Passenger-based subsidy is much higher for airlines (about $50/seat) than Amtrak (about $4/seat average, more or less depending on the length of the route).
Trains get about an order of magnitude better fuel efficiency than a personal vehicle when loaded at or near seating capacity.
Oh, and I totally agree that long-run is much faster on planes - but be aware, even the Acela is faster than 150mph, and the best intercity trains in Japan and Europe run close to 200mph (a few are faster). It's certainly conceivable that we'll do 300mph in the next 20 years.
In 30 years, the total subsidy to Amtrak has been about $30 billion. In 2001 alone, the subsidy to airlines was $35 billion. That doesn't count the cost of making runways - often billions per new airstrip, plus hundreds of millions a year from local and state governments for maintenance and upgrades. Many Amtrak lines make money, as well - the better the ratio of train time to drive time, the higher the ridership - Amtrak Cascades is well on its way to break-even, and Acela Express and several other short runs already do.
High speed rail systems like the Acela Express actually take less time than airplanes for most trips. Airports have to be outside city centers, so there's drive time, and the mean time from door to takeoff is very high. For trips of 500 miles or less it's often faster to take a train.
Rail is vastly more energy efficient than an airliner. Do the friction cost calculations for an airplane at 500mph as opposed to a train at 200mph (velocity is squared).
It doesn't cost much more to move people by air than by train? Are you kidding me? Have you seen how much the US bails out the airline industry?
Re:The REAL Bad News is... you're buying a VW
on
VW Goes USB
·
· Score: 1
'91 Dodge Ram. Glove compartment latch fell off.
It's not as if these aren't problems that are common to all cars. The only vehicle I've owned for any length of time without finding a problem with it is my Cannondale.
Yeah, it's a Chevy Tahoe inside, I hear.
Still... seems foolhardy to buy a car that expensive with that bad of mileage with oil/gasoline stocks dropping like they are.
While I see your point, the same is the case for many business models.
Planned obsolesence is indeed something my company would love to do, and this is one of the ways that companies have done it in the past. Considering we're now discussing it, it's clearly relevant.
I guess all those times I thought trains stopped never really happened.:)
Seriously - what's your point? We've been able to stop trains just fine for 150 years.
In most backups, the amount of traffic does not even approach saturation point. People slow down due to badly designed merges, visibility problems, and simply bad driving - we don't teach people how to operate a vehicle before putting them on the road in the US. The number of backups due to actual traffic saturation are small - and many of those problems can be alleviated with bus service.
People look to rail as a 'magic bullet' because they look at urban planning in other countries and don't see twelve lane highways - they see rail networks. Have a look at Tokyo, for instance - the superexpressways are six lane (that's total, not each way). You can see that on Google Earth if you like.
We're starting to see that because of the way individual travel works, because of the likelihood that a single person in a car can make thousands more wait simply by pressing the brake when they don't need to, we're creating a system that can never handle our traffic needs. Railways can operate at 220mph on existing and well vetted technology - and they're vastly cheaper and often faster than air travel for mid-distance travel (~50-~700 miles).
Cars are great for last-mile travel in a town or city, but we shouldn't be using them for commuting or for long-haul. It's a waste of energy and a waste of money.
egarland, the reason we don't increase the number of lanes when we replace highways is that most backup problems can't be solved with more lanes. Backups around here are due to crests in the road that drivers can't see over, or turns that block a driver's view of upcoming traffic. You can't mitigate these with more lanes. It would be sticking our heads in the sand to suggest we *could*.
Um... many rail lines in western Washington are at capacity. You can't apply the same capacity reasoning to roads and rails - railways are centrally dispatched (or use CTC), so they have no problem getting to maximum capacity.
You're woefully misinformed.
Most of the maintenance costs of our roads are, indeed, interstates and truck-carrying highways that can be replaced much more cheaply with rail. Look at, for instance, the Palouse River railroad project in eastern (not dense) WA. The WSDOT figured out that it was so much cheaper to BUY the rail line and repair it than to maintain the roads for grain trucks that it paid for itself in 18 months in reduced road maintenance.
And a rail line carries about as many people, realistically, as two to three lanes of highway - more if you're talking about shipping goods. Of course it's cheaper - there's less rolling friction and less air resistance, not to mention that trains have been diesel-electric hybrid for more than fifty years. Oh, and diesel is more efficient than gasoline, too.
Actually, we've known since the seventies that density does not equate with crime. Bad urban planning does, however, and there are models of how to do it right that American cities need to start learning from. We have to compete with places that are shipping their goods more cheaply and faster than ours.
Again, check out the book "Metropolitan Corridor", about how rails built much of this nation, and you'll get a better understanding of how people like you, informed by self-serving industries, are the only things keeping the unsubstantiated allegations you're making alive.
Nope, the sky isn't falling. We will find ways to get around it. But just like all the other issues you refer to, if there aren't people like me urging folks to pay attention to the impending problem and make an effort to work around it, we won't.
Anyway, steel on steel is vastly more energy-efficient than rubber on asphalt. As energy goes up in price, unless we're willing to piss away hundreds of billions on road infrastructure (instead of the tens of billions we do now) we'll start investing more in rails - they're cheaper to build for the amount that can be shipped on them.
Biodiesel can only provide a small fraction of our needs. The NREL's document "Business Management for Biodiesel Producers" shows that even if all vegetable oil production (in the US) were used for biodiesel, we would meet only 10% of our current diesel needs. That doesn't even scratch the surface of our petroleum fuel usage.
Re:The changes that should be made
on
The Future of the Car
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Bullet trains are NOT electromagnetic railways. They are almost always standard gauge rail with catenary and messenger wire.
There are a few isolated bits of maglev out there, and a test track in Japan for possible construction of a new Tokyo-Osaka alignment, but afaik, there's nothing in public operation that's longer than the Shanghai airport maglev - somewhere on the order of 50km.
Read a book called "Metropolitan Corridor" about rail and road evolution at the turn of the century. When oil gets too expensive, rail will become the primary method of transportation again. Your assertion that it costs more is bullhonkey.
Slashdot Mirror
Passenger-based subsidy is much higher for airlines (about $50/seat) than Amtrak (about $4/seat average, more or less depending on the length of the route).
Trains get about an order of magnitude better fuel efficiency than a personal vehicle when loaded at or near seating capacity.
Oh, and I totally agree that long-run is much faster on planes - but be aware, even the Acela is faster than 150mph, and the best intercity trains in Japan and Europe run close to 200mph (a few are faster). It's certainly conceivable that we'll do 300mph in the next 20 years.
In 30 years, the total subsidy to Amtrak has been about $30 billion. In 2001 alone, the subsidy to airlines was $35 billion. That doesn't count the cost of making runways - often billions per new airstrip, plus hundreds of millions a year from local and state governments for maintenance and upgrades. Many Amtrak lines make money, as well - the better the ratio of train time to drive time, the higher the ridership - Amtrak Cascades is well on its way to break-even, and Acela Express and several other short runs already do. High speed rail systems like the Acela Express actually take less time than airplanes for most trips. Airports have to be outside city centers, so there's drive time, and the mean time from door to takeoff is very high. For trips of 500 miles or less it's often faster to take a train. Rail is vastly more energy efficient than an airliner. Do the friction cost calculations for an airplane at 500mph as opposed to a train at 200mph (velocity is squared).
It doesn't cost much more to move people by air than by train? Are you kidding me? Have you seen how much the US bails out the airline industry?
'91 Dodge Ram. Glove compartment latch fell off. It's not as if these aren't problems that are common to all cars. The only vehicle I've owned for any length of time without finding a problem with it is my Cannondale.
Yes, you missed something. Did you RTFA?
Yes, all you'd have to do if you used it on its side is flip it over.
Yeah, it's a Chevy Tahoe inside, I hear. Still... seems foolhardy to buy a car that expensive with that bad of mileage with oil/gasoline stocks dropping like they are.
While I see your point, the same is the case for many business models. Planned obsolesence is indeed something my company would love to do, and this is one of the ways that companies have done it in the past. Considering we're now discussing it, it's clearly relevant.
I was under the impression that this beta was only available to Select members and above, making it paid software.
That's not off topic. Someone fix that moderation, it's a good point.
and the availability of competing services in closer, have you considered moving into an area with better services?
Note that The Power of Nightmares (maybe even the others) are available for free on Archive.org as well.
I guess all those times I thought trains stopped never really happened. :)
Seriously - what's your point? We've been able to stop trains just fine for 150 years.
Not a bleedin' chance. Anyway, we don't have that much fresh water.
Isn't the speed of sound different in different water pressures?
Get an urban planning degree and get back to me.
In most backups, the amount of traffic does not even approach saturation point. People slow down due to badly designed merges, visibility problems, and simply bad driving - we don't teach people how to operate a vehicle before putting them on the road in the US. The number of backups due to actual traffic saturation are small - and many of those problems can be alleviated with bus service.
People look to rail as a 'magic bullet' because they look at urban planning in other countries and don't see twelve lane highways - they see rail networks. Have a look at Tokyo, for instance - the superexpressways are six lane (that's total, not each way). You can see that on Google Earth if you like.
We're starting to see that because of the way individual travel works, because of the likelihood that a single person in a car can make thousands more wait simply by pressing the brake when they don't need to, we're creating a system that can never handle our traffic needs. Railways can operate at 220mph on existing and well vetted technology - and they're vastly cheaper and often faster than air travel for mid-distance travel (~50-~700 miles).
Cars are great for last-mile travel in a town or city, but we shouldn't be using them for commuting or for long-haul. It's a waste of energy and a waste of money.
egarland, the reason we don't increase the number of lanes when we replace highways is that most backup problems can't be solved with more lanes. Backups around here are due to crests in the road that drivers can't see over, or turns that block a driver's view of upcoming traffic. You can't mitigate these with more lanes. It would be sticking our heads in the sand to suggest we *could*.
Um... many rail lines in western Washington are at capacity. You can't apply the same capacity reasoning to roads and rails - railways are centrally dispatched (or use CTC), so they have no problem getting to maximum capacity.
You're woefully misinformed. Most of the maintenance costs of our roads are, indeed, interstates and truck-carrying highways that can be replaced much more cheaply with rail. Look at, for instance, the Palouse River railroad project in eastern (not dense) WA. The WSDOT figured out that it was so much cheaper to BUY the rail line and repair it than to maintain the roads for grain trucks that it paid for itself in 18 months in reduced road maintenance. And a rail line carries about as many people, realistically, as two to three lanes of highway - more if you're talking about shipping goods. Of course it's cheaper - there's less rolling friction and less air resistance, not to mention that trains have been diesel-electric hybrid for more than fifty years. Oh, and diesel is more efficient than gasoline, too. Actually, we've known since the seventies that density does not equate with crime. Bad urban planning does, however, and there are models of how to do it right that American cities need to start learning from. We have to compete with places that are shipping their goods more cheaply and faster than ours. Again, check out the book "Metropolitan Corridor", about how rails built much of this nation, and you'll get a better understanding of how people like you, informed by self-serving industries, are the only things keeping the unsubstantiated allegations you're making alive.
That's a picture. The TGV, Acela, ICE, and Shinkansen are bullet trains.
Nope, the sky isn't falling. We will find ways to get around it. But just like all the other issues you refer to, if there aren't people like me urging folks to pay attention to the impending problem and make an effort to work around it, we won't. Anyway, steel on steel is vastly more energy-efficient than rubber on asphalt. As energy goes up in price, unless we're willing to piss away hundreds of billions on road infrastructure (instead of the tens of billions we do now) we'll start investing more in rails - they're cheaper to build for the amount that can be shipped on them.
Cars are quickly going to become rich-people goods, and most transportation will go back to rail (4-10 times as fuel efficient).
Biodiesel can only provide a small fraction of our needs. The NREL's document "Business Management for Biodiesel Producers" shows that even if all vegetable oil production (in the US) were used for biodiesel, we would meet only 10% of our current diesel needs. That doesn't even scratch the surface of our petroleum fuel usage.
Bullet trains are NOT electromagnetic railways. They are almost always standard gauge rail with catenary and messenger wire. There are a few isolated bits of maglev out there, and a test track in Japan for possible construction of a new Tokyo-Osaka alignment, but afaik, there's nothing in public operation that's longer than the Shanghai airport maglev - somewhere on the order of 50km.
Read a book called "Metropolitan Corridor" about rail and road evolution at the turn of the century. When oil gets too expensive, rail will become the primary method of transportation again. Your assertion that it costs more is bullhonkey.