Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US

Posted by timothy on from the self-mucking-biodiesel-ponies dept.

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?"

25 of 1,385 comments (clear)

  1. In a word... by hellfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:In a word... by xgr3gx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Me too - rail would be awesome, but you have to be able to connect the rail ways effectivley.

      Example, I take the bus to work and it drops me pretty close to my building, that works great.

      Recently, I changed locations, and now I'm about a 10 minute walk to my building, which is fine too, but some people I rode with drive in now because this new building has a free parking lot. Free parking is not worth 45mins of driving + traffic + burning more gas + milage on my car.

      If the train station was more than a few blocks away from peoples' destinations, how many lazy Americans do you think will want to walk that far? I think most would say - F' it, I'll drive in.

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    2. Re:In a word... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.

      Hell with high speed. 99.9978% of americans dont need to go from NY to LA via high speed rail.

      They need to get from the suburbs and smaller outlying cities to the major city or nearest city.

      how about fixing and replacing the rail system we used to have and need? Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.

      High speed is not needed, How about having REAL public transit? you know the stuff that Ford and GM tried so hard to kill at every chance for the past 100 years...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:In a word... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...
    4. Re:In a word... by Remloc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, how is parent a troll? He's right.

      Most Americans I know are so lazy they'll circle the parking lot for minutes looking for a place in the first few rows instead of (*gasp*) walk from the far side, or even the middle of the lot.

      Add in places like Chicago where it may be life-threateningly cold in the winter or here in Dallas where it's so hot in summer--even in the early morning that just a 10 minute walk will put you at work quite unprofessionally sweaty and there's no way I'm taking the bus that drops off about 10 minutes away though I cannot wait until they finish the rail line that will drop off across the street.

    5. Re:In a word... by David+Greene · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This system won't take people from NYC to LA. It's for going from Minneapolis or Madison to Chicago. These are routes where air travel is wasteful (2 hours in the airport waiting for a one hour flight) and rail competes very well. Even with it's relatively slow speed and frequent stops, Amtrak's Empire Builder from the Twin Cities to Chicago is almost always packed. You usually can't get a ticket within a month of travel.

      Yes, we need to invest in commuter rail and light rail. Many cities are doing just that. But there is most definitely a place for intercity rail in this country.

      --

    6. Re:In a word... by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few blocks? For high-speed rail? High-speed rail is for between cities. Local light and medium duty rail won't get any faster.

      Right now, Amtrak has a station in my city, but to get to St. Louis (two hours by car) I have two options by rail. I can go to Chicago (six hours by car, probably 10 by rail) then to St. Louis (nine hours by rail). Alternatively, I can get off the train and onto a bus for over an hour, then back onto a train to continue the trip.

      If Amtrak had a rail line from where I live to St. Louis, I could usually live with three or four hours of regular-speed rail to get there cheaply and efficiently. I doubt I'll have high-speed or even regular-speed rail from here, though. They'll put in high-speed rail to some subset of the places already served, and people outside those markets will be stuck with what they have now.

      I proposed on the web site the administration set up for proposals a sweeping growth of rail. I think that in order to convince people not to drive, we're going to need the traisn to at least go everywhere the Interstate highways do. Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination. Paying for the train then having to rent a car because your final destination is too far from the stations is silly, and that's one reason many people just drive the whole way.

    7. Re:In a word... by mr_josh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Someone mod this up, the original parent is completely missing the boat (train?)

      Look at California: it takes a full 8 to 9 hours to get from the north end of that state to the south end. If they can connect the Bay Area to Los Angeles and make it a 2 or 2.5 hour trip, it'll be a huge boon (HUGE) to everyone from tourists to commuters to business people.

      There are fantastic possibilities here, they're not trying to send little Johnny from NY to California by rail.

    8. Re:In a word... by Etrias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:In a word... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:In a word... by Petaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would changing trains be worse then changing planes? I've had to change trains in Japan and its not a difficult thing. Maybe inconvenient if you have to walk to another station but not difficult.

      --
      ~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
    11. Re:In a word... by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fat people?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    12. Re:In a word... by risk+one · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... what happens when weather is bad?

      You die! YOU DIE FROM RAIN!!!

    13. Re:In a word... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?

      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)

      What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home?? How do you live like that without a car.

      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"....

  2. More details at White House website by wiredog · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  3. Absolutely... by thered2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. What about when I get there? by qbzzt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Obligitory by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the economy's still all cracked and broken!

    Sorry guys, Obama's spoken!

    Monorail... Monorail... Monorail!

    --
    Summation 2
  6. If it's affordable, I would LOVE it. by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  7. Re:Free market will kill it by MindKata · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.
  8. Can't mix freight and passenger railways by MillenneumMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe by JerryLove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  11. Re:No by mr_josh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Wrong by Etrias · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.