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.
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.
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
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;
Traveling by airplane already accomplishes that. The important distinction for high-speed rail is that it would need to be cheaper than airfare, and/or provide other benefits (e.g. the ability to take extra luggage, such as your car, with you).
The sad thing is, as much as I like trains and wish it would, I just don't see that being successful. Even the normal, slow Amtrak fares are often more expensive than discount airfare between the same two cities. I can't imagine any scenario, short of huge subsidies (which would be fine with me, but Congress would never approve it), that would allow an expensive, brand-new system to improve on that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
So no, "USA is large" argument does not work here.
Do you not think that roads enjoy the same subsidt transit does? ALL transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing because it's a public good.
So if I look around the world, I will find a direct correlation between taxes and unemployment? Because I don't see it.
Perhaps if I pick a single country and look through history? There does seem to be one, but it's where government spending made jobs (such as the new deal and WWII).
On what planet does the presence of concentrated wealth mean that jobs will be made. I don't see it at all. Companies will continue to spend as little on employment as possible to make their revenue streams look as good as possible, because the people who make the decisions (executives and stock-holders) are directly tied, not even to the long-term survival of the company, but rather to the stock value... wich is from the earnings report... which is most effected in the sort-term by reducing costs (like employees).
Everyone here is talking about the northeast and midwest, what about the damned west coast? Linking San Francisco to LA is huge, by itself. Linking Seattle to Eugene or Southern Oregon would be amazing. The commuter possibilities are endless here. Take Portland to Seattle, for example. Many people hop that via plane even though it's only about a 3 hour drive. Turn that in to a 1.5 hour train trip, and guess what? You've linked two cities with amazingly effective public transportation, cut down on the pollution of a plane or many individual autos, and perhaps increased the number of people who are willing to commute between the two large cities and their metro areas.
When a flight takes about an hour, high speed rail will beat it in both real door-to-door speed and price. This doesn't just help the NE corridor, but allows for lines like Columbus-Chicago-St Louis-Kansas.
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.
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.