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?"
Give me something at least resembles the Shinkansen and I'll ride it.
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
"Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France"
Yes I agree its not exactly as exciting. The Koreans also totally beat it with 350 km/h trains and they already have them working just like Japan etc... This 150MPH train system is years from being a reality. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Train_Express This idea could be so much more. Considering the size of America and modern engineering methods, the proposed speeds for this system already fall way below existing trains like the Shinkansen. (I had to look it up, I remember many years ago the so called at the time Bullet Trains were already fast and they are old).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen
Surely America can aspire to build something world class rather than average. Other countries are already doing more. America has the knowledge and engineering capabilities, it just fails in the management will to do something impressive and would sooner spend vast sums of money on proping up corrupt banks and their rich directors etc..
I'm disappointed rather than exciting by this news. It could have achieved so much more. In some ways it feels like a lost oppotunity that could so easily have really impressed and create something truely useful.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
I love trains but ... America just seems too big for inter-city travel. Wait 'til you find out how much it costs before you sign up for this.
No sig today...
And how much money have the various airlines received from the Fed?
There is a war going on for your mind.
I agree: what these funds really need to be used for heavy-rail transit (i.e. subways/elevated trains in the city) and commuter rail (i.e. regular trains that go back and forth to the suburbs and neighboring cities). Long trips are better served, at least for now, by airlines.
If they really want to spend it on long-haul stuff, they should consider improving freight rail. It's a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly than long-haul trucking, but it's been losing because the government essentially hugely subsidizes the trucking industry by maintaining the highway system, while railroads have to fund maintenance of all their track themselves.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Traveling around Europe in so-called "night trains" is bliss: go to bed in Switzerland, wake up in Holland. Comfort level is not best, yet it gets you to your destination and with no apparent loss of time.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
At one of the clients I work at, there's a choice between riding the slowest elevator in the world or walking a few steps and taking the stairs. Guess which option most people take. And it's not like it's a ten-story building. Three stories, that's it...with most traffic going from the first floor to the second.
We've somehow convinced ourselves that "convenient" is better than the alternative.
Oddly enough, the US used to have a robust rail system (at least in the northeast sector).
What happened? Well, the US government started subsidizing roadways. Once the massive interstate highway system was in place, most companies found it cheaper to ship by truck. Trucks didn't have to pay for their infrastructure, and their infrastructure goes to more cities and more directly (you can shortcut *most* requirements to go through a central "hub" and get a moderately straight path to your destination).
Interstate rail simply ceased to be competitive for all but the largest cargo shipments. Without some of the smaller shipping, they took in less money... which led to less maintenance of the rail lines... which meant cutting routes... which led to less income... etc.
If the US had subsidized rail infrastructure as much as they subsidized roadways, we'd probably have good passenger rail from more suburbs to urban centers, as well as between cities. Unfortunately, we don't, because the US didn't subsidize that way.
It depends on what you do. We recently took the family from DC to Orlando on the AutoTrain. The beds were small, but reasonable, and it was as cheap to take the train with the minivan than to fly and rent. And a heck of a lot easier. The time was considerably more, but when you factor in the time associated with security and car rental associated with flying, it was worth it.
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.
A lot of the 'do trains make sense' depends on the distance, population density, time, cost of train, and cost of flight, which appears to be highly dependent on gas prices. It seems to me that the NE corridor is ripe for such a system. As are other high-population to high-population, limited-distance trips. But, it doesn't make sense to try to replace airlines for cross-country or even most of the way cross-country. Changing planes is a pain the the ass to begin with, but changing trains would be even worse. The autotrain from DC to Orlando makes sense because you just get on, eat, sleep, get off. No changes necessary.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Actually, you're going to laugh, but my former job pretty much was next to a railroad station. From my home it's a 10-15min walk to the train station. It was actually faster than taking the car. My current job is similar, but it's with buses: a bus stop is at 2 minutes from my home and oddly there is a bus stop at 2 minutes from my office. Frequency of buses is every 20minutes, frequency of trains every hour (more in peaks)
So, yes, usually it's just walking + bus/train.
The sweating is greatly reduced because you're actually doing the walking every day and you're getting used to it. Now granted, I don't work in a suit which would indeed be more uncomfortable. In high summer, I just wear a tshirt (and pants, I promise, I wear pants *grin*). Besides, nobody actually prevents you from taking a fresh tshirt (which is what I did when I occasionally biked to work)
The thing is, where I live (Europe), if you live pretty close to the closest city, you usually have good connections by bus or train. The buses often even have their own lanes and get faster through morning/evening traffic because of that. If you live in a small village, it gets harder but it is possible. Most small villages have a bus going through it at the typical worktimes. A couple in the morning, a couple in the evening. Another alternative for many people is to drive to the closest train station and take the train to the city. The parking next to the train stations are free and you burn less gas. Parking in the city is expensive (think 10€/day if you're lucky, but I don't know for sure, I haven't paid for parking for a whole day in ages)
You go to a gym/shop on the route between your work and home? Besides, if you actually do the walking, you won't need a gym. The trick with going grocery shopping is simple: take one large bag and buy foodstuff for one or two days. The shopping frequency is greater, but your shopping time is reduced (you need few things) and you eat fresher fruits/vegetables. Also, instead of just going to a big mall, you stop at the local butcher, the local bakery... all by foot.
It is entirely possible... Hey, I even have a supermarket reachable by foot... There are even sidewalks *grin* and the bus stops pretty much in front of it. So, going home, I get off a few bus stops earlier, do my shopping and walk home.
The thing is that you have to start thinking differently: if you take the car, the world revolves around your schedule. That is not true anymore when you take public transportation: Instead, you need to plan a bit more carefully. Your workday, really becomes an 8h workday because, hey, you're going to miss the bus if you're still there late. The other aspect is that the infrastructure must be there (and it isn't in most of the US). I think the two are linked, because the US way of life/thinking is very "ego-centered" and this means your own transportation, and hence public transportation is seen as something undesirable and is thus not funded.
Hope that replied your "honest question"....
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?
As you've noted, that's a real problem in the USA. A few of our cities have decent public transportation, but few have really good setups.
Despite your objections, I'll begin by saying that my ideal answer is "the bicycle". First, the facts: it's by far the most efficient transportation ever invented in terms of passengers*distance/energy, speed/cost, speed/maintenance, etc., easy to carry on trains and buses, cheap enough (to buy and to store) to leave one at each end of your commute, very fast for distances under 10km or so, almost surreally safe (cyclist deaths are almost always due to cars, not bikes, and there are stunningly few of even those amongst commuters obeying traffic laws), very healthy, and wonderfully pleasant through a broader range of weather conditions than most people realise--it's no accident that it's frequently a form of recreation in this country. And while you can push and go 20mph for long periods, if you're hot you can cut back and go 10mph for 1/8 the power output, which is now far easier than walking but with better wind cooling. But (as you allude to) bicycle-commuting does require some good city planning--bike lanes, secure (and ideally sheltered) places to park (like cars, but much much cheaper), somewhere to change (and shower in warm, humid climates) when you get to a destination where you don't want to look like a bike commuter, and people who prefer not to be obese (these are in short supply here). And bikes aren't great on snowy or icy roads, although they're not as bad as many noncyclists would expect. Yes, it's impractical in much of the USA right now, but given the political will that could be changed.
Failing that, a local public transportation infrastructure that puts most popular targets within walking distance is quite feasible if there's sufficient demand. New York and Boston are decent in this respect. LA is miserable. It sounds like wherever you live is just as miserable. Change is required, for sure.
Another solution is to have transportation hubs with zipcars or carshare systems, etc., or taxis. With a bit of luck, autonomous cars are within 30 years--this would lower the cost of taxis significantly. But just the cost of parking is more than the cost of a short taxi ride or two every day; it's just that parking costs are frequently hidden or subsidised by businesses who pass the costs along to you.
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
You've got me there. I've been out in some weather that I'm glad not to have to bike through, but I have never had even a tiny bit of difficulty walking a mile. I think it's a Swedish saying: "There is no bad weather, only bad clothes." Perhaps you could describe the weather problems that make walking difficult? Is it just the humid heat? Or perhaps you live somewhere far more evil than my hometowns (Halifax, Boston, San Francisco, Boulder)?
a bicycle wouldn't cut it. What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home??
People have been doing this on bikes for a century. Racers spurn fenders and racks and panniers, and only racers are visible in this car-obsessed country. But a rack on your bike will let you carry easily 60 liters of groceries, or gym clothes, or a suit (wrinkle-free, even) without even noticing. Not that you'll need to go to the gym anymore unless you're doing specific training for some other sport.
I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
I suspect that the problem here may be that what we think of as "normal" is not. It's an artifact of a system that relies on heavily subsidised energy and infrastructure. Cars are not "normal"; they're just ubiquito
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."