World's Longest High-Speed Rail Line Opens In China

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Longest High-Speed Rail Line Opens In China

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @07:41AM from the flatten-all-the-pennies dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today China continued rolling out the future of high speed rail by officially unveiling the world's longest high-speed rail line — a 2,298-kilometer (1,428-mile) stretch of railway that connects Beijing in the north to Guangzhou in the south. The first trains on the new route hit 300 kph (186 mph), cutting travel time between the two cities by more than half."

322 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:44 · Score: 5, Funny

...the United States has the longest Slow Speed rail lines of the world.
1. Re:Therewhile ... by webmistressrachel · 2012-12-26 07:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And the United Kingdom has the slowest Slow Speed rail lines in the world... we even had a name for it given by the staff of the state operator.
  It's called British Rail Time - around rnd*9 hours behind GMT (or BST), whichever is currently operating. The only timezone in the world defined in pseudocode.
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
2. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:56 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Our freight system is the best in the World, though. And if high speed passenger rail made sense, trust me, the railroads would be on it.
  If we had the population density to warrant such a passenger system to make it worth while, folks would be jumping on it.
  I'm all for rail and efficient transportation. Just because it is so in other areas doesn't mean it's appropriate for another. In other words, a high speed rail system in the US - for except maybe the Northeast - just doesn't make financial or environmental sense. It's a lose/lose proposition.
  Let's be smart about it.
3. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Still faster than 90% of Amtrack.
  To go from Buffalo NY to Toronto Canada by car takes about 1.44 hours, by train it takes 4.5 hours. As a trip I make on a fairly regular basis for pleasure it would be great to be able to avoid driving as I do not need a car once I arrive. Wasting half of a day of vacation on a train is not something I intend to do.
4. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  ...the United States has the longest Slow Speed rail lines of the world.
  Certainly you've heard of the Trans-Siberian Railway, which runs for more than 5700 miles and spans almost the entire length of Russia.
5. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 07:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  We have the population density in some areas, yet it it still not built there. Much of Europe has similar densities yet damn near every town has a train station. Here in the Northeast many towns do not even have one in an hours drive.
  Buffalo to Toronto takes 4.5 hours. You claiming those places have to low a population density?
  Times to NY city are also insanely long.
6. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  The US also has the worst on-time stats (train) of any developed country. It is still faster to travel long distances in the US by air.
  Flying from Boston to Los Angeles is 3,000 miles by road (twice the China rail length). It's 2604 miles by air and only takes 6 hours 21 minutes (413mph avg). The same trip by China's train would take 14 hours assuming that it ran 186mph the entire trip.
  Unfortunately now the US you are equally likely to be groped by a TSA agent by air or rail.
7. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Our freight system is the best in the World, though. And if high speed passenger rail made sense, trust me, the railroads would be on it.
  You're assuming they're still in the passenger business. They aren't. And you're also assuming that nobody is being an impediement to them.
  They are.
  
  If we had the population density to warrant such a passenger system to make it worth while, folks would be jumping on it.
  I'm all for rail and efficient transportation. Just because it is so in other areas doesn't mean it's appropriate for another. In other words, a high speed rail system in the US - for except maybe the Northeast - just doesn't make financial or environmental sense. It's a lose/lose proposition.
  Let's be smart about it.
  And then you see that during the 20's and 30's, we had over a billion rail-passengers a year, when the population was a lot less dense in most areas.
  You may think that rail makes no sense except in limited areas, but then you take a look at one of those Earth at night maps and see lots of shining lights. Are there places where rail makes no sense in the US? Absolutely.
  But there's a lot more places where we could use it. But we don't have it. Why isn't it being built? Is it a combination of opposition to government, greed on the part of automobile, highway and fuel companies, or what?
  Heck, just ask Florida. They voted in a high-speed rail. Then somebody lead a campaign to do what? End it. Why? Do you believe he was really concerned about the fiscal interests, or was he thinking of his own?
8. Re:Therewhile ... by TwezerFace · 2012-12-26 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  :) cute
9. Re:Therewhile ... by Smallpond · 2012-12-26 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Automobile and air travel are subsidized with public money to build roads and provide air traffic services (and security). The only significant public money going to railroads is to build crossings for car traffic. If politicians were looking for fuel efficiency and cost savings instead of the flashiest most vote-getting programs they would be investing in rail.
10. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · 2012-12-26 08:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Amtrak top speeds is around 80mph. They are physically capable of going faster, but the cost (fuel) and the track conditions generally don't allow it.
  Amtrak trains are sidelined for any passing freight trains, and have to slow down to traverse sections of poor track, and towns. When Amtrak was conceived, it was supposed to have precedence over Freight. That lasted all of 12 minutes, before the railroad which "own" and maintain the track got Congress to strip that language.
  (I but "own" in quotes because in most cases, these railway right-of-ways were historically simply granted to the railroads for zero dollars.)
  Its cost prohibitive to build new railbeds today, due to the cost of land. This restriction doesn't apply in a command-economy such as China.
  The best that could be done would be to build high-speed passenger rail along the Interstate highway system right-of-way. Even this will never happen because its not perceived as important as dumping money down the social program rat hole. Small projects are underway, principally in California, but I suspect these will be gobbled up by freight or budget cuts long before they are completed.
  People should ride Amtrak. Its an enjoyable way to travel. Just don't go by train if you are in a hurry.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
11. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:36 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  No, you're wrong. We actually do not have the population densities to support it, otherwise it would have been built.
  Most of Europe is a series of countries centered around one hub city: Paris, Berlin, etc. The individual countries are pretty much set up as a hub-and-spoke concept. Not to mention that each rail system is established under each individual country's budgets, so they tend to tie their regions together by forcing them to run the rail system through the main hub which is also the capital city, and then the networks are tied together to allow inter-country transit.
  China is more of an archipelago style nation. They have 18 major geographic centers which are HIGHLY dense; the areas between the major cities are really quite sparse but a small city in China is 1 to 5 million people, with Beijing at 18 million and Shanghai at 24million, and that's just in the city, not the surrounding regions. For them high speed rail makes sense as you have a few highly dense locations to connect. China like the US has a very high rural population, however those areas are mostly underdeveloped, and it has been a very expensive project for China to try to bring even basic infrastructure to them, let alone an advanced high speed rail system. A full 900 M of China's residents live in the rural parts with no access to electricty, let alone high speed rail.
  The US is very different. The US has fully 60 major metropolitan centers scattered all over a landmass that is much larger than all of Europe, and while some are more prominant than others by no means is a single one dominant like you have in Europe. But when you take the entirety of the US geography into account, we have a much larger rural population. Trains are great for delivering large quantities of goods to a single location, but trucks are far better and delivering smaller quantities of goods to a great many locations. Not to mention that the US already has a much better option for transportation; the entire midwest has a vast interconnected river system which empties out into the Gulkf of Mexico, as well as numerous deep water ports on both coasts lines. Water transportation is about 10-30% of the cost of rail or truck, so there's just no impetus to build high speed rail.
  So at the end of the day, when planes are faster for passenger movement, water transporation is already available and vastly cheaper for goods movement, why on earth would anyone in the US build high speed rail? What's the advantage?
12. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry my friend, but your arguments have no basis, just saying "if it was good, we would have it first" doesnt mean a think.
  I recommend a visit to Germany, it is an interesting country where city population densities are generally low, but almost all cities have train stations and they have quite a few high speed lines too. I tired some and not only were very comfortable, they were also affordable, and there didnt seem to be any shortage in passengers either.
  Believe me, US has much higher population densities,
  My guess would be, as a petroleum focused country, your automotive industry might have too strong a lobby to make it happen, but i m an outsider and this is just a guess.
13. Re:Therewhile ... by Charliemopps · 2012-12-26 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention train tickets are usually the same, if not higher, than a plane ticket... There's no food on the train. If you're not used to riding the train, it's pretty confusing. You're basically left to your own devices to figure out which train you need to get on, where to get off, and then navigate the tourist trap they call a train station. Not that the airports much better, but the few times I've taken the train I've not been impressed at all. It'd been cheaper, faster and more comfortable to drive a hummer to some downtown metropolitan area than it would be to take a train. They have a long way to go before they start attracting new customers.
14. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I ride trains when I am in Europe. In the USA it is not just that you have to be not in a hurry, but you have to be retired or independently wealthy. I just checked to visit my brother in TX, would take one overnight train to Chicago, a long layover, and another overnight train onward. So I am supposed to pay more than airplane tickets, and take two days?
  With the TSA now moving towards inspecting my testicles for train rides that slim advantage is also disappearing.
15. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure what you're on about, but it involves the whole train going through customs. You'd have to wait for a couple of hours if you had to go as a group of cars too.
16. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  In the 20's and the 30's, air travel was in it's infancy. Now it's predominant. I can catch an early morning flight from SoCal to San Fran, have a meeting with a partner for 2-3 hours, than catch a flight back that afternoon and be home for Monday night football with modern air travel. You couldn't do that in the 20's and the 30's with rail or air. Things have changed in the past 80 years; the two time periods are not analagous.
  Plus, the guy you're talking about si Rick Scott, the Governor of Florida. And to be honest, I bet he was thinking of financial interests. Air travel requires an airport. Train travel requires train stations and rail tracks. That is vastly more infrastructure development and maintenance costs, especially when you're talking about eminent domain; while the government can take your land at fair value, the eminent domain process takes years to complete and the amount required to build a new rail system would be epic. Not nearly as difficult to build an airport.
17. Re:Therewhile ... by alexander_686 · 2012-12-26 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  And if high speed passenger rail made sense, trust me, the railroads would be on it.
  You nailed ½ the question when it comes to population density – but only ½. I think high speed rail would work in some locations within the US. I think local politics play en equally important role.
  I have been a residence who was directly affected by a rail expansion (freight, upgrade from 1 track to 2) and a commuter rail project. Every place that would be affected put in its own request for harm mitigation that required its own environmental impact studies, etc.
  Projects that make sense on a grand scale are killed by parochial concerns. As an example, I think Chris Christie killed a subway expansion not because it was a bad idea but because he felt New York and the DOT should kick in more.
18. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · 2012-12-26 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The US also has the worst on-time stats (train) of any developed country. It is still faster to travel long distances in the US by air. Flying from Boston to Los Angeles is 3,000 miles by road (twice the China rail length). It's 2604 miles by air and only takes 6 hours 21 minutes (413mph avg). The same trip by China's train would take 14 hours assuming that it ran 186mph the entire trip. Unfortunately now the US you are equally likely to be groped by a TSA agent by air or rail.
  It seems disingenuous to compare a non-stop air flight to a mode of travel designed to provide transportation to many points in between the two end points. How long would you think it would take if there were twenty stops on each flight between Boston and LA? Try sticking with Apples to Apples when doing comparisons.
  The on time record is abysmal. But it is that way by law. The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.
  Amtrak is working pretty much as designed. The design was severely flawed. It was, after all, a creation of Congress.
  And, for the record, I've never seen a TSA agent on an Amtrak train or at an Amtrak station. Not saying they don't show up, more as a muscle flexing exercise and trial balloon, but is is extremely unusual. Pretty hard to hijack a train and take down a sky scraper with it.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
19. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wow, already in the first couple sentences you are wrong.
  Look at the actual numbers, for population density then think about it again. France 303/sq mile vs NY state 412.3 inhabitants per square mile. Spain is even lower. Germany only slightly higher. We have states that have very comparable population rates and relatively few hub cities. NY state has only NYC, Buffalo, Rochester. Still there is no good rail travel between them. Those 3 cities hold almost the entire population of the state.
  Berlin is not even the biggest airport in Germany, much less some hub city. Way to piss off the entire Western and Southern parts of that country.
  China I cannot speak too.
  The USA has 60 Major metros, 90% of which don't even have subway systems and sure as hell could be linked with HSR to each other.
  Planes are heavily subsidized and burn fuel at rates that will not continue to be possible. The advantage is if we build HSR now we can still use it when we don't have the oil to spare for jets.
20. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  You could do customs like it is done on planes, at the destination.
  Even a group of cars would not take more than an hour, this is adding 3 hours to the trip we are talking about.
21. Re:Therewhile ... by bmo · 2012-12-26 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  >To go from Buffalo NY to Toronto Canada by car takes about 1.44 hours,
  On what planet?
  The 401 is nearly impassible if you don't get your butt on the highway from the Peace Bridge before 4AM.
  1.44 hours from the Peace Bridge only happens if you happen to hit that magical time of the day when traffic is light, and that is generally "before the Devil gets his shoes on."
  >by train is 4.5 hours
  >amtrak
  >As if you can take the train directly from the Peace Bridge to Union Station.
  1. Amtrak doesn't operate in Canada.
  2. You can't even get there from there. You have to pick up VIA Rail from Niagara Falls in Ontario. That's the furthest away from Union Station you can get and still take the train in, which is not recommended.
  3. Frankly, going from Buffalo to Toronto, in a word, sucks. It sucks all the way around.
  4. I recommend parking in Port Credit and taking the GO train.
  --
  BMO
22. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Germany is certainly not centered around Berlin. There are lots of major centers like Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and so on. In the US a high speed train would make lot of sense, e.g. from Washington to NYC and then to Bostonor LA to San Francisco. It's just that the US has given up on improving its infrastructure.
23. Re:Therewhile ... by BasilBrush · 2012-12-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Automobile and air travel are subsidized with public money to build roads and provide air traffic services (and security).
  Not forgetting the biggest subsidising of aircraft: Aviation fuel is tax free. Unlike fuel for road or rail.
24. Re:Therewhile ... by mozumder · 2012-12-26 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  So at the end of the day, when planes are faster for passenger movement, water transporation is already available and vastly cheaper for goods movement, why on earth would anyone in the US build high speed rail? What's the advantage?
  Should we mention that there are 30,000 automobile deaths a year? Or the hundreds of thousands of injuries? You ARE scared to death of driving a car, right? You did develop your own survival instincts to fear an automobile transportation system, right? Those are what you should be training yourself to do.
  Learn to fear cars.
  Meanwhile, the leading economic factor is train is far more energy efficient than any other form of transportation, and therefore, cheaper.
  Right now it is your friendly neighborhood energy companies that are preventing you from using a train system. They want to force you to pay to do any movement across the country. Train is their ultimate enemy, because it is so much more efficient.
  The worst part of the automobile transportation system is that it requires individual labor. I can't read a book or sleep while driving a car. I can do that while on a train. Cars force me to become a lowly laborer, a very inefficient and expensive use of my time.
  Also, you don't need high-population densities for train. Not sure why that helps? Wasn't the US rail system built on rural west? In higher density areas, you just end up building more rail lines.
25. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:01 · Score: -1
  
  Amtrak is fucking stupid. It costs as much or even more than a plane ticket and is like 10 times slower.
26. Re:Therewhile ... by ickleberry · 2012-12-26 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Air travel requires an absolute shitload of fuel, which is fast running out. Trains can run on whatever renewable source of grid power is available at the time
27. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I do it pretty regularly. You don't have to take the peace bridge you know. Actually you keep taking it, leaves the other bridges free for me.
  1. No but it offers connections.
  2. Amtrack website disagrees
  3. It is not that much fun.
  4. I do usually get a hotel outside of town and take the train in. Driving in Toronto is a total shitshow.
28. Re:Therewhile ... by BasilBrush · 2012-12-26 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.
  Wow, that's so dumb.
29. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  We also have a much more "Darwin Elimination Prone" population. The small towns in Europe aren't serviced by every train that goes through - and if the train is going to skip the town, it doesn't slow down and barrels across at-grade crossings at 100 kph or more. Here in the US, trains slow down for at-grade crossings to 30 kph. That really causes a big slow-down in overall commute times.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
30. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is true and easily fixable, stop slowing down the damn train. I have been on the ICE and screamed through towns just as you describe.
  In just a few generations we can eliminate that population group. If we work to make visits to train stations a yearly school function we might be able to get it done even faster.
31. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Not forgetting the biggest subsidising of aircraft: Aviation fuel is tax free. Unlike fuel for road or rail.
  This word (subsidising) does not mean what you (and politicians, and political action groups) think it means:
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy?s=t
  For it to be a subsidy, money has to flow from the government to the recipient. Making aviation fuel free of sales tax is not a subsidy. Cash transferred to airlines to purchase aviation fuel would be a subsidy. Tax credits for solar panels on your house is a subsidy, because the government is paying you to put a renewable energy source on your roof (and the tax credit for solar panels is presumably larger than the sales tax you pay on the solar panels.)
32. Re:Therewhile ... by aaarrrgggh · 2012-12-26 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  The US has 12 super-metro/regional areas. The "Great Lakes" region (when it is extended to include St. Louis) is the only one that lacks the density to fully connect all cities within the region.
  If the regions are adequately connected internally, linking all 12 is quite easy. The problem is that first step isn't moving fast enough.
33. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  1. Amtrak does operate in Canada. The train from Toronto to NYC is an Amtrak train. There is some sort of joint-agreement with VIA rail.
  http://www.amtrak.com/maple-leaf-train
  http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=VAC
  2. Not true. I I've done Aldershot ON (on a train originating from TO) to NY Penn Station and back.
  3. Depends. If you're willing to fork out the dough to get on the 407, it can be quite pleasant. (though not on the pocket)
  4. I take the GO train all the time. It's okay.
34. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  You win the pointless pedantry award of the day.
  How 'bout you just substitute the words 'effective subsidy' and get on with your life ...
35. Re:Therewhile ... by Octorian · 2012-12-26 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, just ask Florida. They voted in a high-speed rail. Then somebody lead a campaign to do what? End it. Why? Do you believe he was really concerned about the fiscal interests, or was he thinking of his own?
  And here's the other thing that's often forgotten... Every time something like this gets proposed in Florida, it seems to parallel whatever the major inter-city highway is, while blatantly ignoring the sprawl. If a rail system is 10 miles from your home, and 20 miles from your destination, what good is it exactly? Places that do this right, tend to have some sort of light-rail system to help pick up the slack. However, the density is probably too low for such a system to be worthwhile. I suppose this is what the bus system is for, but those often seem implemented as a "barely acceptable solution" that you'd only consider if you had no other options.
  IMHO, public transit is only good when those who can easily afford to drive would opt to use it instead.
36. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.
  Wow, that's so dumb.
  No it's simply the american way. "Cut off the nose to spite the face".
  This should be taken as the american motto.
37. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · 2012-12-26 09:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Amtrak is fucking stupid. It costs as much or even more than a plane ticket and is like 10 times slower.
  well worth it if you're 6'6". plus i get smoke breaks.
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
38. Re:Therewhile ... by kiwimate · 2012-12-26 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not familiar with that trip, but it has to be some kind of an edge condition. Out of interest I looked it up on Amtrak's site and it's two trains. (Does Amtrak even operate in Canada?)
  Nevertheless, for the trips I take, Amtrak is much faster and far more enjoyable. I take the train when I'm going from Philadelphia to New York, Washington DC, or occasionally Boston.
  * By the time I've fought with traffic around NYC, or made the detour, or fought with traffic around DC, the train has already arrived.
  * Oh, hey, I'm on the train - I don't have to fight with traffic. That's a win in my book.
  * And I'm not driving. I can do work on my laptop, read a book, or snooze.
  I like trains. Amtrak is more expensive than the local services, but I get a guaranteed seat instead of having to stand the whole way.
39. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · 2012-12-26 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  ... There's AN ENTIRE DINING CAR WORTH OF food on the train.....
  ftfy
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
40. Re:Therewhile ... by hugorxufl · 2012-12-26 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Somewhat off-topic but you could use one of several bus compaines such as Megabus which takes 2.5 hr.
41. Re:Therewhile ... by mcgrew · 2012-12-26 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  The only significant public money going to railroads is to build crossings for car traffic.
  Nope, both federal and state money is going to high speed rail in Illinois. It's slated to be finished in 2015 and they already have some stretches finished. Citation here.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
42. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · 2012-12-26 09:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  ... It's just that the US has given up on improving its infrastructure.
  this bears repeating
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
43. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · 2012-12-26 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  fuel isn't "Fast running out"
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
44. Re:Therewhile ... by Dan667 · 2012-12-26 10:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  you mean, dumping money down the drain on unneeded big ticket military contracts that often the military does not even want.
45. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  But but but ... the free market...
46. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:11 · Score: -1
  
  That's great if you like lung cancer, emphysema and smelling nasty. First class flight and no smoking for me.
47. Re:Therewhile ... by fazookus · 2012-12-26 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the Amtrak 'Metroliner' hits 140mph from New York to Washington, DC, and their somewhat more fancy Acela line does a bit more than that (and stops less often). It's not great but for that short stretch it's fairly modern train.
48. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, already in the first couple sentences you are wrong.
  Look at the actual numbers, for population density then think about it again. France 303/sq mile vs NY state 412.3 inhabitants per square mile. Spain is even lower. Germany only slightly higher. We have states that have very comparable population rates and relatively few hub cities.
  Our two most populous states, CA and TX, are considerably lower in population density that France. The US as a whole is about on-par with that of Spain, save for being 20 times as big. And from my time spent in Europe (mainly Belgium in the mid 2000s, with a lot of trips to Spain and Portugal for vacation), the Spanish train system wasn't anything to brag about!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
49. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  Planes are heavily subsidized and burn fuel at rates that will not continue to be possible. The advantage is if we build HSR now we can still use it when we don't have the oil to spare for jets.
  Per the Bureau of Transportation Studies (a part of the Federal DOT), rail is subsidized at a 10+ times rate over planes, per passenger mile. If HSR was able to cut that subsidy by an order of magnitude the best you could do is become competitive with planes, in terms of Federal subsidies.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
50. Re:Therewhile ... by Immerman · 2012-12-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  No food on the train? Maybe things have changed since my last trip, but I've *never* been on a train (other than a commuter) that didn't have a dining car, and the food is typically far better than anything on a plane (though in fairness high altitude really messes with your sense of taste). You just don't get that tiny packet of 5 peanuts and a shot glass worth of soda delivered to your seat.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
51. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Jet fuel (called "kerosene for aviation" by the IRS) is taxed at 21.9/gal for the 2007 tax year unless it is used for commercial aviation (airlines such as American Airlines and US Airways and small chartered commercial jets). Because such commercial operations are subject to the federal transportation tax, they are subject to a reduced fuel tax of 4.4/gal. Source.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
52. Re:Therewhile ... by poity · 2012-12-26 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  It's not so stark a contrast when you consider how cheap it is to travel by plane inside the US. My friends and relatives in China are surprised at how inexpensive a plane ticket is here.
  Consider the reported lowest priced Economy class seats on the new Beijing-Guangzhou (around 2000km) high speed line is RMB 895, and that Beijing's and Guanzhou's average wages are around RMB 60k, that means the cost of a one-way trip is around 1.5% of yearly income. Now, the lowest cost of a similar one-way flight in the US, New York-New Orleans (2100km), is $250 on expedia, and factor in the US average wage of $42k, we get 0.6% of yearly income, or around 1/3 the relative cost vs traveling by high speed rail in China.
  Looking at this from another angle, a typical "slow" train (100km-120km/hr) ticket from Beijing to Guanzhou is around RMB 250 (overnight, arriving 2nd day), and we see that this is the train equivalent of the Concorde -- meant for small business travelers and well-off tourists. Of course, I assume most businesses would likely just pay the RMB 1700 plane ticket to get to the meeting on time. When you consider all that, there's still a lot left to improve in the transportation infrastructure, and a long time to wait for prices to come down. Americans still have it better in terms of availability, inexpensiveness, and speed. One positive, though, no TSA pat downs in China.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
53. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I just took the Acela from NY to DC round trip. There was more than a few times for long stretches that we hit 130 mph as noted from my GPS info app which I've found to be pretty accurate.
54. Re:Therewhile ... by painandgreed · 2012-12-26 11:15 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I ride trains when I am in Europe. In the USA it is not just that you have to be not in a hurry, but you have to be retired or independently wealthy. I just checked to visit my brother in TX, would take one overnight train to Chicago, a long layover, and another overnight train onward. So I am supposed to pay more than airplane tickets, and take two days?
  I ride the trains when in Europe too and it's not much difference. It's a day quicker and hundreds of dollars cheaper to fly from Rome to Berlin than to take the train which is about the same distance. Sure, it may take a day longer in the US but even in Europe it's quicker and easier to fly instead (even with the TSA) at that distance even between large hubs. Add in that nobody rides the train in the US unless they are scared of flying and I'm sort of surprised that passenger trains even exist in the US.
55. Re:Therewhile ... by Smallpond · 2012-12-26 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure I understand the difference between a tax credit and a tax exception. In neither case is the government giving money to a recipient, just not collecting tax that would be otherwise due. Can you explain why you call one a subsidy and not the other?
56. Re:Therewhile ... by knarf · 2012-12-26 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  And, for the record, I've never seen a TSA agent on an Amtrak train or at an Amtrak station. Not saying they don't show up, more as a muscle flexing exercise and trial balloon, but is is extremely unusual. Pretty hard to hijack a train and take down a sky scraper with it.
  That is not what terrorists do with trains. This is what they do with them, amongst other things. Fortunately for us Europeans there is no TSA here so we still can travel in freedom without the risk of being harassed by state-ordained goons - even though there are numbskulls out there who do things like the above.
  
  --
  --frank[at]unternet.org
57. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  Amtrak trains are sidelined for any passing freight trains, and have to slow down to traverse sections of poor track, and towns. When Amtrak was conceived, it was supposed to have precedence over Freight.
  It should be noted that this a bit of a trade-off.
  Everyone thinks the European passenger rail system is pretty good (and it is), but most of Europe's freight travels by truck. In North America, most freight travels by rail, and the passenger transport system is via automobile.
  It seems that you have to prioritize one or the other, and both uses can't really share the same track.
58. Re:Therewhile ... by terec · 2012-12-26 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Europe. Rail tickets in Europe are often also more expensive than flying, and a lot more expensive on long distances. Rail travel also becomes quite slow when you have to change trains (as most people do). It's still a fun way to travel, but it's not really cost-effective or efficient.
59. Re:Therewhile ... by richlv · 2012-12-26 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, it may take a day longer in the US but even in Europe it's quicker and easier to fly instead (even with the TSA)
  europe doesn't have tsa. just sayin' ;)
  although i believe we might have tsa for any flights departing to usa. probably we don't have national authorities over on the usa soil to check outbound flights to europe...
  
  --
  Rich
60. Re:Therewhile ... by richlv · 2012-12-26 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Flying from Boston to Los Angeles is 3,000 miles by road
  must be a quite wide road for a plane to use, i guess :>
  
  --
  Rich
61. Re:Therewhile ... by El+Torico · 2012-12-26 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Your definition of "own" can be expanded to cover a good part of the United States. The original land grants from various English Kings in the 17th and 18th centuries covers most of the US from the Atlantic Coast to the Mississippi. The land grants from various Spanish Kings covers Florida and most of the southwestern US and, of course, Central and South America. And yes, the French Crown granted land in Louisiana (named after Louis XIV). So, if you're going to cast doubt on the legitimacy of anyone's claim to property in the New World, you're going to have to cast doubt on the legitimacy of everyone's claims.
  I like your idea about the Interstate Highway rights-of-way. In northern Virginia, the Dulles Toll Road and the Dulles Greenway (the privately built and operated extension) includes land for rapid transit, which is currently under construction (Washington Metro Silver Line)
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
62. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  As a tourist who has visited the US a couple of times, I was surprised to see the prices of train tickets. We got the idea to take a train to New York, we figured it would take half a day but it didn't matter since we weren't in a hurry, we could sit and watch the country and relax.
  Then we saw the ticket prices and decided to take a plane instead.
63. Re:Therewhile ... by jalet · 2012-12-26 13:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  From Rome to Berlin... Maybe you should open a map of Europe and see what's in between these two cities : Huge mountains. Try Paris to Barcelona instead (7h25), for example, and tell us if taking the plane is really worth it, considering all the security circus you've got to live with when taking planes and the fact that trains will bring you directly to near the center of each city.
  
  --
  Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
64. Re:Therewhile ... by NicBenjamin · 2012-12-26 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  He's exaggerating a wee bit, but he does have an excellent point.
  The supply of oil is roughly stagnant but demand is skyrocketing. Chinese and Indians are becoming wealthy enough to own cars There are roughly 2.5 Billion of them.
  Which means that in the long-term any country that bases it's transit system on cheap fuel is being incredibly stupid.
65. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's actually one train with codeshare (with VIA on the Canadian-leg).
  But the equipment is Amtrak's.
  I know because I've done the Toronto-New York Penn Station trip (12 hours... bah). You do not switch trains at the border. It stops for customs checks (which can take up to 2 hours, because they have to clear everyone on the train!), but everyone stays on board the train.
66. Re:Therewhile ... by harley78 · 2012-12-26 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  No, but there are armed guards patrolling the grounds...I feel safer already....oh wait, I do.
67. Re:Therewhile ... by harley78 · 2012-12-26 15:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ... It's just that the US has given up on improving its infrastructure. this bears repeating
68. Re:Therewhile ... by NicBenjamin · 2012-12-26 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, just ask Florida. They voted in a high-speed rail. Then somebody lead a campaign to do what? End it. Why? Do you believe he was really concerned about the fiscal interests, or was he thinking of his own?
  And here's the other thing that's often forgotten... Every time something like this gets proposed in Florida, it seems to parallel whatever the major inter-city highway is, while blatantly ignoring the sprawl. If a rail system is 10 miles from your home, and 20 miles from your destination, what good is it exactly? Places that do this right, tend to have some sort of light-rail system to help pick up the slack. However, the density is probably too low for such a system to be worthwhile. I suppose this is what the bus system is for, but those often seem implemented as a "barely acceptable solution" that you'd only consider if you had no other options.
  IMHO, public transit is only good when those who can easily afford to drive would opt to use it instead.
  Like a lot of objections to the idea, this isn't thought through long-term. Airports are much more remote then train stations, most were actually built 20 miles from any plausible destination on purpose. And yet people find a way to use them. There are car rental spots, special airport bus lines, etc. If there's a train from Fort Lauderdale to Tampa and a couple hundred people are taking it every day there will be demand for transportation from the Fort Lauderdale train station to Boynton Beach. That demand could be met by public funding (ie: a South Florida version of the El, a bunch of buses, etc.), or private companies (cabs, Hertz, etc.), but it will be met.
  Hell trains have one huge advantage over planes in this department: they can actually transport your very own personal car in the same vehicle that transports you. The Chunnel trains in Europe do this all the time. It'll add about $70 to your ticket, but that is actually cheaper then car rental at an airport. Depending on how much your time is worth, spending 4 hours doing your actual job, rather then concentrating on driving; might actually save you money.
69. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  That top speed is achieved rarely on its journey .. like when the train is going downhill, flying off the tracks, in midair, just before impact.
70. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  Our two most populous states, CA and TX, are considerably lower in population density that France.
  
  And then you look at the population density of LA County, San Fransisco and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.
  Turns out both Texas and California's population densities are skewed by large expanses of empty land, and the population is often concentrated rather than evenly distributed, as a superficial analysis might indicate.
  Try looking at a density map with finer details, like a square-mile or postal-code.
71. Re:Therewhile ... by bondsbw · 2012-12-26 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if maglev trains could decrease the effectiveness of terrorist bombings.
  Unlike conventional trains that have a car dedicated as an engine, my understanding is that the maglev rail provides propulsion. So then, there is no need for the cars to be linked together and linked to an engine car... each could run independently along the track.
  Then a terrorist couldn't take out thousands of people with one bomb. And as a result, perhaps it wouldn't be deemed a large enough target to attempt at all.
  (Another plus: using individual cars, each could be sent off as soon as it is filled... there would be less waiting for the entire train to fill, and the schedules could run constantly.)
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
72. Re:Therewhile ... by PrimaryConsult · 2012-12-26 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the US, trains slow down for at-grade crossings to 30 kph.
  I don't know what crazy lines you're riding but the only time that is done is if it is an unprotected crossing (no gates or flashing lights). I can only conclude your US rail experience is from tourist railroads.
  Meanwhile, in upstate NY trains regularly go 110MPH through crossings (not my video)...
73. Re:Therewhile ... by dbIII · 2012-12-26 17:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I was astonished that there hasn't even been an oil refinery built in years. A natural disaster in the wrong place really screwed up the fuel supply just by cutting the roads to a couple of refineries.
74. Re:Therewhile ... by dbIII · 2012-12-26 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  The "right sort of fuel" is "fast running out". Not all oil is equal, it's very expensive in terms of energy to get liquid oil out of coal or even very light oils out of tar, and making aircraft fuel out of natural gas is impractical. You can't just treat a plane like a bus or car and put a whopping great big cylinder of natural gas in the back, that means a major reduction in the amount of cargo you can get off the ground and to it's destination.
  
  I think this sort of confusion really sums up the difference between "peak oil" (as in nice liquid crude that is cheap and easy to do a lot of things with) and "peak energy" (God knows when that's going to be, but idiots tend to get the two mixed up). Maybe Star Trek etc has confused far too many people, not every energy source is convenient for every purpose - and inconvenient energy is going to mean the end of cheap air travel eventually, which I presume is what the above poster meant.
75. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  Amtrak average top speed is 80mph, but instantaneous top speed is 150mph.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express#Operating_speeds
76. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  Plenty of time to listen to the orchestra
77. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · 2012-12-26 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  There are only a few recently rebuilt eastern seaboard track lines where Amtrak will exceed 80mph under any circumstances.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
78. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 20:27 · Score: -1
  
  Smoking is disgusting and stupid. You must be a fucking moron.
79. Re:Therewhile ... by Miamicanes · 2012-12-26 20:33 · Score: 2
  
  The problem in America isn't density or population, it's stupid laws that force HSR into absurd "all or nothing" scenarios where they have to either build brand new dedicated corridor every last inch of the way, or make the trains capable of surviving a head-on collision with a mile-long freight train at the highest speed they travel ANYWHERE along their route... not just the highest speed they'd run at along the shared segment of track.
  In Germany, it would be entirely legal to build 200km of brand new HSR track, then run trains 200km at low speed along tracks shared with non-HSR trains and freight, merge onto the new HSR tracks and run at 186mph, then move back onto shared tracks and run another 100km at low speed. If the trains only run at 100km/hour on tracks shared with freight trains, but 300km/hour on exclusive HSR tracks, they only have to be rated for a 100km/hour collision with a freight train. In the US, our stupid laws would require that the passenger train be capable of surviving a 300km/hour (186mph) head-on collision with an 80km/hour (~60mph) freight train EVEN IF the passenger train would never, ever run faster than 100km/hour (80mph) when sharing tracks with freight trains.
  The law wasn't written with passenger safety in mind... it was written at the behest of freight railroads in the US to make it nearly impossible for high-speed passenger trains to share tracks with freight trains, period, because freight railroads don't want passenger trains sharing their tracks... ever. Not at high speed OR low speed.
80. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  High speed trains are competitive with airplane for distances up to 600 to 700 km.
81. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 23:01 · Score: 0
  
  Some of the routes don't have a dining car for a portion of the trip. I know the train that goes from Oregon to Chicago doesn't have a dining car until it meets up with the train going from Seattle to Chicago, or at least that's how it was on my last train trip.
82. Re:Therewhile ... by polar+red · 2012-12-27 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  rail is subsidized at a 10+ times rate over planes, per passenger mile
  I am assuming that's not counting the 0% tax rate on aircraft fuel, and large amounts of tax breaks for the aircraft builders ?
  
  --
  Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
83. Re:Therewhile ... by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-12-27 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  I guess smoking doesn't stunt your growth then :)
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
84. Re:Therewhile ... by sheehaje · 2012-12-27 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  The Albany-Saratoga metro has about a million people in it. Saratoga is the fastest growing county in the state. Add in Global Foundries in Malta and a proposed Apple plant there, and the population is going to grow even faster. So, it's not just Buffalo, Rochester, NYC - other areas of the state are growing faster.
  But you are right, the samethe rail system in NY is antiquated - it basically follows pattern the Thruway does - NYC - Albany - Rochester - Buffalo. It's not exactly a meshed rail system - rather point to point.
  Politically, there seems to be a Chicken and Egg issue happening with the rail system in NY - ridership doesn't warrant pouring a lot of money into the system - but if they did, their might be more ridership. They've recently started funding the rail system, but most of it seems to been used to update the stations rather than provide better service on the rails.
85. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  bull crap.
  Amtrak trains consistently go above 100 mph. Its because of certain laws in some states that limit your top speed to something as low as 70-80. In the NE corridor, which I ride a lot, the train tops out at ~120 mph in all the states on the route except Connecticut due to state laws and probably because they are too cheap/lazy to convert their railroad crossings to something more safe.
86. Re:Therewhile ... by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-27 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because high speed rail is powered by unicorn farts and rainbows? In the US, electric trains still are still coal powered steam trains - they just don't haul the coal and boiler with them anymore.
  Oh, and the whole "air travel is subsidized" argument is laughable. Show me one passenger rail service in the US that isn't more heavily subsidized than the most subsidized airline. The reason why all those metro areas don't have subway systems is because those metro areas don't want to spend billions of dollars for a mass transit system that less than 10% of the population will use. The only places in the US where heavy rail works is in New York and Chicago, with an argument to be made for the DC metro system; but it would be a hard argument since the DC rail only works on paper due to the 20 years of deferred maintenance that is now derailing a train per year on average.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
87. Re:Therewhile ... by indeterminator · 2012-12-27 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  If a rail system is 10 miles from your home, and 20 miles from your destination, what good is it exactly?
  Alternative point of view: If the nearest airport is 10 miles from your home, and 20 miles from your destination, what good is it exactly? My understanding is, that even in the US every suburb doesn't have it's own international airport. Somehow people still manage to locate one and get there.
88. Re:Therewhile ... by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-27 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  So in order to compare "Apples to Apples" we are to completely ignore one of the biggest advantages to air travel? If I want to go from LA to Boston, I don't want to stop at San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Denver, Omaha, Des Moines, Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philidelphia, New York, Hartford, and finally Boston. If I wanted to do that, I'd drive on the Interstate.
  I want to stop at Boston, or maybe one hub between like Minneapolis or Chicago (depending on the airline) so I can get a sandwich. And I don't want it to cost more in order to get there in 5 days rather than 6 hours, which Amtrak does.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
89. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-27 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Friendly armed guards. I once had a nice fellow toting a machine gun tell me I was in a non-smoking area. He did not even make me put it out, just asked that I walk to the nearest smoking area.
90. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · 2012-12-27 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  there hasn't been a "new" refinery, but the existing ones are constantly expanding capacity.
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
91. Re:Therewhile ... by dywolf · 2012-12-27 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  and unlike most of the rest of the world, our tracks are also privately owned and used primarily for shipping not passenger service.
  Comparison to the rest of the world doesnt automatically mean something is wrong. Someday people will understand that.
  Different societies. Different economies. Differences...so stop trying to make everyone the same.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
92. Re:Therewhile ... by dywolf · 2012-12-27 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  oh the military wants them. what they dont want is the programs getting bogged down and bloated with extra requirements from civilians that have nothing to do with the original mission for the system.
  "make the engines in my state"
  "you also need to accomplish unrelated mission X over here, increasing complexity and cost 100x"
  "what about this program, dont they conflict? i demand a feasibility study that proves my program is better than yours, and/or we need to merge them together"
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
93. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  In some cases, such as for the Earned Income Credit, the tax credit is refundable. So if you owe less in taxes before the credit than the amout of the credit, the government does in fact give you money.
94. Re:Therewhile ... by dywolf · 2012-12-27 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  the biggest problem with rail in our country is it was largely made to connect the far reaches of the country and once that occured almost no further expansion took place. A few of our cities got subways and Els, but by and large we didnt build the cities with rail transit in mind. the good economic times and ease of getting cars meant people flocked to them isntead. the suburban sprawl happened. and keeps happening. we have the room to grow and for most people thats more simply addressed with a car than a metro line. so no track gets laid.
  ya ya. lobby this and lobby that some people say. that's really not the source though. its simply that laying new track is expensive, and it only gets more so over time, especially in cities were real estate goes at a premium.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
95. Re:Therewhile ... by dywolf · 2012-12-27 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  plus you see more of the splendor of the countryside. i love taking the train through the mountains or the southwest desert
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
96. Re:Therewhile ... by Eunuchswear · 2012-12-27 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Its cost prohibitive to build new railbeds today, due to the cost of land
  It's funny how America is sparsely populated and large compared to overcrowded, tiny, Europe - until it comes time to build a railway line.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
97. Re:Therewhile ... by dywolf · 2012-12-27 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Its cost pure and simple. It would cost a lot to do, take years for return on investment, and no one wants to do it (ie pay for it) in addition to all the other stuff we pay for transportation too. for historical perspective, no one wanted to do the interstates either. the same argumetns happened then as now. difference is, they managed to ram it thru during an economic boom, and it eventually did prove valuable to the economy.
  trouble is the typical one: getting people to look past the high short term cost, long term residual costs to see the long term ROI, an ROI that isnt directly visible in terms of money returned to the coffers...ie, gov spends the money on it, but never sees money come back directly from it, but rather indirectly.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
98. Re:Therewhile ... by Eunuchswear · 2012-12-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Then a terrorist couldn't take out thousands of people with one bomb
  When has a terrorist ever taken out thousands of people with one bomb on a train?
  The Madrid bombings were on commuter lines, not high speed lines, and took 10 bombs to kill 191 people.
  In 1983 a bomb on a French TGV killed two people, not the thousands you imagine.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
99. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  oops, I meant RMB 865, which is 1.4%
100. Re:Therewhile ... by painandgreed · 2012-12-27 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's 2/3rds the distance of what we're talking about. Let's try Amsterdam to Barcelona.
101. Re:Therewhile ... by AndyKron · 2012-12-27 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  But we have cars. Lots and lots of cars...
102. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-27 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I am assuming that's not counting the 0% tax rate on aircraft fuel, and large amounts of tax breaks for the aircraft builders ?
  Do you have a reference for the 0% tax rate on aircraft fuel? I find that it is 0.043 per gallon for commercial aviation. And that is in addition to the listed 7.5% ad valorem tax on your ticket cost, all all the other fees and taxes. Far from being 0%, it's quite high. Anyone who's flown recently would know that fact.
  My most recent flight, from Shanghai back to Los Angeles, had a $717 base ticket fare, with $199.90 in taxes added, for a total of $916.90. The 777 I flew on consumes about 0.02 gallons per passenger mile. That means my 6485 mile flight used ~130 gallons for me - with the additional fuel tax being $5.72. Total Federal taxes for my flight would be $205.62. A far cry from zero.
  The Federal DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics says the subsidies are an order of magnitude or higher for passenger rail over passenger air. And the FAA certainly charges fuel taxes as well as additional ad valorem taxes that are not charged for rail (7.5% base on the ticket). Quite a different picture than you paint!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
103. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  And, for the record, I've never seen a TSA agent on an Amtrak train or at an Amtrak station. Not saying they don't show up, more as a muscle flexing exercise and trial balloon, but is is extremely unusual. Pretty hard to hijack a train and take down a sky scraper with it.
  That is an interesting situation. The TSA outright took over the Amtrak station in Savannah, GA. Unlike airports, Amtrak has Police, not merely security people, but outright law-enforcement officials. They were seriously talking about arresting any TSA agents who showed up at train stations in the future. Alas, I believe the TSA managed to calm down the Amtrak Police, so to my knowledge no TSA agents were arrested.
104. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · 2012-12-27 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  bull crap.
  Amtrak trains consistently go above 100 mph. Its because of certain laws in some states that limit your top speed to something as low as 70-80. In the NE corridor, which I ride a lot, the train tops out at ~120 mph in all the states on the route except Connecticut due to state laws and probably because they are too cheap/lazy to convert their railroad crossings to something more safe.
  Wrong.
  There is only one route that exceeds 100mph, and your with your limited experience you happen to ride that single route and assume it applies nationwide.
  From the Amtrak Facts page you learn:
  Amtrak carried more than three times as many riders between Washington and New York City as the airline industry.
  Amtrak carried more riders between New York and Boston than all of the airlines combined.
  The Boston-New York-Washington portion of the Northeast Corridor carried 10,899,889 passengers in FY 2011 on Acela Express, Northeast Regional Service or other trains.
  This route accounts for more than half of all Amtrak operated Trains, and the Only track that Amtrak itself owns.
  38 trains every weekday head north form Washington DC and a similar number head south from northern seaboard cities.
  Turns out that section of track (Boston New York, Washington DC) is the ONLY segment of track on which exceeds 100mph.
  Turns out this is the only portion of the railway that operates predominantly as an inter-urban railway other than a few trains in LA.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
105. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  This is because we're living in an age of "Atlas Shrugged."
  Or Stalinism.
  Or both...both.
106. Re:Therewhile ... by jbburks · 2012-12-27 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Also adding to the cost of rail: Air travel: FAA: government agency dispatching planes Airports: built by government agencies using tax-exempt bonds Planes: development subsidized by military designs Subsidies: many small airports have a government subsidy equal to or greater than the ticket price Roads: Built by government agencies using tax free bonds paid for by tax on gasoline. Rail travel: Dispatching and traffic control: paid by railroad Right-of-way: originally given for free to build the transcontinental railway; now paid for by railroads Track maintenance: paid for by railroad Roadbed: taxed as an asset Is there any doubt that auto, truck and plane are winning and rail is losing as a transport mechanism, despite using the least fuel and Co2 emission (other than barges)?
107. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-27 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm... Looking at the list, for Europe it's Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland) and Estonia who have lower population densities than the US. Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria all have 3X or more the population density of the US. Yes, we have a few crowded areas (LA basin, BOS-DC corridor, SF area), but those have trains and light rail already working. Between cities, it's REALLY far compared to Europe. When I lived in Brussels, it wasn't a big deal to go to Paris or Cologne (200-300 km). To go from one "big city" in the NW (Portland, OR) to the nearest in CA (San Francisco) is over 1000 km. We're really spread out.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
108. Re:Therewhile ... by dunkelfalke · 2012-12-28 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Estonia is a bad example. Most train tracks that were serviced in the soviet times are closed now. A sad picture, really.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
109. Re:Therewhile ... by xaxa · 2012-12-28 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics
  17.1% by rail and 6.5% by water in the EU.
  https://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw412.html
  US: 36% rail, 20% water.
  It's probably as much down to the population / economic distributions of the two continents. I'd bet the total tonne-km is less in the EU. (Consider rearranging the US so all the "poor" states are in the east, and the richer ones in the west, but one of the richest on an island.)
110. Re:Therewhile ... by xaxa · 2012-12-28 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  One positive, though, no TSA pat downs in China.
  There is still security at Chinese high speed railway stations, but they pretty much ignore white people.
  I've taken HSTs about 6 times in China, and every train was at least 80% full. These lines link up many cities, I don't know how many people would travel the whole distance A-B-C-D-E-F-G, but there will be lots of trips from B-D, C-F, etc. That's harder to serve efficiently with aircraft.
111. Re:Therewhile ... by Charliemopps · 2012-12-28 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  The only train I've been on that's had food was a steam engine and it was trying to be all retro.
  Most of the trains I've taken went from somewhere in the middle of Wisconsin to Chicago. Usually a 2 to 5 hour trip depending on where I was coming from. So I dunno if that was a commuter or not. I imagine the trains out east are a tad better... but the ones here suck. Again, I have limited experience. Probably less than 10 trips total.
  Oh wait, on one trip, one of the passangers brought on 2 cases of Miller Highlife and was passing them out. Then the ticket guy came in the car and I though "Uh oh" until he said "Oh hey frank!" and grabbed a beer. Must be a fun job.
112. Re:Therewhile ... by jonadab · 2012-12-28 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Speed doesn't matter very much for most of the stuff we use railroads for in the US. Well, to be more specific, *latency* doesn't matter as long as the *throughput* is high. This is perfectly acceptable for shipping enormous quantities of the same thing from the same source to the same destination, like coal from a coal mine to a power station, iron from an iron mine to a steel mill, etc. Who cares if a given load is on the track for a day and a half just to get from western Pennsylvania to central Ohio? Pile it up out back, right next to the previous load, and our updated inventory schedule now indicates that we have enough to last through the end of next week, which is fine because there's another whole trainload due the day after tomorrow. If we start running low we'll tell the company to add a few more cars to each train. It doesn't matter how long it takes them to get here, as long as they bring a big enough load. That's what trains are *for*.
  
  When latency is the critical issue (the specific load leaving now needs to arrive in as few hours as possible), trains are never going to effectively compete with trucks for short-to-medium distances or planes for long distances. If you're shipping fresh fruit up from Orlando to Indianapolis, you load it on a refrigerated truck and hop on the interstate, and fifteen hours later it's unloaded and sitting out on the produce shelf and people are buying it.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
113. Re:Therewhile ... by jonadab · 2012-12-28 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  > British Rail Time ... The only timezone in the world defined in pseudocode.
  
  Actually, we have something kind of similar in the town where I live, which I like to call Galion Standard Time, defined as "no two clocks can ever quite match each other".
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
114. Re:Therewhile ... by jonadab · 2012-12-28 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  > People should ride Amtrak. Its an enjoyable way to travel.
  
  I wouldn't know. I live in Ohio. If Amtrak even has a presence in my state, I am not aware of it.
  
  We have a "railroad depot" in my town. I put the term in quotation marks because the building was historically used as such at one time, but that was in, like, the nineteenth century or some jazz, well before my time in any case, so at this point people call it the "railroad depot" purely because that's what the building in question has always been called. In the 1990s it was remodeled, at some significant cost I gather, and an attempt was made to use it as a sort of miniature mall, with various little specialty shops inside selling, I don't know, arts and crafts and novelties and sundry. That worked out about as well as you might guess (people were sufficiently excited about it to go visit the thing approximately once each, except for the majority of people, who weren't sufficiently excited to bother), so currently the building is sitting empty. It probably won't be torn down, because it's now owned by the city. Since it's arguably the most historically significant building in town but does not appear to have any objectively measurable commercial value beyond its raw materials and the land it sits on, this is probably a good thing.
  
  The thing is, even if Amtrak had a station in every city, and even if their trains were given priority over freight trains (so that the freight trains had to stop to let the passenger trains past, rather than vice versa), I have difficulty imagining that a passenger rail service could gain any real traction in this part of the country. The logistics and economics just don't work out. People don't want to arrive at a station and then have to walk halfway across town to their actual destination. People don't go from Galion to Mansfield to see the Mansfield train station (if there even still is a train station there). People go to Mansfield to go to Wal-Mart or Meijer or Target or the Bookery or the mall or Hobby Lobby or Lowe's or Sam's Club or one of a thousand other places, so even if you could build the train station in the ideal most perfect place, it would in practice be able to accommodate only a rather small percentage of the traffic.
  
  Optimistically, if you located the Mansfield station right beside either Wal-Mart or Meijer, it could accommodate perhaps 15% of the traffic from Galion to Mansfield, *if* you could convince people to park their car at the Galion station and ride the train over there; the cost of a round-trip ticket would have to be *significantly* lower than the cost of enough gas to drive over and back, *and* people would have to be able to easily load their shopping bags and groceries and whatnot onto the train for the trip back and return their shopping cart right there on the train loading platform, or it would never fly. The thing is, Mansfield is one of the *easiest* scenarios, because although there are a lot of stores, nonetheless almost everyone goes to Mansfield for essentially the same basic purpose. Trying to figure out where to put the train station in most cities would be much harder. Furthermore, for every *one* destination station, like Mansfield, you'd need somewhere between twenty and fifty small-town "park your car and hop on the train here" stations, none of which would be significant as destinations, but you still have to pay overhead to maintain them.
  
  We used to have passenger rail here. There were multiple competing railroads. They all went out of business. The reasons for this aren't just cultural. The distribution of both population and also commerce in this part of the world is just fundamentally horribly wrong for passenger railroads. Everything is spread too evenly over too much geographical area.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
115. Re:Therewhile ... by jonadab · 2012-12-28 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  > From Rome to Berlin... Maybe you should open
  > a map of Europe and see what's in between
  > these two cities : Huge mountains
  
  So?
  
  We didn't let mountains stop us from building the interstate system in the US. Fifty feet to the left or right of the road, there may be a seventy-degree incline. One minute you look out past the guard rail and see a deep valley with what looks like tiny little houses at the bottom. Two minutes later there's an enormous wall of rock over there (or in extreme cases you go through a tunnel). Nonetheless, you just keep right on doing 65mph in the slow lane, never facing much more than a five-degree slope.
  
  Now, the interstates are an automobile highway system, but there's no fundamental reason the same thing couldn't be done for a railroad track.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
116. Re:Therewhile ... by Smallpond · 2012-12-28 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think there's something like 5 current HSR projects and the bulk of the money is going to Amtrak for cars and locomotives .The railroads only get track and signaling improvements where the passenger service will run.
117. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Good points all, but a little more depth is needed. Here are the facts:
  1) the US uses its rail primarily for freight. The freight companies, as noted above, own and maintain the tracks. They "rent" them out to the commuter/public/traveler systems for a relatively small amount based on how much work has to be done to the tracks annually. For this reason the freight companies get precedence on any given section of track and the tracks are built to carry weight, not to reach high speeds.
  2) China moves very little freight by rail, the rail system exists as a primary people and armed forces mover. They built the tracks for speed, not for weight. Also, the Chinese tracks are being built by modern engineers, not 19th century engineers who were adding in 150% safety/redundancy/load ability on every system: bridges,rails and beds, cars and locomotives. I rode on the high-speed rail from Shanghai to Beijing in 2011. It took as long to get to Beijing (6hrs to go a long and difficult way) as it took to go from Ningbo to Suzhou on a regular train (about 6 hours to go 200 miles: the bus I returned on took 2 1/2 hrs to make the same trip). So, one last thing, while the Chinese have high-speed trains, most working class don't ride them, many middle class don't ride them and no students who live in their mother's basement ride them.
  3) In a fair comparison, Europe has a primarily human based carry plan. I was in Holland last year and my host showed me a train that was carrying freight, because that was something very new. Europe has some relatively high speed trains, the one from Paris to Brussels comes to mind, maybe there is one from the rainy island to the mainland as well, I'm not sure. But I don't get the sense that the Europeans will get their knickers in a twist if the Chinese are going faster in their trains than they, their trains are fast enough. Especially in Holland and the other little countries, the time in the train is mostly stopping in a station, not speeding on the rails.
  So, without talking about what a rail disaster will be like in China at 300kph, I find their train speeds to be something that should be relatively meaningless to the rest of the world. We have our own ways to do things, based on a history that is nothing like China's. So comparison/contrast is a waste of time.
118. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · 2012-12-28 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well said.
  Except this bit:
  
  So comparison/contrast is a waste of time.
  Here on Slashdot, any excuse to point out anything, anywhere, which is better than what is available in the US is relished. Its the only reason EU people visit Slashdot at all.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
119. Re:Therewhile ... by webmistressrachel · 2012-12-30 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like bad pseudocode - where does the seed time for each clock come from before being compared to other clocks to ensure they don't match? If you were using C, it would take some random bytes from unitialised memory and give you random numbers, in BASIC it might use 0, etc.
  Also, "I like to call" isn't an established timezone, it's personal, whereas British Rail Time actually was a "meme" type-thing among staffers at British Rail all over the UK long before the Internets was a popular place.
  Just sayin'. It's still the only timezone defined by pseudocode. I win 1 free trip on BR / Railtrack / Network Rail to a destination of their choice, at a time of their choosing...
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
120. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-30 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Show us the code in C or are ya just another bullshit artist? Yer a known troll here on slashdot anyway.
121. Re:Therewhile ... by WhiteDragon · 2013-01-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Water transportation is about 10-30% of the cost of rail or truck, so there's just no impetus to build high speed rail.
  So at the end of the day, when planes are faster for passenger movement, water transportation is already available and vastly cheaper for goods movement, why on earth would anyone in the US build high speed rail? What's the advantage?
  However, water transportation is vulnerable to droughts, as witnessed by the current problems with barge traffic on the Mississippi River.
  
  --
  Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Frist! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:46 · Score: -1

Posting first from China.
1. Re:Frist! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:50 · Score: -1
  
  But...you didn't.
2. Re:Frist! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:59 · Score: -1
  
  You should realise that even if you are Frist, your comment will be resorted out of the way sooner or later, feeling like a -2. But then again, you must be new here :)
3. Re:Frist! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:02 · Score: -1
  
  Chinese quality post.
Give it 12months... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:49 · Score: -1, Troll

I expect within that time frame to see at least one catastrophic crash by this new rail system.
1. Re:Give it 12months... by webmistressrachel · 2012-12-26 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Is that just simple Luddite-speak or are you trying to imply that the Chinese build unsafe systems? Funny, you rely on quite a lot of them, wherever you are...
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
2. Re:Give it 12months... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  Afterall, they probably copied US engineering designs.
3. Re:Give it 12months... by godrik · 2012-12-26 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I do not think the Chinese built it. I believe they contracted european train builders.
4. Re:Give it 12months... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  For the initial units, yes. The railway and cars were then duplicated, including the processes and tools needed. At least that's what they did on the Shanghai-Nanjing leg (which I've ridden way too many times).
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
5. Re:Give it 12months... by alexander_686 · 2012-12-26 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  That they build unsafe systems.
  You are going to have hiccups with any new system – that’s a given. Combine that with tight deadlines & budgets imposed from above, the regulators and safety inspectors are not independent from the organization running the train, the mandatory use of state contractors, and graft from below – well serious accidents will occur.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision#Investigation
6. Re:Give it 12months... by Balthisar · 2012-12-26 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I travel this route quite frequently myself. And I love it. I still require the use of my car to get to the train station on my end, but the subway infrastructure in Shanghai means that you don't really ever need a taxi unless you're tired, injured, in a hurry, or don't want to get rained upon. (Nanjing's subway system still has a lot to be desired; it's being built, but not yet built in my area).
  Yet every time I pay my 220 RMB for a first class ticket, I know I'm stealing from the Chinese because it's so heavily subsidized. This is spurring competition from the airlines, though, so perhaps that's a good thing. It now costs essentially the same to fly to Shanghai or Beijing as to take a first class seat in a high speed train. When you factor in the time to get to the airport, the waiting time, the Chinese queuing system for boarding, waiting for bags, and so on, there's no argument that the train is faster and more convenient than an airline (for home leave and outside-of-China business trips, we often simply go to Shanghai on train as a first step). One could argue that it's probably just as fast to take the train to Beijing as it is to fly, factoring in all of the hassles flying.
  But again I'll say, every time I pay my 220 RMB for a first class ticket, I know I'm stealing from the Chinese because it's so heavily subsidized. Despite my affinity for the Chinese trains, I can't possibly see a way to build a system in the USA -- let alone Michigan -- unless we stop other spending and subsidize it like the Chinese. And not care about environmental impacts, like the Chinese.
  There's a lot of romance about trains, but no practical solution for the USA -- emphasis on "practical."
  
  --
  --Jim (me)
7. Re:Give it 12months... by NicBenjamin · 2012-12-26 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  You know if the Democrats had actually showed up to vote in the 2010 elections we'd have hi-speed rail. For one thing those elections directly killed off the plans for WI, OH, and FL.
  For another, the GOP took full control of multiple state governments. They took advantage of the once-a-decade Congressional re-districting to lock in GOP majorities in several states. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin voted pretty strongly for Democrats in the US House in 2012, but both delegations are heavily Republican. Instead of getting 20-25 seats out of those states the Dems got 12, and the GOP was also able to dominate Ohio 12-4 despite only getting 51% of the popular vote. If those states had fair district boundaries the Dems win the House back.
  And in that case the Fiscal Cliff solution includes a hefty dose of Keynesian stimulus, probably focused on spending lots of money fairly quickly in ways that mitigate carbon pollution and give lefties warm fuzzies, and that means the various Hi-Speed rail programs that 2010 not only never died, they get re-inforced by fresh money in 2012.
  Lots of things in the US are like that. Conservatives win by default because they have so many veto points to derail change, and they never sit out an election because they're pissed off about the 'tone' in DC.
Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:53 · Score: -1

We can't even be bothered to build one without some hysterical group having a fit over it.
1. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Smallpond · 2012-12-26 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  China just connects cities with theirs. We connect cornfields with ours.
2. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-26 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  When you can build a HSR train, not have it subsidized (heavily) by tax payers, have it affordable and convenient (fast) for people to use, THEN and only then will I accept it as an option. Problem is, you can't, as HSR fails on all these accounts. In California, we passed HSR and the costs have already tripled what they proponents claimed it would cost, AND it hasn't even started. The estimated ticket prices are such that is is still cheaper to fly (air rail system). Nobody that is proposing HSR is based on anything in reality, only romantic feelings about trains.
  If you remove all the emotionalism from those proposing HSR, you are left holding a big, expensive, "me too" toy that. It boarders upon religious fanaticism.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
3. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  So should we get rid of the interstates as well?
  What about airports? Should they all be closed for the same reason?
  I propose HSR not for any romantic notions, but because I have ridden it in Europe. I have been on the damn things and seen how well they work.
  How about you name a method of travel that meets those goals so we can compare it to HSR.
4. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-26 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Tired of the corporate sycophants on Slashdot.
  I know that it is sacrilege in the U.S. to say so, but some things are worth doing even if you can't make a profit on them.
5. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Brett+Buck · 2012-12-26 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  The interstate highway system is a brilliant economic success. Passenger trains haven't be financially viable for 100+ years.
6. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  At what cost? Is it worth spending hundreds of billions to build it, tens to hundreds of millions to maintain, just so you can purchase a $400 ticket? Subsidize the ticket price? Ok, so now we raise the taxes to subsidize something that very few people will ride. It may be worth it to you, but considering the other endeavors we could put that money into, it isnt worth it one bit.
7. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by tukang · 2012-12-26 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  When you can build a HSR train, not have it subsidized (heavily) by tax payers, have it affordable and convenient (fast) for people to use, THEN and only then will I accept it as an option.
  
  If it's not subsidized by tax payers, it's none of your business, so making additional demands on top of that is silly.
8. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by BasilBrush · 2012-12-26 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids. Why exactly Americans think of this as "a brilliant economic success" and state funded medicine as "socialist" the FSM only knows.
  Well actually we do know. Because that's how lobbyists chose to frame them.
9. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by BasilBrush · 2012-12-26 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Heck they understand that the roads were worth making even though there wasn't a profit on them.
  Their thoughts are formed by what lobbyists tell them to think.
10. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you talking about?
  They are a giant sinkhole of money. The only way they are a success is if you are in the oil, auto or road building business.
11. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by frosty_tsm · 2012-12-26 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids. Why exactly Americans think of this as "a brilliant economic success" and state funded medicine as "socialist" the FSM only knows.
  Well actually we do know. Because that's how lobbyists chose to frame them.
  I bet some of the same people going out and making a stink about the evils of the health care reform bill or teachers unions still call up to complain when there is a pothole on their street.
  Everything is wasteful, unless it's for you.
12. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by icebike · 2012-12-26 09:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The GP insists, first and foremost, that it not be subsidized by Government money (tax payers).
  That immediately sets an impossibly high barrier. One that can't be met by any transportation system, water system, sewer system, or communication system.
  Ignorance of the proper place for government expenditures is an unfortunate trait of ultra-conservative types. When any government involvement with societal life other than national defense is arbitrarily off the table, you have an impossible situation and a recipe for an agrarian society.
  Roads, and railroads, necessarily require government money and government powers. If one stubborn farmer can stand in the way of a road or railroad (as would be the case in a purely private development) it would be legally impossible to build anything, not just cost prohibitive.
  I suspect the GP never thinks about that while driving to work on that government road, or flushing his toilet to that government sewer while surfing the web on that government bandwidth.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
13. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:03 · Score: -1
  
  No, because state funded medicine means I have to pay for someone else's bad lifestyle choices, such as not exercising and eating crap. I exercise 2-3 hours/day, cook my own food all healthy and organic stuff, yet under socialized medicine I pay the same rate for healthcare as some idiot watching TV eating bon bons and Big Macs, and I'd have to wait in line for something I might need, rather than tailor my health insurance to my own lifestyle and needs. They're entitled to live the way they want, but I shoudln't have to pay for the cost for their unhealthy fat ass.
  Your comment about the system costing $425 billion makes no sense, because there is in turn a huge economic benefit and therefore the comment is valid when related to something else. The roads have allowed us to get to wherever we need to go, and directly contributes to the distribution of the vast wealth of manufacturing, services, and natural resources of this nation. It allows me to live in a Southern California desert and eat food from the midwest and wear clothes from Asia and fill my car with fuel from Alaska to visit my relatives 400 miles away. So there is direct economic benefit to me. Comparing that to state funded medicine is a false and misleading analogy.
14. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Railways in the european country I live in suck:
  -it is expensive
  -it is rather slow due to many stops
  -cities are to wide spread and commerce areas are mostly at the edges
  Sure if you want to go from station to station it has its merits:
  -easy travel to city centers
  -not having to park a car
  But you can't take stuff with you and if your destination is not within a few hundred meters you'll lose lots of time and/or money finding other transport.
  If you want to emulate some foreign place, take Japan. Traveling in a green car by shinkansen it the way to go. It is expensive though.
15. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  It allows you pigs in Southern California to own 4 cars and drive 70 miles to work each way wasting huge amounts of fuel, and still only pay the same taxes as me who gets jobs where I can telecommute. I worked in LA for 6 months and saw miles and miles of traffic jams every day going into the city -- one person per car. The HOV lanes were sitting empty.
16. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  So I have to pay taxes to fund that shit, even though my commute is under 5 miles?
  Sounds like you are the fatty eating bonbons here.
17. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Do you know how many trillions of dollars of GDP the interstate system contributes to, compared to the billions of dollars required to maintain them? That's why they are counted as an unvarnished economic success - because real economists figured out their value, as opposed to the idiot armchair economists that post to Slashdot.
18. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Corporations didnt build the roads. Government did, government doesnt care about profit. Either way, there is a demand for more roads. Traffic engineers are hired to design more roads to ease congestion. I am all for high speed rail, mass transit etc.. but there is a cost factor that must be balanced, else the transit system becomes a drain on the very people it is designed to help.
  I think the good intentions people have, have not been thought through entirely, else they would understand how (in this country) mass transit/ high speed rail can not exist without being a heavy burden on the people. What kind of ridership are you expecting? What would ticket prices be? How many trains will be operating? What would the schedule look like? How much does maintenance cost annually? How many people will be employed? What are their salaries? Pensions? How much downtime do you expect on average? Etc...These are questions BUSINESS people and ENGINEERS should be answering, not a bureaucrat with an agenda.
19. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  The interstate highway system is a brilliant economic success. Passenger trains haven't be financially viable for 100+ years.
  
  Neither has the airline industry. Americans should learn a bit of their own history.
  Air travel in the US has always been a losing economic proposition, and the reason for rail faling is that the the US government after WW2 decided to massively subsidize the commercial airlines.
  Talk about corporate socialism. No better example than the airline industry.
  Without massive grants, the private commerical US airline industry wouldn't exist, and rail would have thrived as it did up until the early 1950s.
20. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by TheLink · 2012-12-26 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know successful shopping malls and office buildings don't run their elevator and escalator systems as profit centres (same goes for their toilets).
  
  For similar reasons I think public transport (and many similar) systems shouldn't be run as profit centres. There should be safety, quality, availability and reliability standards, and good regulation. Cost should also be considered but mainly to see if someone is screwing up badly, or corrupt. Anyone not too stupid can figure out how much such things should roughly cost after a while. So why bother having some private corp skim off the profit? I can understand Californians not wanting to help pay for stuff in New York and vice versa (because they'd hardly use it) if they don't consider themselves part of the same country.
  
  You don't go building roads and rail to nowhere all the time, BUT sometimes it makes sense to have a particular nowhere become a new somewhere. You don't want the decision to be based mainly on the opinions of bean counters that only count the profitability of that small section of the road/rail. You'd want it based on a proper independent economic study (or three) of the entire thing.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
21. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: The cost of NOT providing health care to even the "lazy" and "crap eating" people is far FAR more than it would be to simply give it to them for free to begin with. If it was free there would be no barrier to going and getting many of the conditions that result or reinforce their apathy taken care of. Instead we treat health like a commodity as though people had a realistic choice of "gee, heart surgeries are expensive this year, maybe I'll wait for the new model next year".
  And the road system has massive hidden costs on top of the huge amount invested in it directly. Part of that cost is the reinforcement of the mentality you're crying about in the first paragraph. Other costs include the utter pillaging of our environment and resources (oil, arable land, minerals), mental health deterioration from the fucking awful way we treat people when we can't see them as people (just asshole drivers!) and insulate ourselves from each other in our single occupant garage to garage isolation zones. Additionally, you act like having a strong, open and properly regulated rail infrastructure would not also be a huge economic benefit, if not bigger. When you actually build it right and don't let private interests dictate silly terms on usage, rail is a vastly more efficient use of resources for both cargo and people transportation, and also much, much faster than driving, never mind safer.
  You're right, comparing the road systems to state funded medicine is false and misleading, state funded medicine would be a massively better use of money.
  Have you considered that living in the So. Cal. desert is both a useless and completely unsustainable waste? Why should be subsidize your grossly inefficient way of life? You can't say we have to and not also accept the same for others. (FYI, it'd be faster and cheaper if it was done by train)
22. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  How does the food you eat get to the grocery store? How does the people who work at the restaurants you go to get back and forth to work? How do the clothes you wear get from the port where they arrive from Asia to the store where you buy it? How does your mail get delivered? How do the building materials in the house or apartment you live in get to the site where you live? How do you get to the hospital when you're sick? How is the medicine you consume at the hospital delivered?
  Unless you built your own house with the materials at hand, grow everything you eat, and make all your own clothes from stuff you grow on your own land, you are benefitting from the highway system. To think otherwise is ignorant and stupid.
  I have no problem with basic medical care coverage for everyone that everyone needs to get. I have no problem covering medical problems that are developmental problems that could not be avoided, such as kids who develop leukemia, or some such. I have a significant ethical problem with paying for medical expenses for things that are a direct result of someone else's poor lifestyle choices. If I go out and exercise via rock climbing, and fall and break my leg, I pay the cost for that; that's my lifestyle choice and you shouldn't have to pay for that. And, btw, I do, because I have a high deductible insurance which fully covers all preventative care combined with an HSA and i pay for all my own expenses beyond preventative.
23. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-26 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  It is a success, because it works, and tons of goods and millions of people use it everyday. HSR, will be not be, because it is simply too limited. I can take my car to from Sacramento to LA in about 6 hours, at a cost of (Gas Guzzler) less than $150 in petrol, taking my family (four additional people) as a bonus. HSR will make the trip in 4 hours (not that much faster) and at more than $250 per person, AND still lose money. AND once I get there, I would still need to rent a car. And further trips, I would simply just take a plane.
  I can rent a car for a week for that, drive and come back for less money. The only benefit of HSR in this situation is that I can get up and walk around or sleep instead of driving, and with Google Cars on the way, I can even do most of those things. HSR is romantic notion for idiots. IT never pans out like the proponents claim.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
24. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  If it was up to me rail would be doing 90% of that.
  I have no problem paying for lifestyle problems, just like the rock climbing example I would gladly pay for that to make sure everyone can get healthcare.
  The day you find yourself unemployed and the HSA spent you might change your mind. Probably not, I have an uncle like that, he talked the same talk and now gladly accepts medicare but still talks bad about the 47%. He never gets that he is part of it.
25. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-26 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, and with the number of people that are planned on using the HSR, the "unless it is for you" is miniscule. You won't see Millions of people opting for the HSR instead of driving I5. So, HSR is just a romantic notion ... still.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
26. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-26 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, there are plenty of businesses that have closed because of the regulations that require elevators. You won't actually see that though, because they simply disappear rather than spend millions retrofitting old buildings.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
27. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Meyaht · 2012-12-26 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Zeppelins!
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
28. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to rail?
  Are you entirely insane or just a little?
29. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  When you can build a HSR train, not have it subsidized (heavily) by tax payers, have it affordable and convenient (fast) for people to use, THEN and only then will I accept it as an option.
  I'll accept your challenge when you take away the subsidies provided to the competition of HSR. Or do you think those highways are built for free? That the US military operations in the Middle East to keep Spice flowing are free?
  Sorry dude, but your playing field has to be leveled, not just fighting your pet peeve while ignoring the rest of the story.
  
  Problem is, you can't, as HSR fails on all these accounts. In California, we passed HSR and the costs have already tripled what they proponents claimed it would cost, AND it hasn't even started. The estimated ticket prices are such that is is still cheaper to fly (air rail system). Nobody that is proposing HSR is based on anything in reality, only romantic feelings about trains.
  If you remove all the emotionalism from those proposing HSR, you are left holding a big, expensive, "me too" toy that. It boarders upon religious fanaticism.
  Actually, the religious fanatics are the zealots who dogmatically hate rail, and can't be bothered to see the benefits exceed the costs, or even see the costs of the current highway system, or even recognize their devotion to having a fast car is skewing their own perceptions.
  Have you never noticed cost-overruns on Highway projects or airport construction? And no, the HSR hasn't actually tripled, unless you go by the accounting of the opposition to it. Which is hardly to be trusted, since they have an agenda to fudge the numbers. For example, they don't even consider the alternative spending for highways, do they?
  Tell us how much that will cost without HSR.
30. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-12-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Since we're talking about California: the HSR project is absolutely retarded, and a case-study in how not to create an HSR:
  - due to political issues, the rail line stops in the towns of Bumfuck and Nowhere, also known as Gilroy and Bakersfield. That adds cost and time to delivering it.
  - due to cost issues, a lot of the HSR tracks are actually shared with various existing rail authorities (Caltrain, for example), and therefore the trains will not hit the high speeds necessary to qualify as HSR in many locations.
  The HSR we're getting is HSR in name only, is stuffed to the gills with pork to appease local politicians, and faces a ton of NIMBY opposition (or OIMBY even). The proper way to create an HSR line on the Pacific: have a dedicated rail-line built from Portland to San Diego. Have it stop in San Jose, Los Angeles and maybe Sacramento and a few towns cities in Washington and Oregon. Subsidize the rail building and rail maintenance with state funds, and have the trains operated by private train operators. Start with the California tracks, then expand once the lines are running.
  Instead, we get an initial rail line that goes nowhere interesting and isn't high-speed. The problem here is political will, not technical aspects of HSR. If you'd remove the emotionalism from all the HSR projects, you'd get working HSR. The problem is that that is impossible, and we get an emotional mess.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
31. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by TheLink · 2012-12-26 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Is the USA that bankrupt that it'll close down because it built "elevators"? So far they had no huge problems printing trillions of US dollars and mostly getting away with it.
  
  Maybe the USA would close down if it tried to build space elevators ;).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
32. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  The highway system. It is actually a net tax revenue generator (per the DOT's own numbers), while passenger rail is highly subsidized. And it was certainly faster for me to drive from Seattle to Santa Barbara, than it was to take the train (20 hours versus 33). Not to mention cheaper ($217 spent on fuel and a night in Redding, CA versus $408 for the train and a shared sleeper). Not to mention I was able to pack all my belongings in the back of my Ford Ranger at the same time - AMTRAK wouldn't let me do that.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
33. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids.
  How much would the proposed HSR system cost? Would it operate at a surplus like the highway system does?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
34. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Smallpond · 2012-12-26 10:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Acela cost ~$2B and generates $500M/year in revenue. Its been running since 1999 and is successful because it has downtown terminals in Boston, New York and Washington. Also because it runs on existing right-of-way with some track upgrades. Business class New York to Boston is $107 and takes 4 hours which is about the same time as air travel + 2 airport shuttles + groping. So if you choose the right location, it works. However, nothing I've seen about the California plan suggests they are choosing the right location.
35. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Rockoon · 2012-12-26 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to rail?
  As opposed to passenger rail.
  
  You see, even in spite of passenger rail leveraging the existing infrastructure of freight rail, it still requires further subsidies just to exist at all.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
36. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  But he paid into medicare, why shouldnt he be able to enjoy the fruit of his lifes work? Accepting medicare isnt being a mooch.
37. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  The CA HSR has had so many estimates and projections in the past 7 years or so, it is mind numbing. Early on they were selling us on the idea it would never cost more than $30B. Then the costs kept going up, recently the cost jumped to $69B before the HSR commission realized that would kill the ballot proposal for a bond issue to obtain the $3B federal matching funds, so they somehow "reworked" the number down to $40B but the timeframe for the project spiked from 20 years to 30 years. Then there have been some independent studies that have been placing a more realistic cost at over $90B and also indicated that this enormous figure was only for construction of the track and trains, nothing was ever in the budget for operating expenses that would inevitably never be covered by the $250 fare between LA to SF. The ridership assumptions are absurd, given that in order for it to work, millions of automobile and airline travellers would have to immediately shift to using HSR, the studies showed that ridership adoption would be a slow process taking years. The icing on the cake is that the system would not really connect any cities at first; the first line would be a short section from approximately Bakersfield north to Merced, smack in the middle of farmland where those millions of riders will surely love to drive in to take a 30 minute trip to another station, both of which would still be at least a 2.5-3 hour drive to the metropolitan LA and SF cities. By the time the train ever approached either LA or SF, the vast majority of us reading this would have been fertilizing the ground for decades.
38. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by tknd · 2012-12-26 12:55 · Score: 2
  It is a success, because it works, and tons of goods and millions of people use it everyday.
  The same argument can be used in Europe and Asia. You never refuted the grandparent's claim which is that the interstate highway was funded by government money, not by user money which you used against HSR.
  
  HSR, will be not be, because it is simply too limited.
  Europe and most of Asia would disagree.
  
  I can take my car to from Sacramento to LA in about 6 hours, at a cost of (Gas Guzzler) less than $150 in petrol, taking my family (four additional people) as a bonus.
  Yet in your entire analysis, you only account for the cost of gasoline. You didn't account for the cost of the roads you would use (they are not free and cost money to maintain or in your words LOSE money). You didn't account for the cost of the vehicle depreciation, license, registration, and maintenance. You also can't sleep and drive at the same time. You're not supposed to eat and drive at the same time. And you're definitely not supposed to drink and drive at the same time.
  Meanwhile an elementary school child in Japan can travel at will as long as he has enough money to pay for the fare. The traveling business man can still drag himself onto the train despite having a bit too much to drink. Most of all, each household is perfectly happy with one car, while here in California each adult or older teenager needs their own vehicle.
  
  AND once I get there, I would still need to rent a car.
  HSR itself isn't enough, I'll give you that. Intra-city rail and adequate public transit would be necessary. We would also need to improve public transit in major metro areas. LA is already on its way with Measure R.
  
  And further trips, I would simply just take a plane.
  So you admit that cars aren't a solution, yet planes aren't a solution either. By that I would argue that the more modes of passenger transportation we have, the better off we are. In Japan the airlines compete with HSR. This directly benefits the traveler--because of the additional competition, fares become cheaper.
  
  HSR is romantic notion for idiots. IT never pans out like the proponents claim.
  In Japan, the rail companies are private entities just like airplanes and car manufacturers. They turn a profit. Why? I'll give you a few reasons:
  
  Japan expressways are all tolled: users must pay a fee to use the system. In America, the interstate is subsidized or socialized--whichever term you prefer.
  Rail companies are able to acquire land and re-purpose it for transportation. In California, the Interstate system was approved prior to the NEPA and CEQA regulations. These environmental regulations delay the building process for any project (including freeways) and make it more expensive. The primary target at the time was freeways due to NIMBYism. Keep in mind that the government at this time was pretty much rolling through people's backyards with freeways and using eminent domain to make it happen.
  In Japan parking is not "free" or socialized. You must pay for your own parking.
  Rail companies in Japan don't just operate trains, they also acquire and redevelop areas near train stations turning them into giant shopping malls or upscale living areas. This means users of the system have access to most retail they'll ever need. Some stations even have integrated retail and dining just like airports--but it works better than airports because of more repeat commuters.
  Now in Japan people want to live near a train station because it means convenience. Property prices generally increase the closer they are to a train station--and decrease as you get further from a train station. And people are free to own cars, and drive as much as they would like, yet people choose the trains? Keep in mind that Japan especially during t
39. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  HSR are not developed to compete against automobiles.
  For shorter trips up to about 300km, automobiles will be faster, even though in the grand scheme of things, rail is probably the cheapest is in terms of dollars per passenger per kilometer (no source, but the economy of scale, relatively cheap equipment (operating cost of one HSR train set, versus the operating cost of 100 automobiles), track maintenance may be more expensive than road maintenance?).
  HSR is meant to compete against Air travel.
  Trains is without a doubt cheaper, and less demanding on resources than airplanes.
  And safer in theory.
  Not only cost, train will be faster for any trip less than about 2,000km (provided you can do 300kmh type speeds), and may even be preferable for >2k km trips for the above cost and safety reasons.
  The Japanese, Europeans, Chinese seem to like to tinker with HSR.
  While we are guzzling resources jetting around the country, and wondering why the Chinese have surplus income.
  It's too bad America has lost its edge.
40. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by pjbgravely · 2012-12-26 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Monorail!!!
  
  Oh wait, that is a train also.
  
  --
  Star Trek, there maybe hope.
41. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by NicBenjamin · 2012-12-26 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that that the Highways only passed one of your three tests when they were built?
  That's the thing about building infrastructure. It costs a lot of money, but it earns it back.
42. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Desler · 2012-12-26 16:02 · Score: 2
  
  No, because state funded medicine means I have to pay for someone else's bad lifestyle choices, such as not exercising and eating crap.
  
  You have to do so with private insurance as well. And? The difference being that single-payer systems are vastly less expensive.
43. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  HSR are not developed to compete against automobiles. For shorter trips up to about 300km, automobiles will be faster, even though in the grand scheme of things, rail is probably the cheapest is in terms of dollars per passenger per kilometer (no source, but the economy of scale, relatively cheap equipment (operating cost of one HSR train set, versus the operating cost of 100 automobiles), track maintenance may be more expensive than road maintenance?).
  HSR is meant to compete against Air travel. Trains is without a doubt cheaper, and less demanding on resources than airplanes. And safer in theory. Not only cost, train will be faster for any trip less than about 2,000km (provided you can do 300kmh type speeds), and may even be preferable for >2k km trips for the above cost and safety reasons.
  The Japanese, Europeans, Chinese seem to like to tinker with HSR. While we are guzzling resources jetting around the country, and wondering why the Chinese have surplus income. It's too bad America has lost its edge.
  Actually, in the US rail is subsidized much higher than commercial air or automobiles, by several orders of magnitude, on a per-passenger mile basis.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
44. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-26 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Elevators weren't paid for by US Treasure notes or other financing instruments, they were financed by the building and business owners who were required to build them, and increase prices on everything until they went out of business because they were regulated to death, and can no longer compete with out of state, out of country products coming from places that aren't regulated to death. And people want to know why my city has 30% unemployment and people with Master's Degrees are working at Starbucks.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
45. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by dkf · 2012-12-27 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  When any government involvement with societal life other than national defense is arbitrarily off the table, you have an impossible situation and a recipe for an agrarian society.
  You actually have a situation where even the ability to do national defense will decline, as a large part of that is having the industrial capacity and transport capacity to be able to sustain a substantive military.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
46. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-27 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. $425 billion for a continent-wide network of free-flowing (for the most part) freight and personal travel. As opposed to the California High Speed Rail which is estimated by the proponents to cost as much as $115B just for a line from San Francisco to Los Angeles (mostly). And that's probably lowballing the price, and definitely doesn't include the debt service costs.
  One quarter of the entire Interstate Highway System for a HSR line that doesn't go half of where the parallel Interstate 5 goes, and doesn't carry any of the freight that Interstate 5 does, and doesn't include maintenance or operating expenses.
  Yeah, what a deal.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
47. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-27 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Way to miss the point. The vast majority of the 47% are in the exact same position. They paid in all their lives and are now collecting. At the same time they seem to think these things are just paying out to crack addicted inner city unwed mothers.
48. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · 2012-12-27 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Same thing with over the road trucking. They pay far less fuel tax as compared to the damage they do to the roads.
49. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Those dang elevators done took yer jerbs!
50. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by BasilBrush · 2012-12-27 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, the figure I gave for the Interstate System was year 2000 dollars. The system actually being built decades earlier when the costs were lower even in real terms.
  
  and doesn't include maintenance or operating expenses.
  Neither does the interstate figure.
  And you missed this line from your link: "The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[8]"
  So it's a wash on construction costs.
51. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by BasilBrush · 2012-12-27 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's capitalism for you. Companies that can't afford the cost of doing business go bankrupt to possibly be replaced by new companies that can.
  Of course you see it as the fault of regulation, blind to the fact that capitalism cannot function without regulation.
52. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  Of course the railroad should be subsidized. Just as the road system is. When you buy a car, your next step is not the construction of some road to drive it on. You mostly drive on government subsidized road.
  Similiar for rail. The ticket should cover fuel and maintenance of that train. But not the railroad itself - that is just a different kind of "road" entitled to the same level of subsidizing.
erroneus (253617) FatASS needs PIZZA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:56 · Score: -1

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!
Good for China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:56 · Score: 1

That's a huge distance, I'm impressed. I wonder why we don't make these kinds of railway advances in the US. Is it because there's no money in it? I'd much rather travel by train, than air. ...unless homeland security set into the railway's checkpoints.
1. Re:Good for China by mcgrew · 2012-12-26 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why we don't make these kinds of railway advances in the US.
  They are. Lots of news in the local paper which unfortunately pulls online stories after they've been up a while. The track is running right through town here.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  ... I wonder why we don't make these kinds of railway advances in the US...
  For historical reasons, the USA rights of way are owned by the rail road companies. Initially (1800's) this was a great way to get the rail system built by private companies -- give them a lot of land in exchange for building the tracks. Now it's not such a good thing--the same companies are 100++ years older and don't give a crap about anything except moving freight. They don't even like to let other companies (or nationalized Amtrak) use their tracks.
  As far as moving passengers, USA rail is just the opposite of the interstate system where the commons (government) owns and maintains the roads, and the cars are private.
  The Chinese have another "advantage" -- I believe it's a lot easier for their government to clear out a nice straight right of way for high speed rail. Imagine the trouble buying up that much land in USA. Of course this isn't so nice if you live in rural China and your village is wiped out by railroad construction.
3. Re:Good for China by Tailhook · 2012-12-26 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wonder why we don't make these kinds of railway advances in the US
  Really? You actually wonder about this?
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/17/california-high-speed-rail-lawsuit_n_2150455.html
  Since this should be self evident, I'll keep the explanation simple.
  China is run by authoritarians that are hell bent on prosperity. They do not indulge: environmentalists, humans rights, property rights or special interests that aren't immediately aligned with said goal. The rail line goes here and you step aside quietly or spend years of your life making Walmart SKUs in a labor camp.
  The US is run by statists and the comfortable electorate they've purchased with bennies. Prosperity is something we have far too much of so we spend our time squabbling in court, creating whole new forms of legal jeapody and liability as we go. This precludes large scale, capital intensive ventures such as continental scale rail systems. The lead times to get through the legislatures, courts, etc. is just too damn long. Capital won't tolerate this and seeks better venues, most of which are in Asia.
  Enjoy your decline.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
4. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why we don't make these kinds of railway advances in the US.
  I live along a major rail line. When everything works, it's off-peak, and you get a direct train, it's a great way to travel. If you need to change trains, it rapidly becomes unattractive relative to cars or planes. The thing is: it's hugely expensive, often several times as much as flying, and that is despite the large subsidies that went into building the system.
5. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  That is not high speed rail. Steam trains went faster than that! (maybe not on scheduled service mind). And it is slower than normal diesel trains in the UK in the 1980s let alone electric trains from the 1960s in france or japan.
  Are you using some scrapped rolling stock from British Rail for that? I thought we gave that stuff to India (maybe not, they have the wrong gauge).
  Not that we have anything fast here apart from the short link from London to the channel tunnel...
6. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  There is something to be said for having an authoritarian long term vision.
  We all know that something has to be done about healthcare costs. We also need some kind of mid-range transport, not NY to LA but Boston to NY or Detroit to Chicago to St Louis. Planes are great at going long distances, cars are great for very short. Rail should be the mid range choice from city to city.
7. Re:Good for China by xaxa · 2012-12-28 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles#World_fastest_point-to-point_average_speeds_in_commercial_operations
  The US ran trains that fast in the 1930s. 110mph isn't an advance...
  Tomorrow, I'm getting the train home to London, and it will travel at an average speed something like 100mph, including the midway stop. I think the official top speed is 125mph. They've run these trains since the 1970s, and they now seem relatively old and clunky as they're heavy, slow diesel trains.
8. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  "The US is run by statists" - this claim is the exact opposite of the truth. High speed rail has never been built except by the state. Why do you think China builds so much of it? Your assumption that US "Capital" is somehow driving China's infrastructure boom is hilarious.
Reference by PacRim+Jim · 2012-12-26 07:57 · Score: 5, Informative

For reference, that's about half the width of the U.S., or about the length of Japan.
1. Re:Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Considering the massive corruption in the State Railways Ministry, as well as the total lack of safety features that have resulted in hundreds of deaths in the past 2 years, I wouldn't call this much of an accomplishment. I'd much rather drive on China's awful roads than risk a fiery death on China's unsafe rails (and yes, I've ridden China's high speed rails, 4 weeks prior to the big Wenzhou crash).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#Corruption_and_concerns
2. Re:Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hundreds of deaths in the past 2 years in China due to railway accidents? And you prefer to go by car (more than 60000 deaths due to car accidents in China per year)? China's railway system may not be up to European safety standards, but this worlds worst railway systems are still far safer than this worlds safest highways.
  Philipp
3. Re:Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  And 60000 is just the number from the police records. The numbers from the ministry of health, based on death certificates are more than thrice as high.
  Philipp
4. Re:Reference by gsnedders · 2012-12-26 13:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The TGV have had a grand total of zero fatalities on high speed lines in France since they opened in 1981, as a point of comparison.
5. Re:Reference by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  But US railways during the creation of rail infrastructure in the 1800s and early 20th century killed far, far more from boiler explosions, bridge collapses, etc. 40 dead is small. And compared to how many are killed or maimed due to unmaintained infrastructure in the US today, this isn't bad at all (18 were exposed to high vinyl chloride levels which is equivalent to being exposed to WWI war gas compounded with being a powerful carcinogen so they are maimed with permanent lung damage AND increase chance of lung cancer regardless of other life risks).
Catan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:59 · Score: 3, Funny

I guess China has cemented their hold on the card for The Longest Road now...
While I'm here, does anyone care to trade wood for sheep?
1. Re:Catan by csnydermvpsoft · 2012-12-26 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, the U.S. will always make sure to spend all of our ore, sheep, and grain (working from memory here) to make sure that we maintain our hold on the Largest Army card.
2. Re:Catan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Bah, so what? Rails don't matter, it's roads, and they only have half of the US. And with Seafarers you factor in trade routes with the longest road, and the US still blows them away with the worlds longest and largest trade routes.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_road_network_size
3. Re:Catan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yea roads. Hurr durr, Americans. Visit ... the rest of the world, you know the places where they don't pork out on nasty TGIFridays food? Rail is fantastic when its not handled by us.
4. Re:Catan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Ahem...SILK ROAD anyone?!
5. Re:Catan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, the U.S. will always make sure to spend all of our ore, sheep, and grain (working from memory here) to make sure that we maintain our hold on the Largest Army *budget* card.
  um... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
Marketing by vlm · 2012-12-26 07:59 · Score: -1

Its all marketing

The first trains on the new route hit 300 kph (186 mph)
That's the problem with "high speed rail" it means anything over 100 mph even if just for a short segment. Its not going 500 MPH the whole way. Its not even twice as fast as existing USA trains.
I've taken the train between Chicago and Milwaukee many times, if you have a handheld GPS you see it hit 100 MPH for several segments. Also, I took the overnight train from Chicago to NYC for the 2600 hope convention some years ago, it did hit 100 mph at one point.
I will say that 1500 miles is about perfect at "high" china speed, much as 1000 miles is about perfect on USA 80 mph trains. You step aboard before a late dinner, eat a nice relaxing steak dinner watching corn fields roll by, great nights sleep, breakfast time, and here I am in NYC across the street (literally) from the conference. Fun fun fun.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:Marketing by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You could have hit the airport and been there in far less time. Leaving you time to eat at a nice restaurant and sleep in a hotel.
  Do they even have booze on Amtrack?
2. Re:Marketing by rtaylor · 2012-12-26 08:06 · Score: 3
  
  This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.
  That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).
  
  --
  Rod Taylor
3. Re:Marketing by vlm · 2012-12-26 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah I donno about that. "My time" for the train is like 15 minutes to get aboard and literally 5 minutes to cross the street on the NYC side. "My time" for the airplane is a half hour out to the airport in the middle of nowhere and parking, two hours sitting around for security theater playtime, you can't do what you want on a plane so thats about two hours lost during flight time, and finally a nice $50 hour long cab ride on the NYC side, so that's like 5 hours of "my time" if flying.
  As for the restaurant, the amtrak food was "nice" sure not a $200 steak house but no worse than a family restaurant, and the cabin was comfortable enough to sleep in. I had a little sleeper cabin with desk, one entire wall is a giant window, and all that.
  Booze? Oh god yes. Some day you should take an observation car out west where the obs car has a bar in the middle of the top floor (the observation area). The west coast trains are double decker two floor and much nicer than the east coast single floor dumpy-trains. None the less booze is booze... Nicotine addicts would have serious issues with Amtrak, but the alkies will be just fine, well lubricated, whatever. Also if you have a cabin unless they're peeking in the windows you can drink or eat whatever you can haul aboard...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Marketing by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  When I am retired I plan to do just that.
  I love train travel, I use it all the time in Europe. I wish I could use it here. In the states though we seem to have no trouble subsidizing roads, but for some reason we view trans as some socialist evil. I think it has a lot to do with trains being a more democratic form of travel, I sit in the same seat as the rich. On the road they can show off their cars.
  The booze factor may get me to tolerate a 4 hour rid to toronto though. On vacation I like to keep my BAC up.
5. Re:Marketing by icebike · 2012-12-26 09:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You could have hit the airport and been there in far less time. Leaving you time to eat at a nice restaurant and sleep in a hotel.
  Do they even have booze on Amtrack?
  Yes they do, and they also have a pretty good restaurant, and the hotel rooms, while small, are quite nice.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:Marketing by icebike · 2012-12-26 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.
  That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).
  If there are any stops along the way you will need much greater speeds than 210km/h.
  I suggest the route is undoable in 10 hours if there is even a few stops unless the train spends a great deal of time at 300km/h.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  You don't know what you are talking about.
  High speed railway is a very specific term, which has a very specific meaning: a railway where trains can circulate at a speed between 220km/h and 350 km/h.
  If it's above 350 km/h then it ceasses to be high speed railway and becomes very high speed railway.
  Those values for speed aren't arbitrary. Those values have a very specific meaning regarding train-track interaction phenomena and how dynamic forces affect the track's behavior.
  Just because you are ignorant regarding this subject, it doesn't mean it's marketing.
8. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Reading comprehension fail.
  Do you know what the word "Average" means at all?
  Anyway, yes, it spends the majority of the time at 300km/h.
9. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  No problems with Nicotine addiction on the east coast either, at least on the Acela.
  Just step out the bar car at a Station stop and smoke away.. There is almost no one at any of the train stations, so odds of being ticketed or stopped is next to none.
10. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  My guess is that they have very few stops only in major cities along the way. That's how all high speed trains around the world (skip over US) operate. You use them to cover the long routs. For shorter routes you have regional rail that stops more frequently. In Germany for example they have the ICE (high speed), the EC (express trains with more stops and lower top speed, somewhat comparable to Amtrak) and the RE (village hoppers) trains. Within the cities you can take the S and U bahn commuter trains.
11. Re:Marketing by Meyaht · 2012-12-26 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  You could have hit the airport and been there in far less time. Leaving you time to eat at a nice restaurant and sleep in a hotel.
  Do they even have booze on Amtrack?
  yes they do, and you can drink you're own and share all you like as long as the dining car is closed or out of alcohol.
  
  --
  I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
12. Re:Marketing by icebike · 2012-12-26 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of acting so smart, why not do the math?
  You simply can not make up a half hour stop, or even a 15 minute stop at more than a very few cities.
  You need this time to board and de-train passengers, stow luggage, etc.
  You have to slow down to approach to cities, curves, hills, and accelerate on departure from cities.
  Start chopping half hour segments out of 10 hour trip an see what your average speed needs to be.
  Anything beyond 6 stops along the route means you can't possibly make up the time.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
13. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Here in France, the TGV stop sometimes for 2 to 3 minutes in small stations. Having 7 doors instead of 1 (like in planes) helps with boarding time
14. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Stops are usually 5 minutes. Sometimes less at quiet stations.
  Because these are electric trains, and not the diesels or heavy electric trains you're used to in the states, acceleration and deceleration are much faster.
15. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  You should learn how to use the internet:
  Beijing to Guangzhou High Speed Train Schedules & Fares
  Train No. Departs Arrives Duration 2nd Class Seat Fare(RMB) 1st Class Seat Fare(RMB) Business Class Seat Fares(RMB)
  G71 Beijing West
  8:00am Guangzhou South
  5:38pm 9 h 38m 865 1383 2727
  G79 Beijing West
  10:00am Guangzhou South
  5:59pm 7 h 59m 865 1383 2727
  G81 Beijing West
  1:05pm Guangzhou South
  10:32pm 9 h 27m 865 1383 2727
16. Re:Marketing by NouberNou · 2012-12-26 12:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If it is anything like the Japanese HSR system these trains are in station for less than 2 minutes, usually around 90 seconds. There isn't a baggage car, no baggage offloading. You keep your bags with you at all times and when you get near your stop they announce it and you stand up and head to the doors. When the train stops you just get out (the platforms are level with the doors, so no hopping down awkwardness, its very quick. Then the train is off again. Since these are all EMU train sets that means they do not have a single engine, but powered bogies along the entire train. They can accelerate and decelerate very quickly.
  
  I think I read 35 stops on the route, if a train stops at every stop then that is roughly 70 minutes in station at 2 minutes a stop. So out of the 8 hour trip, thats 6 hours and 50 minutes you are moving, which means that the trains are going somewhere over 300km/h (336km/h to be exact). I doubt this is the actual speed, I am guess that the 8 hour trip is for express trains, which will skip some of the stops on the way, only stopping at major stations, while other trains will stop at all or more stations (this is how it works in Japan). That'd put the speed at around 280-300km/h which is about what Japanese systems run at.
17. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, have you ever been on a train? Typical time on station for most trains is 2-5 mins (sometimes less). Any time above that means that the train is either waiting for arriving connection or there is some problem on the track. You can access each car from at least two doors, so loading and unloading passengers takes very little time.
18. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  Half an hour stop? Planes and ships get turned around faster than that in Europe, let alone trains! What, you think they have to change bogies at each city or something? On the Rome metro for example you are lucky if it is stopped for ten seconds (London is about 25 seconds, but it is a hundred years older). A two minute train stop is plenty, though you have to add a few minutes acceleration/deceleration on top of that. This is electricity we are talking about, not the steam powered locos you seem to think they have in the USA that need water and coal to be taken on...
19. Re:Marketing by Arrepiadd · 2012-12-26 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Talk about acting smart... why don't you do the same?
  How can you even think a fast train going at 300 km/h arrives at a stop only to stay there for half an hour? How can you think someone goes and pays the hefty price of a high speed train ticket only to spend half the time stopped in stations? Just because that's all you've seen?
  Trains in any civilized part of the world stop for a few minutes at anything but the terminal stops. Even in major stops along the route it won't stop for more than 5 minutes. You get it, and while the train is already moving you find a seat and a place to put your luggage. And trains go at their full speed most of the time. They don't slow down for curves! For HSR the entire track is designed so the train goes at its rated speed. The curves are wide enough (and superelevated) so that a train that can go at 300 km/h doesn't have to slow down to 60 km/h or whatever speed you think is acceptable.
  And your original comment with its "I suggest the route is undoable in 10 hours"... it's a typical case of "guy in internet forum knows better than the world". Grow up!
20. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely right, those trains to do not do long stops. Good God, what would be the point of designing an aerodynamic express train and then making it stop for 15-30 minutes at each station?
  The Chinese trains are intended to be as rapid or faster than the Japanese shinkansen, and are clearly based very heavily on shinkansen design. It remains to be seen whether they will match the safety of the Japanese trains, which have an almost impeccable record over 40 years.
  However, 300 km/h and faster is the kind of speed the fastest Chinese expresses are going for.
21. Re:Marketing by jrumney · 2012-12-27 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't remain to be seen, it has been seen already. The travel times aren't the only things that get slashed in half when you ride high speed rail in China.
22. Re:Marketing by Eunuchswear · 2012-12-27 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest the route is undoable in 10 hours if there is even a few stops unless the train spends a great deal of time at 300km/h.
  Yes, you do understand the difference between average and top speed.
  But how long do you think a high-speed train stop is? TGV's usualy stop for around 3 minutes. Even when you add in the time to slow down and speed up again a few stops in 2100 km isn't goint to take too much time.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
23. Re:Marketing by qwak23 · 2012-12-27 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, these days, I would take a 4 hour trip with booze over an ~2 hour drive. I just moved back to the states from Japan and miss the public transit (including HSR) immensely. It's about the same amount of time to either of the nearest cities as the Buffalo to Toronto drive, and there is no other solid viable options. At least with a train I can either be drunk, reading, or coding "hello world" in a new language for the 30,000th time.
  Then again, this is the states, and I'm sure there would be all sorts of unnecessary security and other nonsense if they ever established HSR here. Hell, in Japan I could bring my own 6 pack, I could get to the station 5 minutes before departure, and if I was smoking at the time, chances were the train had an enclosed well ventilated smoking area.
  As someone who also used to make the Buffalo to Toronto drive, quality HSR along that route, as well as from Buffalo to NYC, Boston and Cleveland (and beyond!) would be awesome. Buffalo would make a decent hub station and the rail might even help revitalize the area.
Train Wreck by na1led · 2012-12-26 08:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

What would a Train Wreck at 186 MPH in a densely populated area look like?

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
1. Re:Train Wreck by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  What would an airplane crash look like?
  Heavy thing going fast can indeed lead to trouble, no point in worrying about just this one.
2. Re:Train Wreck by ubrgeek · 2012-12-26 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't China just have a railway accident in the last couple of years that killed a bunch of folks. Turned out it was shoddy construction?
  
  --
  Bark less. Wag more.
3. Re:Train Wreck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  In a sparsely populated area you get something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster with 101 deaths.
4. Re:Train Wreck by Ichijo · 2012-12-26 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  There's nothing for the train to hit in densely populated areas, because the rail line is grade separated.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
5. Re:Train Wreck by dkf · 2012-12-26 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  What would a Train Wreck at 186 MPH in a densely populated area look like?
  Bad. Real bad. What would an airplane crash in a densely populated area look like? Also bad. Large amounts of momentum and kinetic energy can do bad things to people and buildings. Obvious, yes?
  Of course, with a proper high-speed rail system you keep both slower trains and non-train objects well out of the way so as to avoid problems, through the use of separated lines and avoiding level crossings (which are hellishly dangerous); single-track sections are right out, as they cannot be run efficiently. This makes high-speed tracks considerably more expensive (along with the fact that you need much better signaling systems), but the lines do tend to be more effective in use precisely because of the reduced rate of accidents.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
6. Re:Train Wreck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  A lot less bad than a train wreck at 30 MPH that's carrying anhydrous ammonia instead of people.
7. Re:Train Wreck by dunkelfalke · 2012-12-26 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  a bit like this
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
8. Re:Train Wreck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't happen, the trains travel much slower through populated areas. You have to realize that most of the Chinese population lives in relatively small places, you have people everywhere, but in most places a train derailment would only kill the passengers and maybe a couple people nearby.
  Or, in other words, it would look more or less identical to the TGV derailing, just with more Chinese people killed.
9. Re:Train Wreck by Eunuchswear · 2012-12-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't have happened to a TGV.
  Pitty the Chinese decided to copie ICE instead of TGV.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
10. Re:Train Wreck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  What would a Train Wreck at 186 MPH in a densely populated area look like?
  It'd be bad and also rare enough that I'd risk it over and over and over to get from Seattle to Portland in an hour.
  The US will never build one now though, because we've totally lost it. We spent that money on wars and hiring a gigantic army to oversee checking our papers, taking off our shoes, and choosing between backscatter nudie pictures or having our genitals groped whenever we want to wait three hours to fly from Seattle to Portland.
Nice. Connects to Shenzern. Hong Kong in 2015. by Animats · 2012-12-26 08:06 · Score: 5, Informative

There's already a high speed rail connection from Guangzhou to Shenzhen North. The high speed rail connection through to Hong Kong is scheduled for completion in 2014, and will shorten travel time for that last link from 2 hours to 38 minutes. (Except that there's a border control point between Shentzen and Hong Kong that takes longer than the travel time.)
Another step has been taken in tying China more closely together. That's part of the political motivation. Traditionally, China's provinces were not closely connected. Each province was expected to be self-sufficient in food and other essentials. That continued through the Mao era, and it's not completely gone. There are still some inter-provincial trade restrictions.
Of course, the South still speaks Cantonese, while the North speaks Mandarin. This despite half a century of effort by the central government. "The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away".
1. Re:Nice. Connects to Shenzern. Hong Kong in 2015. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Only Guangdong province speaks Cantonese, while the most of rest provinces speak Mandarin.
2. Re:Nice. Connects to Shenzern. Hong Kong in 2015. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  I actually road an hour of that route the weekend before last. It was nice, but I don't think we got going much over 140kmph. It was smooth and relatively nice.
  And you're right about the language. On paper everybody in China is supposed to at least receive their eduction in Mandarin, but you run into a significant minority that can't speak Mandarin at all down here. And I haven't seen that anywhere else in China.
3. Re:Nice. Connects to Shenzern. Hong Kong in 2015. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  The Chinese dialect distribution is far more complex than your comment (I think unintentionally) implies. There are a variety of dialects in the south, of which Cantonese (Yue) is just one. There are also a variety of dialects in the north. The Mandarin-based dialects cover a very wide area, and extend right into the southwest. By comparison, the Yue dialects cover a much smaller area and population, and are matched by others, like Min and Hakka, and in central China, Wu.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_sinitic_dialect_-_English_version.svg
  Cantonese may be a big deal in Hong Kong, but in mainland China, it's just one of the dialect groups, of no more importance than the others.
Cemented? by Smallpond · 2012-12-26 08:09 · Score: 1

No. They tied it. China, long a sleeper in technology is now siding with the West in new developments. This will signal a switch to new railroad advances.
What just happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:11 · Score: -1

We were going 186 miles an hour and hit a little chink on the rail.
1. Re:What just happened? by RotateLeftByte · 2012-12-26 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  sigh.
  There are hundreds of thousands of miles of train miles covered each day in Europe at speeds like these. Oh, and they have a pretty good safety record. There has been only one fatal crash on High speed lines in Europe and that was in Germany and wasn't down to a track defect.
  The completion of the high speed line from London to Paris (including 36km under the Channel) has captured the majority of the passenger traffic between the two capital cities. Two hours and a bit for City-Centre to City-Centre makes most airline travel simply untennable.
  Once you travel by high speed train you will be hooked. It is a far better way to travel than by air especially in Cattle Class.
  I'm going to Madagascar next April. The Flight to Tana leaves from Paris. I won't be flying to Paris, I'll be taking the train right to the Airport in Paris from London. The wonders of a semi integrated transport system. Something that the USA has never really enjoyed. It is far too 'socialist/commie' for most of the Americans I know. (Oh, I spent three years living in N.H and working in taxacheusetts).
  
  --
  I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
2. Re:What just happened? by godrik · 2012-12-26 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  The situation in America is a little bit different. In Europe you typically want to go to the center of a city. In Paris once you are in Gare du Nord, you are quickly anywhere you want provided you are not already where you want to go. And it is pretty much like that for every major city. Also, despite having a good HSR trian system, all trip that do not go toward or away from paris are a nightmare (try a Lyon-Bordeaux or Lyon-Strasbourg for instance).
  In the US, you typically do not care about being downtown. I have been living in Columbus, OH (ok not the biggest city) for 4 years and I only went downtown 5 times (once to visit downtown, once to go to a museum, once to drop somebody at a justice court, once to go to social security administration and once for july 4th celebration). There is no point going downtown in the US for most city I believe. And since the cities are so spread out, you'll have to rent a car to go anywhere. So you'll end up needing to drive to and from the train station. So you don't save the overhead of going to/from the airport. That makes the train much less interesting. It would pretty much be a slower plane. And it will not be cheap. Actually if you aim at cheap, you have a bus system that connects major cities. It is much slower than a high speed train. But it is also much cheaper.
  So a train would end up being a compromise between the slow/cheap bus and the fast/expensive plane. It is not clear there is a real market.
3. Re:What just happened? by Sepodati · 2012-12-26 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  It is nice traveling, but unless you can catch specials or book four months out, it isn't very cheap. 100 - 150 euro per person, one way.
4. Re:What just happened? by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like either you are a liar or France needs to fix that. In Germany you can get from just about anywhere to anywhere else on the train. To go from Frankfurt to my Uncles home, you can take a plane or train to Stuttgart then another train to a nearby train and in good weather walk or in poor weather take a taxi or bus the last couple miles. I know shocking that an American would consider walking an acceptable method of transportation.
  What we actually need is better public transit in the cities as well. I go downtown all the time, that is where the non-chain good restaurants are, the interesting shops and the arts/museums. As I live in Buffalo I would consider that pretty comparable to Columbus size wise.
  Busses are only cheaper because they get to ride on the road that tax dollars provides.
5. Re:What just happened? by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot, get a fucking edit button.
  To go from Frankfurt to my Uncles home, you can take a plane or train to Stuttgart then another train to a nearby small city Goppingen and in good weather walk or in poor weather take a taxi or bus the last couple miles.
6. Re:What just happened? by RotateLeftByte · 2012-12-26 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  In most cities on Europe there is a comprehensive network of public transport. This negates the need to drive for a lot of us.
  I don't drive all the way to work. I drive 4km to the station and take the train. Then it is a sub 5 minute walk to the office.
  Only when I got to the USA do I have to drive everywhere. I have a ticket for jaywalking between shopping malls in Fla. when I should have driven the 200yds.
  That takes us into another whole argument/debate
  For the N.E of the US and certainly for SF/Sac->LA->SanDiego and Van->Sea->Portland there should be IMHO a high speed rail link. It will cut the gas miles/Jet-A miles between the cities at a stroke. Proper park/Ride stations coupled with swiss style interval services would tranform the daily commue for many thousands if not millions of Americans.
  Don't forget that it was big oil that bribed the local Gov in LA to get rid of its extensive tram network in the late 1940's/early 1950's. If they had kept it then there would be a need for far less miles of freeway in LA than we have today.
  Oh, I have travelled around the US by Grehound Bus. I always remember getting on a Bus to Elizabeth City in NYC and being the only whie face on it. I was introduced to the delight that is 'grits' at a stop in Dover De. I met someone really special to me whilst waiting for a bus in Butte. Two years later we rode coast to coast on my Triumph. 48 States down two to go.
  
  --
  I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
7. Re:What just happened? by godrik · 2012-12-26 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  I am french you know. :) There are trains from Lyon to Bordeaux, but not high speed trains and because of Massif Central the track is not straight. The same goes between Lyon and Strasbourg you can go there but you have a stupid slow train that stops eveywhere and it might be faster to go through Paris. If you want to go from Lyon to Bordeaux, I believe you have a not-so-fast train to toulouse and then you are on slow tracks to Bordeaux. In practice most people that need to go from Lyon to Bordeaux fly. (Or at least it was like this in 2008)
  About walking in America, it really depends on the city. From downtown Columbus to where I live, it is more than 10 miles. There is no direct bus, I am not even sure I can make the trip in a single connection. There is nothing to do downtown Columbus. The only reason to go there would be administrative. (Though, there is an art college close to downtown.)
8. Re:What just happened? by h4rr4r · 2012-12-26 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  I feel sorry for you :P
  Sounds like Columbus sucks. Buffalo used to be similar but the city has done a great job in recent years growing some neighborhoods.
  Also please speak to your countrymen about CDG airport. It is not only a toilet for the many homeless that inhabit it, but also a huge pain in the ass to traverse. Otherwise, I like your nation just fine, what I have seen of it.
9. Re:What just happened? by godrik · 2012-12-26 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, columbus sucks...
  about France. One of the main problem of the country is an over concentration of everything in Paris. About 20% of the French population lives in ile-de-france (the region of paris) and about 4% of the french population lives in paris itself.
  That completely skews everything. They were planning on building a 3rd airport around Paris. If you look at an infrastructure map of France, it appears fairly clearly that everything go from or to Paris. All the administration (public or private) tends to centralize in Paris which makes the city a huge mess and prevents other parts of the country from developping.
  It also leads to the impression that France is Paris and that Paris is France.
10. Re:What just happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  And here I am in Zürich, wondering how the Germans can tolerate that abyssmal train system of theirs... :P
11. Re:What just happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but what you write on the French situation is outdated. Since the opening of the LGV Rhin-Rhône travel time between Strasbourg and Lyon for direct trains is less than three and a half hours; the train has just two indermediate stops. Going via Paris is definitely much slower.
  Philipp
12. Re:What just happened? by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  We were going 186 miles an hour and hit a little chink on the rail.
  That's racist - the proper term is person of Chinese descent.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
13. Re:What just happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  It is amazing how crappy CDG is. It is unbelievable.
14. Re:What just happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hence flights from "grenoble" airport (nowhere near it) fly to only two french cities - bordeaux and nantes. And 8 british cities. And yet the shop is full of french magazines (do they make a profit?) with the occasional uk newspaper...
15. Re:What just happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Germany is split up into different lander which are allowed to have their own government and transport connections. In france, there is paris and not-paris. The "network" is star shaped, not a web!
16. Re:What just happened? by Eunuchswear · 2012-12-27 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Also, despite having a good HSR trian system, all trip that do not go toward or away from paris are a nightmare (try a Lyon-Bordeaux or Lyon-Strasbourg for instance).
  Lyon - Strasbourg:
  
  Vendredi 28/12 Durée 03h41
  Départ à : 10h04
  De la gare de :LYON PART DIEU
  Transporteur :DB SNCF
  Numéro du train :9582
  Services à bord Voiture bar
  Arrivée à :13h45
  A la gare de : STRASBOURG GARE
  Don't see your problem, frankly.
  Lyon - Bordeaux
  
  Vendredi 28/12 Durée 06h38
  Départ à :09h04
  De la gare de :LYON PART DIEU
  Transporteur :TGV DUPLEX
  Numéro du train :6610
  Services à bord Voiture bar
  Arrivée à :11h02
  A la gare de :PARIS GARE DE LYON
  Départ à :12h27
  De la gare de :PARIS MONTPARNASSE 1 ET 2
  Transporteur :TGV
  Numéro du train :8537
  Services à bord Voiture bar Transport de vélo payant
  Arrivée à :15h42
  A la gare de :BORDEAUX SAINT JEAN
  Ok, that's pretty horrid. 6h38 to go less than 600 km. Bloody Paris.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
17. Re:What just happened? by Eunuchswear · 2012-12-27 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  The same goes between Lyon and Strasbourg you can go there but you have a stupid slow train that stops eveywhere and it might be faster to go through Paris. [...] Or at least it was like this in 2008
  But 2008 was such a long time ago!
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
Compensating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:15 · Score: -1

Just a bunch of asians over-compensating for having small genitals?
1. Re:Compensating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  just an fyi
  Asian chicks hate big dicks.
2. Re:Compensating by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Just keep on telling yourself that.
I just hope they improved their technology by Edsj · 2012-12-26 08:15 · Score: 2

Because their high-speed trains had an accident not so long ago and the goverment tried to cover up.
Wuhan - Guangzhou @ 300+ since Dec 2009. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:20 · Score: 0

I took this train in Jan of 2010 almost 3 years ago(again in Feb of 2011) from Wuhan to Guangzhou at 350 kph. The Beijing to Wuhan section is just an extension of the existing line. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan%E2%80%93Guangzhou_High-Speed_Railway)
erroneus (253617) FatASS needs PIZZA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:27 · Score: -1

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!
A Detractor by DaMattster · 2012-12-26 08:29 · Score: 0

I know I'm trolling a bit by making this statement but I actually feel strongly about it. I'm sick of hearing about China this and China that. China does not play by a fair set of economic, safety, and environmental rules. I have a hard time lauding any Chinese progress. They artificially manipulate their currency and sell goods at below market value which hinders the world's economy. I wonde how safe this train really is!
1. Re:A Detractor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  "They artificially manipulate their currency and sell goods at below market value which hinders the world's economy. "
  How does China "manipulate" their currency if their currency is bracketed (semi-fixed) against the US Dollar? And have you actually checked the USDRMB chart lately? The Chinese RMB has grown >30% since 2005 against the US Dollar, If you want to point fingers, tthe three rounds of US quantitative easing is currency manipulation in every way but for name.
2. Re:A Detractor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  By bracketing against the US Dollar. Paging Mr. Soros...
3. Re:A Detractor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Playing not by rules is something that US and West did for years, I guess now, it is time for china and east, so get use to it or die
4. Re:A Detractor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I know I'm trolling a bit by making this statement but I actually feel strongly about it. I'm sick of hearing about China this and China that. China does not play by a fair set of economic, safety, and environmental rules. I have a hard time lauding any Chinese progress. They artificially manipulate their currency and sell goods at below market value which hinders the world's economy. I wonde how safe this train really is!
  The US didn't play by the book either during the 19th century up until the 1960s. You know all those progressive legislations, the clean air act, the establishment of the EPA etc.. all came about in the 1970s. People forget that the US while a major industrial powerhouse for most of the 20th century was from the standpoint of enviromental sageguard a cesspool.
  The 21st century belongs to China my friend. Nothing the US can do will reverse this trend.
5. Re:A Detractor by Kjella · 2012-12-26 09:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hmm where have I heard this somewhere before, oh yeah a bit further down on the page where Lockheed was crying that SpaceX couldn't possibly be doing anything this much cheaper and better than them without compromising safety. Sure, if you go look at the crap they deliver to Wal-Mart your idea of Chinese quality might be low but they also do rocket science putting men in space and probes orbiting the moon and I'm pretty sure they do brain surgery too. That they often ignore emissions is not the same as being ignorant of them, unless it's say the Olympics in Beijing where they make a huge temporary clean-up effort. They might be more willing to trample the individual's rights than in other countries but the progress they make is very much real. Real income has more than tripled for over a billion people in the last decade:
  
  GDP per capita measured in purchasing power terms more than tripled from $2,800 in 2002 to a forecast $9,100 in 2012 according to the International Monetary Fund.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:A Detractor by k6mfw · 2012-12-26 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  They artificially manipulate their currency and sell goods at below market value which hinders the world's economy. I wonde how safe this train really is!
  Manipulating currency is not the problem, it is when USA and other countries sold to China (it was not stolen) the industrial capability to build things. See "Winner Take All" by Richard Elkus http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Competitiveness-Nations/dp/B002KAOSPG
  Anyway, argue what everyone is doing on this forum, China is building HSR instead PPT like rest of us.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
7. Re:A Detractor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  So OK, their rules are different from yours... what make your rules the right ones? Maybe they have the right rules and they say the same about you...
8. Re:A Detractor by Rockoon · 2012-12-26 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Manipulating currency is not the problem
  Actually, the main problem is that there isnt a problem..at least not one worth actually complain about, so the people intent on complaining pick some random statistic and without any justification at all call it a problem.
  
  The real question is, why are some people so intent on complaining in this case?
  
  It seems to me that some people are under the false assumption that there must be a winner and loser, and then they take certain queues to mean that China is winning and so by induction that we must be losing. It doesnt occur to them that both sides benefit because the respective situations are asymmetric, that we each assign different values to various things and we benefit from the differences.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
9. Re:A Detractor by dbIII · 2012-12-26 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  The USA still plays those same trade games, and a pile of the systems in those trains came directly from Germany.
10. Re:A Detractor by dbIII · 2012-12-26 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  The 21st century belongs to China my friend. Nothing the US can do will reverse this trend.
  They can, but that involves getting off their arses, stopping whining about it, and not letting accountants and lawyers run everything in their country.
11. Re:A Detractor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  People who don't stick to the rules, and who don't get punished for breaking them, get out ahead.
  News at 11.
12. Re:A Detractor by Rincewind42 · 2012-12-27 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I know I'm trolling a bit by making this statement but I actually feel strongly about it. I'm sick of hearing about China this and China that. China does not play by a fair set of economic, safety, and environmental rules. I have a hard time lauding any Chinese progress. They artificially manipulate their currency and sell goods at below market value which hinders the world's economy. I wonde how safe this train really is!
  I know I'm trolling a bit by making this statement but I actually feel strongly about it. I'm sick of hearing about America this and America that. America does not play by a fair set of economic, safety, and environmental rules. I have a hard time lauding any American progress. They artificially manipulate their currency, printing money whenever they feel like it and engage in trade protectionism which hinders the world's economy.
  I'm British and I've been on high speed trains in Europe and China. The other side of the pond is right to be jealous. America needs to play catch up on this bit of tech.
Cue derailment due to poor safety procedures in 5. by sethmeisterg · 2012-12-26 08:32 · Score: 1

4. 3. 2. 1.
Sure by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-12-26 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Enjoy your slide into obsolesce. If you remove all the emotionalism from those proposing pure capitalism, your are left holding a big, empty, "I don't want to spend any more" motto. It is religious fanaticism.
Countries thrive when they invest, undertake massive projects, improve themselves. They slide into nothingness when the accountants take over as their infrastructure falls apart and all the bright people find themselves working abroad.
The ultimate failure of religious fantatics like the parent is that they think the race ends. That once you won, that is it. The race never ends. And China right now is winning by default because everyone else has stopped. You can smirk about North-Korea's rocket attempts but at least they are trying. In the west, people worry about the costs to much to do ANYTHING anymore. Great nations were not build by accountants.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  High speed rail in this country is plagued with cost overruns. We live in a country where environmental activists can halt a project and hold it up in courts for months even years, adding cost. We live in a country where people dont want new infrastructure built near their homes fearing safety, increased traffic and/or falling property values. Our infrastructure is falling apart because of mismanagement of current funds, not becuase we dont want to pay to fill a pot hole.
  Many dont want to invest in high speed rail because they think it will be a grand failure. We have a high speed rail system in the north eastern corridor, but Amtrak is unable to reach max speed because of the high populated safety corridors it must pass through. Thus high speed is just normal speed. Given all that Amtrak is subsidized and ridership is still low.
  You have a point in that great nations are not built by accountants. But great nations have fallen from overtaxing its citizens by overspending.
2. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  "The west" isn't looking so bad. The EU is one huge project with a lot of subprojects. I don't feel the largest bits are managed very well (or very close to the "demos" of the democracy), but it is a huge project nonetheless, and some of the subprojects are great. Some also are railway-related. Nothing too fancy in terms of records except the world's longest tunnels in Switzerland, but most of the fast but not record-breaking trains are in Europe and their numbers are still rising.
  As for the USA, I recall it is still a major contributor to the ISS and CERN's large hadron collider, amongst a myriad of other projects. It isn't all so bad, but it seems to me a few trains would also do you some good. We'll ultimately all need to create a decent train and tram network if we are to retain mobility while expending less fossil fuels (be it due to cost or environmental concerns).
ROMAN justice baby by noshellswill · 2012-12-26 08:46 · Score: -1

Slut American investors financed chi.com growth by exporting American jobs, capitol and IP. Paybacks to the slut cosmopolitans ... ROMAN JUSTICE baby ....
1. Re:ROMAN justice baby by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  And many Americans paid for their jobs to be sent overseas by choosing high return foreign investments in their 401k vs domestic investments.
In another news... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:51 · Score: 0

At least US still have got the shortest HSR. Always leader anyway.
Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:11 · Score: 0

You're assuming they're still in the passenger business. They aren't. And you're also assuming that nobody is being an impediement to them.
And you're assuming they won't get back into it if it were worthwhile.

And then you see that during the 20's and 30's, we had over a billion rail-passengers a year, when the population was a lot less dense in most areas.
What was their alternative? Driving? Back then?! There were no interstates and cars were slow and unreliable.

But there's a lot more places where we could use it. But we don't have it. Why isn't it being built? Is it a combination of opposition to government, greed on the part of automobile, highway and fuel companies, or what?
None of the above. The biggest problems I've see are the huge capital outlays for any new rail and trains. And when folks look at that, the number of passengers it takes to make it worthwhile, it turns out to be not worth it. The numbers don't work.
And ...

You may think that rail makes no sense except in limited areas, but then you take a look at one of those Earth at night maps and see lots of shining lights.

Not dense enough in most of those areas. Again, the numbers just don't work.
1. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  If we subsidized rail to the same extent that we subsidize air and asphalt, would the numbers work out? Probably.
2. Re:Not necessarily by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-12-26 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  According to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, probably not. Rail is subsidized at a 10-40 times higher rate, per passenger mile, than air. Note that cars are actually a net revenue generator, with a negative subsidy.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
3. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting link - thanks. Of course, there are some issues.
  - The gas tax is a subsidy. A massive, huge subsidy.
  - The feds aren't the only game in town. Especially for asphalt, where local and state taxes are a major source.
  - There's a chicken-and-egg problem with per-passenger-mile as a metric. It's more of a trailing indicator.
  - Amtrak has demonstrated that spending a little money is a bigger waste than spending enough to create a usable system.
erroneus (253617) FatASS needs PIZZA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:16 · Score: -1

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!
I officially call BS... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:38 · Score: 1

1428 miles in 8 hours. I officially call BS on the claims that "HSR isn't feasible in the USA due to the very long distances between cities."
Let's take a look at Amtrak's long-distance timetables:
NYC to Miami: 1389 miles in 27:40. While a direct flight takes 3:38, you have to factor in arrival two hours early plus an hour on arrival to get your checked bag, so we're up to roughly 7 hours. China is now doing this trip in 8 hours, during which time you can use your laptop, tablet, and cell phone without skipping a beat.
New Orleans to LA: 1995 miles in 46:35. Via HSR, this would take 11 hours; the current flight, 4:23. While this is getting less competitive, I would still take the train over the flight any day. An 11-hour trip can be overnight, leaving at 1900 and arriving at 0600 having gotten a night of sleep and eliminated the need for an additional night in a hotel. (Note: this route used to go from Orlando to LA, but Katrina "temporarily" suspended the portion east of New Orleans...).
Bias alert: I never liked flying, and when the TSA was a nonissue, I still didn't like the discomfort/hours waiting issues. After using the Madrid-Sevilla HSR in 1999, I told myself "We need this back at home!"
Long distance trains have an advantage over cars by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-12-26 12:01 · Score: 1

Trains can run 24 hours.
The US is run by statists, unlike China? by bigsexyjoe · 2012-12-26 12:31 · Score: 1

Are you fucking kidding me?

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
1. Re:The US is run by statists, unlike China? by NicBenjamin · 2012-12-26 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Are you fucking kidding me?
  Just because he's evil doesn't mean he is wrong.
  In the US we have lots of extra money. The debate in DC over the deficit neatly illustrates his point. If we chose to raise taxes to their Clinton-levels we could easily fund the government without cutting anything. If we chose to add a little to those Clinton rates we could easily fund more. OTOH, if we chose to cut taxes significantly, while simultaneously cutting spending (particularly on the Pentagon and entitlements for the elderly), we could do that too. Both choices would probably be hailed by our Grandchildren as brilliant. The guys who prefer the former won the last elections, but they didn't win decisively enough to keep the dudes who want to do the latter from vetoing their policies.
  In short the reason we have a deficit problem is solely that we have chosen a political system that allows a significant minority the ability to exert major control over public policy through it's House Majority. While this is great from the standpoint of freedom, it is somewhat sub-optimal from the standpoint of actually getting shit done.
  Add in all the ways private citizens can derail infrastructure projects ("You can't do that, I just discovered that the brownish owls in that field are a distinct subspecies," or "you can't do that, I refuse to let the gubbment build on my land on principle") and you've got a pretty clear reason why nobody's been able to do anything serious on infrastructure since Eisenhower.
  Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I want us to become China. But I'm not so Jingoistic that I don't realize their system does not have major practical advantages. Moreover I have the sense of perspective to see how fucking rich we are. For example, have you ever played the game where you check defense budget on Wikipedia, then divide it by the price of an F-22, and figure out how many years it would take them to buy a flight of 4? Even for some large countries that should be putting every dime they can into their military (such as the DRCongo, which has a depressing tendency to be invaded by Rwanda), take more then one.
Wenzhou by SuperBanana · 2012-12-26 14:17 · Score: 1

A 186mph crash looks like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision
The amount of corruption involved is staggering, and the blind push to build the line and breakneck speed has already led to deaths like the above; substandard materials, design, construction, and components (like the signal systems that failed above.)
I'll be astounded if there isn't another major crash within 6 months.

--
Please help metamoderate.
If only they could do this in Australia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 14:34 · Score: 0

This would be bloody awesome if they could do this sort of thing down under. In a country that is relatively flat and with one of the busiest set of domestic air routes in the world* (reference required ;-) ) it would be a dream come true if one could catch a bullet train rather than having to drive or fly. There's a mob pushing for it... Hopefully this work in China inspires the Australian government.
Except China's new rails is neither cheaper by Su27K · 2012-12-26 16:02 · Score: 1

nor better, they just copied the technology from foreign HST manufacturers, same as the manned space program where they're copying Russian hardware. Trust me the Wal-Mart stuff are the good stuff produced by China, the Chinese export industry has fairly good quality since the foreign market has more strict consumer protection laws, if you think the things in Wal-Mart are bad, you don't want to know what's in China's domestic market. The progress China is making is nothing new, Taiwan, S. Korean and other Asian countries did the same in the 1970s and 1980s, this is no different except in a larger scale.
Meanwhile in China ... by dbIII · 2012-12-26 17:21 · Score: 2

Meanwhile in China and a lot of other places that doesn't apply, just as rail used to be competitive in the USA before rail company owners showed how much money they could squeeze out of the taxpayer after buying a few Senators.
top speeds by SuperBanana · 2012-12-26 18:13 · Score: 1

Amtrak top speeds is around 80mph.
The Metroliner (now Northeast Regional) does 125 mph (and has since 1981) and the Acela does 150. The locomotives that were used for Metroliner service are now on other lines, so at least they're capable of 125mph speeds, if the track they're on is upgraded, wherever they ended up.
Amtrak trains are sidelined for any passing freight trains
Northeast Regional and Acela run on Amtrak-owned track from Boston to DC. Dunno about other lines.

--
Please help metamoderate.
Michigan by witherstaff · 2012-12-26 18:31 · Score: 1

I'm in Michigan and well over a decade ago a push was put in for a high speed rail between Chicago and Detroit. The local city had small streets with rail crossings closed, nice fencing was put along the rails in the city. It was part of the push to be one of the possible stops along the way. Still no fast trains. I mean sure who would want to go to detroit.. maybe leaving it fast makes sense. But plenty of reasons to go to Chicago. Still way slower than driving. Also very pricey.
The south shore line goes from Chicago and ends at the South Bend airport with a few stops along the way. That is also a very slow ride, is packed, and is no more than a slow people mover. The last time I rode it was for a nephew to get a boy scout thing for riding a train. That will be the last time I ride it since driving would have been cheaper, and faster.
1. Re:Michigan by aaarrrgggh · 2012-12-27 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  This graphic shows the US Mega Regions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png
  If you look closely, you can see where problems will arise. The Northeast Corridor is easy to provide high-speed rail for, but you need population growth to make most regions viable. Funny thing about population growth...
Instead of acting so dumb, read the math! by dbIII · 2012-12-26 18:34 · Score: 1

So a failure to comprehend "averages 210km/h including stops along the way" and now unrealistic arbitrary conditions added about lengths of stops, which is irrelevant, since the number is the distance divided by the total time taken including stops.
He already "did the math" before you went anywhere near it.
Sorry to be so bitchy, but this place is far more fun if people act like they've actually been near a school before venting shit everywhere. Please sober up or come down from whatever is eating your brain before posting such dumb accusations.
Meanwhile in Canada. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 19:25 · Score: 0

Our VIA trains can reach about 110km/h, with a tailwind.
only if they can make it work for real.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 22:47 · Score: 0

A month or so later it will have sporadic service (no reasons given) and then a month after that you wont hear anything about it in the media again.
SO goes the typical communist PR event (touted to the skies) and then when its clear they cant run it as expected it will quietly be shut down and abandoned - the actual goal already been met.
There are two kinds of authoritarians by fnj · 2012-12-27 00:36 · Score: 2

There are two kinds of authoritarians. Stupid ones who get the priorities comprehensively fucked up and build a choking mountain of red tape (U.S.), and those who have actual working critical faculties and rational priorities (China).
Sure, the details of China's priorities are arguable, and adjustments are made over time. But one thing they are not is stupid and irrational. In the U.S. the priorities are blatantly stupid, utterly irrational, and no one is allowed to argue them.
This is a completely separate discussion from human rights.
"Black-nosed Budda" (a Zen anegdote) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 04:39 · Score: 0

Tired of the corporate sycophants on Slashdot.
I know that it is sacrilege in the U.S. to say so, but some things are worth doing even if you can't make a profit on them.
If they are worth doing, then there is a profit to be made doing them, not necessarily a monetary gain, but profit nevertheless. However, most such things are not being made just because it is easy to see that someone undeserving is also going to reap the benefits and we mustn't have that, as the matter of principle.
There Are Other Models of Success by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 05:25 · Score: 0

... than utilitarianism and convenience. Valuing history and environment and choice come to mind as some examples.
Re:Speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 06:59 · Score: 0

This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.
That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).
It is currently limited to 300 km/h... It is capable of 350 km/h, but is operating at 300 km/h to be safe. That is 186 miles per hour. Stops are limited to 5 minutes....
Downside to Amtrak by Dareth · 2012-12-27 08:12 · Score: 1

Don't worry *bump* about the *bump* downside. It is *bump* matched by the *bump* upside to each *bump*.
Took me a whole day to stop "bouncing" after I got off the train ride of 12 hours.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Yes by Dareth · 2012-12-27 08:21 · Score: 1

But they only have two bottles of the good stuff, and the rest is rotgut. Even my wife knew something was up when her "Crown and Coke" was really Jack Daniels and Pepsi.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Sorry,Midwest megaregion is more dense than Europe by Viewsonic · 2012-12-27 09:46 · Score: 1

If you overlay western Europes megaregions over the midwest, you will see not only is the North American Midwest more dense, that the area is even larger commanding even more people to ride the high speed rails. You need to turn off Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and stop listening to the GOP nonsense.
No comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 11:07 · Score: 0

Take your choice: Freedom + Poor public transportation OR 100% state control + Good public transportation
Slashdot sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 11:14 · Score: 0

Slashdot is really just becoming another place for liberals to spew their talking points. Why can't you just focus on the technical issues and stop bashing the United States of America.
Units and symbols by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 02:42 · Score: 0

Kilometres per hour is abbreviated kph? seriously? on a technology-related website?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometre_per_hour)