, by contrast, won't even car pool without a gun put to their head.
In 1964, they built a bridge across the Hudson Narrows that was specifically designed so it could never be adapted to support trains. (The assumption was that only downscale people you didn't want around would ride such trains.) That's the kind of psychology American rail advocates have to deal with.
These are huge barriers. If you know of ways to overcome them, let's hear them. If you don't, your opinion is irrelevant.
Make a dynamic rail system, where individual cars are driven. Type in your destination, and the automated routing system in the train drives you to your destination. Its a lot like what people envision for autodriving cars, except its very easy to implement. If successful, it could spread.
God spoke to me.
Planes may be faster than rail travel for long(ish) haul, but they aren't forever sustainable. It's the same with cars, but to a lesser extent.
There's very little chance of being able to travel excessively by air without readily available oil. It may be easy and cheap now, but it is the job of the government to prepare for the future, even if the corporations are more happy (or have little choice but to) maximising this year's profits.
If Americans were to start filling buses and trains which lie along useful routes, and call for better services, then the service would improve - leading to better investment and reduced congestion (which again improves the QoS), and you can quite easily get a growing and improving system.
If the cost to the general public of fuel and airline discounts is very low, then it'll be the airlines and cars which people will continue to use. If the tax on fuel and flying is increased, then people will be more likely to consider alternative methods of transport, and the government can get money with which to make changes.
If you have 200 million people with cars, then you have 200 million people with cars, trying to fit on roads.
If you put some of that individual effort towards communal transit, you'll move more people much more comfortably, efficiently and affordably.
However, if you let a company with a vested interest botch it up, then you end up with a waste of funds.
New LOL Politician: Monorail Obama builds high speed train.
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
A big winner in this could be the Walt Disney Company. Can you imagine only a 2-4 minute shuttle bus ride from the train station in Anaheim, CA or the train station in Orlando, FL literally to the front gate of Disneyland or Disney World?
I think if President Obama wants high-speed public ground transportation, he should forget about conventional steel wheel passenger railroads.
The problem is simple: the distance between city centers--especially west of the Mississippi--is quite large, and even today's 220 mph trains will take a long time to travel between city centers.
That's why Obama should "go for it" and embrace the latest variants of maglev technology, with trains capable of cruising at 310 mph (500 km/h) or higher. Because of the longer distances involved, maglev makes more sense, since with 310 mph transit speeds you can cover most of the important city pairs in the USA in under two hours easily. Also, maglevs have one advantage: no physical contact running, so we avoid the expensive issue of meticulous upkeep for overhead wiring and steel wheels/steel rails necessary for high-speed train operation, not to mention quieter operation because of no noise from the physical contact.
Imagine traveling between Dallas and Houston, Chicago and St. Louis, MO, San Francisco and Los Angeles, Orlando and Miami, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, etc. in a hour or less; it would literally change the demographics of the USA.
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site? I'm quite sure the train doesn't drop you off anywhere near the front door of your office for most people, so, how do you get to and from work? If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
I've thought about this for years and what I'd like is to be able to drive my car onto the train then ride the train to my destination city then drive off the train. Amtrak has this, the Auto Train, however there's only one route. It runs between Virginia and Florida.
How do you live like that without a car...I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
By far from the only reason but a big reason it's like that is because of zoning laws. It seems many places don't have mixed use zoning, an area is zoned either commercial, industrial, or residential.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
(hoof it).
Bus can take too long. There's one place I drive to that takes me about 15 minutes unless the traffic is bad. Once I took the bus there, after walking about 20-30 minutes to get to the bus station so I didn't have to transfer to another bus, and the bus took about 45 minutes to get there. Not only did it take longer but the with the cost of the fare I could have driven there and back 3 or 4 tymes to spend the same amount on gas. Taking a taxi could cost a lot too. As for walking GP addresses that when s/he says "especially living in the climate I do, that is the greatest impediment to any type of mass transit to go to work daily".
Dress appropriately for the season. Maybe carry a change of clothes or stash some in the office if you need to.
As a full tyme student in college I rode my bike about 45 minutes from home to get to campus and I wore whatever clothes while riding then carried clean clothes with me. On campus I'd take a shower then put on the clean clothes. Not everyone has the opportunity to take a shower, and for those who work indoors like in an office they can't be all sweaty smelling.
there will be racks on the train/bus such that you can actually bring your bicycle with you (bike 5 min to train, get on train for 20 min, get off train and bike 5 more min).
That's what I like about the buses where I live now, the buses have bike rakes. However you can still get all sweaty.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Exposure to rain water is a serious problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfV_ENR5IZE
Help find a cure for cancer!
when I lived in Orlando, things were different. I agree that if I had to walk a mile every morning in florida weather, I would either be forced to take a poorly air conditioned bus, sweat, or find another job.
Yea, Lynx sucked.
Europeans I think don't understand this about American weather. Draw a horizontal line through the middle of the US. Everything below that line requires air conditioning.
I spent 3 months in Germany and the day I got there, flew into Frankford, one page 1 the newspapers reported that 3 or 4 streakers were spotted. When asked why they were streaking, they said it was too hot. Not once while there did it get as hot as it was when I left Orlando.
Walking a mile through 85-95 degree 95% humidity weather in the morning will make you look like you like you were caught in a torrential downpour.
Some can get used to it. As I posted on this above, I used to ride my bike 45 minutes to campus. All together I rode 100 to 200 miles a week, depending one where else I went to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It is perfectly applicable to government even more so than any company.
...and that's the hardest part of upgrading rail service. The freight haulers own the rails, and Amtrak can run only when, where, and at speeds compatible with freight operations. Even if the trains are TGV class, that doesn't help when their schedule must fit around the freight traffic. To have an effective high-speed rail system, they'll need to get right-of-way, lay the rails, and maintain them to high-speed standards. Even if they could use Interstate Highway right-of-way, the cost of the system is huge. If they choose to skimp and stay on freight tracks (which seems likely), the trains between LA and Chicago will still be running slower than they did half a cantury ago (39:30 then for Santa Fe's Super Chief, compared to 43:00 now for Amtrak's Southwest Chief).
In that scenario we wouldn't be ELEVEN TRILLION dollars in debt, with much more to be piled on in the coming years.
We would also have a lot more freedom.
Clean up the transportation in the cities first, then get short-range low-cost train transportation done, then go for the high-speed, long range trains.
Can you really see multiple independent operators agreeing on a combined ticketing system, such that each was effectively charging the same amount for the same trip ?
Actually yes, that's how the buses are where I live. Different businesses run buses in different areas and they all take the same tickets, as far as I know of that it. I can get on one bus operated by one company, ride it and transfer to another bus operated by another company with only the transfer ticket. Heck airlines do that, local airlines fly into a hub and passengers transfer to a national airline. There's just one ticket for both airlines.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The problem with any bus/rail system is that it needs to be cheaper than an airplane. The rail system is all but dead in Canada. The bus system is useful for going to small out of the way cities, but if you're traveling from large city to large city, you aren't saving money on the bus and its taking you hours and days longer to get there. Appropriate pricing on the trips is what will make this a success. Price too high, no one will use it and it'll fail.
It would be much better if they focused on freight rather than travelers. From LA harbor to outlying areas and from LA to SF. Fewer accidents, less traffic, less wear and tear on the roads, and maybe less pollution by clearing more trucks from the freeways than passenger cars.
"pharmacies"
Do you mean apothecary?
People in Europe don't need to take the bus to the grocery store, and they don't buy groceries a week or so at a time. They have food markets a 100 feet from where they live, and they go there daily. Basic food distribution and practices are completely different in Europe than the US.
Yea, I loved how it was in Germany when I was there, a bunch of small local shops, the apothecaries, bakeries, and butcher shops among many others.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
i hate to cite facts that go against the liberal grain, but facts are hard to argue with.
you ever wonder why farm diesel is red? that's the no-tax dye to allow farmers to avoid paying the road tax. i've been stopped by the fuel checkers who have the authority to check for dye in your fuel.
almost surreally safe (cyclist deaths are almost always due to cars, not bikes
Because of those cars bike riding isn't that save in places. In less than a year I was hit 3 tymes while riding my bike. The first tyme I was knocked unconscious, luckily there wasn't any real damage. The second tyme I was uninjured but my front wheel was bent and had to be replaced. The third tyme I was hit I was put into a coma. I spent about a month in the hospital then because I was disabled, I survived a TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury, I had to move into a rehab house where I lived another month and a half. After that I went through more than a year of therapy. I still need more therapy but I can't afford it.
Back then, when I had the accident, a friend also rode her bike and she started to carry a baseball bat because she had been attacked while riding. Luckily she wasn't raped or anything, mostly she had stuff thrown at her by passing cars.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Can I route via train and plane?
Can my baggage be taken directly from one to the other?
Can I stay in the "secure" area, avoiding the need to wait in security lines more than once for my trip?
When trains run from airport to airport and are fully compatible for the traveler, we'll have something workable. Then I can plan a trip from Boston to Tampa, with an Orlando-Tampa train being part of one of my travel options.
Until then, these trains are going from nowhere to nowhere at a sub-leisurely pace.
James Hill created the northern rail system which was extremely robust with the help of private investors and $0 government help.
No, James Hill like every other train operator in the US used the government's power of Eminent domain to take land from the people that owned it.
Oh, I was surprised at how small his house is, he lived in Minneapolis where I live now and my sister and brother-in-law took me on a tour of it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The autotrain from DC to Orlando makes sense because you just get on, eat, sleep, get off. No changes necessary.
Actually it depends on where you're going in Central Florida. The AutoTrain actually stops in Sanford not Orlando. If you're going to Disney the drive from the train station could be another hour or more, possibly a 3 hours drive, depending on the tyme of day. However if you're heading to Daytona you can almost cut the tyme in half. Of course I preferred Cocoa to Daytona.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You fly in, when you arrive at the airport, DW grabs your bags for you....we stayed on the grounds, so when we got to the hotel, we checked in and luggage was waiting for us.
If you spend more than a couple of days, you're missing a lot if you only stay at the Kingdom and don't have a car. You could stay a month in Central Florida and not see everything with a car.
I'd go again...and I don't even have kids.
I admit I haven't been back in more than 10 years but the only part of Disney I really liked was Lake Buena Vista.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This would be so awesome. I drive maybe once a month right now, probably if i didn't have to drive across the state to visit my family, I would spend probably about $5 a year on gas
I think most of the places we saw them they were spelled pretty similar to "pharmacy". It's a shame I didn't take a picture of the text so I would know for sure.
Apothecaries are being replaced with pharmacies so I wouldn't be surprised. Laws and regulations are driving them out of business.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes I would travel on it and in many cases I would prefer that to air travel.
To work the rail needs a mixture of Express and Roundabout. There must also be a car/train on the major routes as in the Amtrak train to Florida where you take the car with you on a flat bed.
cursethedarkness
to paying for others' train tickets which are ~50% subsidized by road tolls. The trains, like the post office, should be able to stand on their own two feet via the sale of stamps/tickets. If the true ticket cost is $10 per ride, then let it be $10 - let the riders bear the true cost of their preferred method of movement. (Same applies to any transport method, be it cars or buses or subways.)
I hope you know the tax on fuel does not pay all the cost for roads. And if cars become more fuel economical it will get worse. I'm one of those people who believe fuel taxes need to be raised, just for this reason. I recently read a proposal about this I liked. Raise the fuel tax and lower income tax. If the rise in fuel tax is $100, for a week say, then lower income tax $100. Of course under such a plan there would have be adjustments made to the tax, for instance increasing the tax when more people drive more fuel efficient vehicles. In the end though there isn't a tax increase.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It is a big target for terrorists.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Increasingly he is reminiscent of a proper African president who is simply oblivious to costs and behaves as if money grows on trees and so he spends, spends, spends. I estimate because of the great distances in the US a proper high speed rail system would cost about a trillion. On the other hand.... what's a trillion to your president. I guess it is true that a people get the government they deserve.
He's going to upgrade current lines, then build long-haul high-speed stretches. It completely ignores the cities and the need for massive amounts of new shorter stretches. That's where the congestion and massive use of petroleum is, not on the long stretches. Sure, I'll be able to get from Tulsa to Dallas pretty quick, but what if I want to go to Amarillo? Chicago to Denver barely gets you going before you run out of rail. Car or plane are the best ways to get there now, and they will be in the future with this plan.
You'll have to be one of the lucky few whose current location and destination match the plan, and then just HOPE that the city you get to has a decent transit system. And I'm saying this as one of the lucky few who would be able to ride a high speed train to work instead of drive, that is if my city had a decent transit system. I know, I'll get to fight traffic to drive to the now-crowded, high-priced parking at my city's train station. Yippie.
I also say this as someone who thoroughly enjoyed Germany's system, where for the most part public transportation was convenient and fast from anywhere to anywhere. My company made me drive a company car four hours to CeBIT once, and I refused from then on, demanding my ICE ticket instead. The streetcar ride to the train station was so cheap I didn't even bother expensing it.
And for all we know Obama's 170 IQ just means he knows this might be a great way to buy votes for the next election, not necessarily that the project is actually a good idea. IQ establishes neither common sense nor pure motive, especially for pandering politicians.
You trade those days of occasional discomfort with all the extra time public transit gives you.
HAHA! I once took a bus that takes all of 15 minutes to drive to. How long did it take me? About 20 minutes to the bus station, so I didn't have to make transfer, then another 45 minutes to where I was headed. And it cost me more to take the bus than to drive.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't care about high-speed rail. Give me auto trains! Bonus if I can bring a boat/pwc trailer along for an extra fee.
I want both, a high speed auto train. I live in Minneapolis, MN now but I moved from Florida and I'd love to be able to drive onto a train in Minneapolis and drive off 24 hours later in Orlando. Making it the same price as a plane ticket and it's be even better.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Raise gas taxes to subsidize the train
Bullshit, train passengers should pay for trains just as drivers should pay for roads. And because fuel taxes are not high enough to pay for roads they should be raised.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I live in Japan, and enjoy having one of the best high speed passenger rail systems in the world. These trains are amazing. On time every time, fast, and the price is the same no matter where you are in the country.
Now let me point out why this has nothing to do with the situation in my home country of the US:
The distance between Tokyo and Osaka, for example, is not really that far, even though these are the two biggest cities in the country. This is like if NYC and LA were 250 miles (400km) apart, instead of almost 10 times that far (2444 miles / 3933km). The distances we're talking about in the US are ungodly huge. It is for this reason that we in the US (and our Aussie friends) have standardized on the automobile, not because we're lazy morons (the fact that we are lazy morons is a side issue).
I'd also like to point out that, even in the case of taking the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka, you actually have to get off at Shin-Osaka, which is basically in Kyoto, not Osaka, and you have another 45min express to take before you're really in Osaka. Without that smaller train network, the bullet train would be utterly useless. Putting in a high-speed network with no light rail at the stops is just a massive waste of money. No one will take it. This is like if Eisenhower had built the interstate highway system (one of the many great ideas we got from the Nazis, BTW) before any roads existed in towns. A system like this is supposed to link existing systems up. If it doesn't, it's useless.
This is the biggest difference right here. Contrary to popular opinion, Japan is not packed coast-to-coast with people. Much of Japan is virtually uninhabited. That's because much of Japan is at a 45-degree angle. It's a volcanic archipelago, remember? Basically, there are a few flat areas where you can grow food and live properly, and those regions are where everyone lives. This means that Japan Rail (which operates the bullet trains) can count on getting enough passengers from each stop to pay for the operating costs of the track between. Everyone lives in the same place, so you have money flowing into your system anywhere you decide you want to collect it. This is absolutely not true in America. The distances between cities is vast, and there aren't many people who live along the way. You'd have to pay for more track and more electricity to run the trains on it with fewer customers per kilometer. It's a nightmare.
Basically, the cost of taking the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka is, per-kilometer, roughly the same as taking it to Echigo-Yuzawa (heading toward the Japan Sea), even though much fewer people take the latter, and that line, with its many, many kilometers of tunnels bored straight through the mountains in between, was much more expensive to construct and much more expensive to maintain. How does this work? Simple, JR makes enough money on the more-often-traveled lines to float the losses on the less-traveled ones. Add to this that JR does not only operate bullet trains, but also most of the country's local lines as well, and they can ensure that prices are affordable no matter where you're going. If you're riding the Yamanote line around metro Tokyo, you are massively over-paying; if you're riding the train from Uozu to Toyama in rural Toyama Prefecture, you're getting a steal. This is why, in the urban areas, it's always cheaper to use one of the local "private" (JR used to be public) lines, who don't have to maintain a bunch of track no one uses. In the case of the US, you'd need a lot of people getting on in LA and San Francisco to cover the vast wasteland between them (no offense if you live in that area of CA--but you would agree it's quite r
By definition you wouldn't need a highway-capable car at the destination
Yes I would. My destination is just a hub. I first arrive on the train in Orlando. From there I drove to Cocoa Beach on the Atlantic Coast. Another day I go to Gainesville/Ocala and Silver Springs. Still another day I go diving in Sarasota on the Gulf Coast. Or in some caverns.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Amtrak actually has one route that works this way: the Auto Train. It only works between the DC area and Orlando,
No, the Auto train stops in Sanford not Orlando, Sanford is about an hour north of Orlando. And the other end is in Lorton, Virginia.
Fslcon
Should there be a Law?
We would love to join the civilized world and have high speed rail in the US. Less than 5 hours from SF to Denver, Portland, Seattle, LA, San Diego, Phoenix, Tahoe, Vegas, and Salt Lake City. Leave SF at 6 PM on overnight trains to the East Coast, too. With any luck, we wouldn't have the TSA to make us take off our shoes or leave our bottled water behind.
Today's Amtrak passenger service is only good by the standards of a developing country; even the Acela is pretty much of a joke as high speed trains go. I think of our passenger rail system as equivalent to a two lane road when advanced countries use 6 lane highways.
The 1950's needed the Interstate Highway System. Today we need to supplement that with high speed rail.
Traveling by train is the most fuel efficient mode of transportation. It also makes sense to prepare for when fuel costs get high.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Why shouldn't it do the same for rail? or at the very least, help in its construction?
Because not all of us like the government picking winners and losers.
HS Rail is beneficial for everyone.
So is broadband, so the government should build an ultra-high speed broadband infrastructure. NOT!!!
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Subsidize it yourself, don't make me subsidize something I won't use.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Oh also booking the same flight here in the EU is about 3-4 times cheaper than a friend was able to book from the USA.
And getting a Eurail Pass in the US before going to Europe is cheaper. I heard one person recommend taking a long train somewhere then taking one back as it saves hotel expenses.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If you ride that system twice each weekday, you'll be a crime victim every 1.5 years. Their own numbers, not including all the unreported crimes, show this.
I guess some of you city folk consider that normal, and don't really see a problem...? Over a 40-year career it's maybe a couple rapes, a half dozen violent beatings, a half dozen muggings, a dozen thefts, and a single career-ending murder? (plus some trivial assaults and thefts you don't bother to report)
Us non-city folk think HOLY SHIT when we see those numbers. In a dozen years with a car commute, the worst I've had was some asshole con artist abusing my car in the parking lot. Nobody has ever taken my stuff or even threatened me with bodily harm.
FFS! How stupid can politicians be? Don't they realize that if national light rail were a viable option, some company would already be doing it? Don't they realize that this will be a bigger failure than Amtrak, which we already pay for at the barrel of a gun?
No.
HSR will go city center to city center with faster door-to-door times cheaper costs
It can almost be guaranteed that if government does it it will be expensive.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
for about five years i commuted 87 kilometers a day - it took me about 40-45 minutes.
then for another two years i travelled 113 kilometers a day to toronto - it took me about 70-75 minutes each way. that's about 2.5 to 3 hours stuck in traffic ontop of a minimum 8hr workday - that's 10.5 to 11 hours before you even get started on saying hi to the family, thinking about dinner, etc.
so after seven years of this nonsense, i found an apartment about a couple blocks away from where i work, sold the car, and started riding bike - best thing i've ever done in my life. i started having a life again, i started getting fit and healthy. i started to enjoy the morning commute.
fifteen-twenty minutes on a bike in the spring is the bees knees. now winter is a little tougher - but you've got about three cold months in the year, and nine generally beautiful months for cycling - but you've got to dress for it. ever since i sold my car, moved and got a bike, my life has been happier.
after a couple years on a bike, i was lucky enough to live on toronto island - one of the largest car-free communities in north america. i witnessed sixty year old women wrapped in scarves and hats - grandly riding thier bikes through the snow in the middle of january - people ask how they got so healthy. there was almost nowhere you couldn't get to in downtown toronto in under 40 minutes by bike - several years without ever paying for parking or gas. but it requires a change in your way of thinking about thinking about things - need groceries - get a cart. got kids? get a bakfiet (yes!). its not so hard once you try it - and its enjoyable.
i'll leave you with two gems:
i) Yehuda Moon (Bicycle Comic Strip):
http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-01-22
ii) Steve Jobs on Bicycles: So then finally, what is the last piece of technology
that he [Steve Jobs] acquired - not made by Apple - that really delighted him?
He pauses for long seconds, looks down, puts his hands on his knees, looks away. ... wonderful."
"I actually bought a bicycle recently. It's just
(Steve Jobs: The Guru Behind Apple, Charles Arthur; October 29, 2005)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article323133.ece
I found Amtrak, the San Francisco Subway system (BART), and the Boston Commuter Rail system (The T) to be amazingly comfortable, and fun. If only we could have rails along every single Interstate highway (on the sides or in the middle) - the same Interstate system that President "Ike" had built for us. And if it could only be more affordable than Amtrak... it would be bliss. (Amtrak is damn expensive and impractical except for trips of about 50-100 miles or less.)
Because of the massive fuel inefficiency?
Yes, that is a good reason to ignore rail.
Have you even seen a train? They are massive, and require a ton of power to move. You seem to have no concept of where true inefficiency lays.
After all, once you move a massive object many miles for whatever few people may actually be aboard, then the people when they get off must seek other transport to get from whatever hub they end up at to some place than may still be an hour away.
Contrast with regional airports, where small planes take far less fuel to move people closer to where they need to be thanks to large numbers of regional airports all over.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you think that ownership of a car is expensive, try owning a train that goes the same top speed. Oh yeah and you can only go on specially designed and constructed tracks. And the current rights of way can't be used because they aren't wide enough or large enough. Obama dreams of crowding everyone on trains and buses - except politicians, government unions, and their special friends..
Another thing - we'll need to borrow the money.
Roads are the cheapest and most freedom oriented means of transit. If someone wants high speed rail - buy it with your own money not my tax dollars. We already have Amtrack we don't need another one. Amtrack is on the tax dollar doll and will always be.
How about instead supporting an off-the-shelf system that already works and has been successful in every country that has adopted i
Yep, that's regional airports.
After all, you can't be talking about rail unless you are utterly ignorant of the failure that is Amtrack.
"Succeeded everywhere it's been tried" indeed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Amen. Living in Vermont I often take the "Montrealer" down the NY side of Lake Champlain to NYC. The freight-track is slow, bumpy, and generally in terrible condition. One trip a few years ago took 12 hours to get from Port Henry NY to NYC (about a 5-hour drive).
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
One: we need lots of jobs to fix the economy. Updating & laying track for high speed rail across the country will make hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Two & Three have an easy fix: eminent domain.
Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION annually.
The problem with Amtrak is that it's stuck in a vicious cycle. It has unprofitable routes, so it needs government subsidies to continue operations. To become profitable, it needs to cut out those unprofitable routes. But as a condition of funding, the politicians in Congress insist that Amtrak continue to offer service in their states/districts. So Amtrak is stuck running unprofitable routes and needs government funding...
But when gas prices hit $4 a gallon, ridership tripled. The problem with Amtrak isn't that Americans wont do rail or that it's government funded, it's that it's a half-assed venture.