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?"
Here.
Best Slashdot Co
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
Why do you think that's automatically a 'pork barrel' scheme?
Rail systems are absolutely superb in European countries (very often it's FASTER to take a train then fly by plane).
USA could use something like this.
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.
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!
Germany: 357,000 km^2
Japan: 377,000 km^2
Shanghai: 6340 km^2
United States: 9,826,630 km^2
Maglev speed: 300 mph
757 Economical Cruising speed: 530 mph
You figure it out.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
We spend 40 billion a year in federal funds on the highway system. Amtrak's deficit is one billion per year. I think someone has the crazy idea that providing more funds for Amtrak may make it more solvent, if it can provide better and faster service to more areas.
We're still paying for the dismantling of mass transit systems in the 50s, when car, oil, and tire companies bought and dismantled local transit systems because they couldn't compete with them. It's the same mentality behind all of the anti-medicare propaganda. For profit companies receive government subsidies to provide medicare benefits that the government could provide, simply because they have lobbyists, and all of the sudden it's "unfair" to have a government provide a service that corporations have the "right" to make profits on.
Air travel will never be as cost effective as rail, especially when you consider how unaffordable it is when there are spikes in oil prices. The TGV in France is all electric, powered by their nuclear infrastructure, allowing them to the same reasonable rates year after year. A high speed electric rail system (I've not yet read about the Obama plan) would provide a much better solution than increasing air traffic with thousands of smaller planes that are not nearly as efficient or energy independent as electric rail.
In fact, one of the reasons that America has such a poor public transport system is because 'wealth creating' companies such as GM bought them and shut them down. God forbid the government try to undo some of the damage caused by decades of corporate greed.
Government subsidies you say?
Like all of those FREE ROADS that all of the teamsters get to drive over?
Howabout those FREE AIRPORTS? Those just don't pop out of the ether either.
Then there's the entire air traffic control infastructure. Does AA pay for
that directly as well? Nevermind the fact that "big air" gets bailed out
by the feds because those companies are considered "too big to fail".
First put rail on par with trucking in terms of free infastructure and
let see what happens after that. Doubling the amount of cargo rail lines
would be a handy start.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
They started to equip container ships with sails again....
bickerdyke
The commuter rail in Massachusetts has wifi, and is one reason my brother is moving to Boston. An hour of telecommuting before you get to work every day can be a huge draw for people.
Rail slower than car? What is it that Amtrak does wrong?
Amtrak have to lease access to rail lines from freight haulers. They own very little track themselves (Northeast corridor and a couple of others, according to teh wiki).
Journey onward.
HUH? They have nothing to do with money. It is to make sure the truck is not overloaded. It is not a toll booth or a fee collection facility for trucks.