-
1
03/10/10 | Report as spam
It will require government action
Unlike European rail, Amtrak is languishing under a national policy that requires passenger rail to be self-supporting while piling dollars on highways and airports. The rail beds are still there waiting to be used but there is no governmental incentive.
-
2
03/10/10 | Report as spam
Nonsense
This kind of blather is what creates red herring projects like the
California High Speed Rail.
I want to see ridership as a proportion of travel between
destinations. And then show me how this helped economically. In the
FL or CA examples, it will NEVER pay off, it will never make sense,
it is feel-goody politics.
Rail can certainly serve a purpose in densely populated areas, but
is hardly the best solution in most regions. In almost every local,
massive bus service is cheaper, more flexible and achieves higher
ridership. And if using natural gas, cleaner. However, it is not
very exciting and doesn't appeal to liberals need for government
intervention to solve our problems (even though it is, it's just not
grandiose).
-
3
03/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
you don't need all new rail traditional rail if run by a computerized system with sufficient bypasses could achieve average speeds of 100mph. A cheap first step is to run freight and passenger trains at different times. i.e. long passenger 15 hour runs could be run overnight in both directions simultaneously uninterrupted with sleepers, while freight would go over lines during weekends and other times when most passenger trains are would not be fully utilized.
Also small improvements like smoothing out any sharp turns along existing line would yield much higher average speed and fuel economy. Why does every solution out of DC have to come with little sense and a huge $$ tag.
-
4
03/10/10 | Report as spam
Nope. It will never pay for itself in America.
The cost of one of the most logical corridors for "high speed rail", Los Angeles to San Francisco, is at over $33 billion, or $82 million per-mile! To justify that kind of capital investment as well as to cover the cost of running it, (running a high-speed line is not cheap) a one-way ticket would have to cost well over $1,000, or several times a round-trip airline ticket.
Also consider that on a seat-mile basis, high-speed rail is far more carbon intensive than both car and air travel. The only reason carbon-crazed California pushes this is because they think taxpayers somewhere else will be paying for it.
Personally, I love travelling by train when I am in Europe, and do so every chance I get. But it's with the knowledge that the cost of my trip is almost entirely subsidized by European taxpayers. The progressives here in America have this fantasy that it will be this great economic boon, but like so many other pie-in-the-sky ideals, they simply don't have the math (or the dollars) to back that up.
-
5
03/10/10 | Report as spam
Can't compete with air
Although France's TGV is very nice, and although it is heavily subsidized, it is loosing ridership because it can't compete with low-fare airlines, especially on longer routes such as the Paris-to-Marseille hop (about 410 miles, line-of-sight). In this country, with our greater distances except in the dense NE corridor it makes no sense to even consider passenger rail.
-
6
03/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
The US is just too large to convert to high speed rail. In my area the studies showed that a high speed train would cut 1 hr of travel time to NYC. Which means it would still be 2hrs longer than plane (including waiting at the airport for 2hrs prior to departure) the rail journey would also cost more than 3X the cost of flying.
The first thing to do is to develop non-stop long rapid runs with trains to get ridership up. NYC to Chicago non-stop, NYC to Miami/Orlando non-stop, Chicago to LA non-stop. Get the freight trains out of the way so the passenger trains don't have to stop. If a train could get me from NY to Miami in 12-14 hrs, for less than $1000 round trip I would certainly do it.Currently the trip takes over 30hrs and costs $1,000+ EACH WAY. If I could board in the evening and arrive at my destination well rested and showered that would be great. Get me from Chicago to LA non-stop in about 20 hrs would be okay. New York to Chicago in 10hrs would be acceptable.
Run big long 30 car trains (tiny compared to freights) with specialized fuel cars to guarantee the longer range. Make them with capacity of 1,000 passengers, everyone in a 1st clsss environment. Tack on a half dozen auto-cars so some people could bring their own automobile with them, or include destination rent a car in the pricing.
Improve customer service - Improve the experience - Improve the efficiencies of the journey THEN when it becomes profitable start increasing the ability to travel at excessive speeds. Imagine a 200MPH non stop train ride from NYC to LA in 15hrs Board in the evening and arrive well rested.
It can be done BUT not with our increasingly inept government and perennially idiotic and corrupt CEO's
-
7
03/10/10 | Report as spam
Imagine the cost!
NYC to LA: 2500 miles as the crow flies, so much longer by ground. And you won't be going 200 MPH the whole way, especially once you hit the Rockies, unless you want to tunnel all the way, which will increase the cost. At $33-million per-mile, the price tag will be nearly $1-trillion dollars. A first-class ticket on your favorite airline will look cheap.
What is it about rails that makes otherwise sane people go all glassey-eyed and silly?
-
8
03/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
Rail used to be the only way to travel 100 years ago. But that all changed in the 30' and 40's. these days, air travel is cheap and fast. The only way to make HS rail competitive in the US is for the cost of air travel to increase dramatically. For that to happen, oil prices would have to increase dramatically.
Everyone child loves trains, but it seem that as a mode of major passenger transportation in the US, it is a thing of the past.
-
9
03/10/10 | Report as spam
Who says it's helping their economy?
The horrendous price of gasoline in Europe is mostly taxes which go directly subsidize their public transportation systems in order to try to force car-owner to ride instead of drive.
Welcome to the party, comrade!
-
10
03/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
I don't know how much air travel is subsidized. A breakdown of the costs of all modes of transport, with hidden subsidies explained would be good for all citizens to read. BTW, What happened to 'transparent' government?
-
11
03/10/10 | Report as spam
Such is what happens when you subsidize.
Everyone becomes unaware of the real cost of things. And even when they no longer make sense, subsidies never go away. For example, if oil is so evil, why is it subsidized? Our ethanol policy is a complete disaster, both economically and ecologically. And yet, we'll be subsidizing it to the end of time.
Yes, highways and air travel are heavily subsidized as well. But just how expensive does auto and air travel have to become before it offsets the trillions of dollars it is suggested that we subsidize high-speed rail? We will probably never find out.
-
12
03/10/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
It is true that the demographic and geographic differences between Europe and the US are enormous, so for the average long-distance traveller in the US is just going to look at the ticket price and not consider a post-oil future where a highly calorific liquid fuel is not available to power aircraft. Would it not be better to invest in an alternative transport infrastructure now, when oil is so cheap, than wait until it runs out and it becomes even more prohibitively expensive? I am US citizen that lives in Europe and doesn't fly. Here you can see the benefit (social and economic) of maintaining a passenger rail network, that despite requiring some subsidies makes Europe an inclusive society, and one with a more sustainable infrastructure. Yes, the geography in the US weighs against a high-speed rail network, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
The culture and philosphic outlook of the US and Europe are very different, which means that when discussing potential infrastructure investments. In Europe the greater long-term total benefit is considered more important than short-term economic return. In the US there is still a conservative 'frontier' mentality that is centered more around the individual than a greater whole, and so investment that does not directly benefit the individual is frowned upon.
Plans are well advanced for a high-speed Trans-Siberian line from Europe to China; surely that is a little further than NY to LA? Having run overland from Vladivostock to London I can tell you that now I would rather spend 10 days on a train than 10 hours on a plane. Life is an experience, not a destination.
-
13
03/11/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
Gaius, if you have ever been to Europe, you'd realize that unlike the US, people *do not HAVE to have* a car!
I moved around Germany, visited other countries, and did so quickly, and cheaply -- using the rail system. There were relatively few times I used an automobile while I was there, and usually even then it was when performing my military duties, mostly on base.
America, though I love what she [used to] stand for, is a wreck, centering around capitalist inefficiency. Automobiles are the most used means of transport here in the States, which is also the most inefficient means of average civilian transportation, next to air.
Bullet trains are faster, cheaper to operate and maintain, more energy and ecologically efficient. They could be used across countries, and also across waterways, where we normally use airplanes. Actually airplanes are currently wasteful and unnecessary for anything besides medical and scientific research. Of course I didn't include military application, because these stupid wars are probably the most inefficient thing we have chosen not to evolve out of.
-
14
03/11/10 | Report as spam
Addition to earlier post (we need to be able to edit!)
I didn't mention that yes, rail will be more costly to BUILD than our roads and such. But with the costs over time, it would be worth it.
Americans tend to fall short in one area, which is long term thought. We are generally a short-sighted people, that are about impatience and short-term costs than in long term investment. Hence the reason you can find a McDonalds on about every other corner here.
"Give it to me now, and cheap." It is a wrong mode of thought, but it is one that Americans are centered around.
-
15
03/11/10 | Report as spam
Liath.WW, you are completely wrong.
Trains overall are not less expensive to operate. In fact, the only place where they are more efficient by passenger mile (the standard for measuring passenger transit efficiency) is in Japan. And the only reason Japan is more efficient is because they literally pack people on trains like sardines; something that would be a deal-breaker both here and in Europe.
High-speed rail, because of "high speed" is far less energy efficient than traditional commuter or freight rail. And yet when its protagonists tout its efficiency, they will compare commuter or freight numbers against auto or air numbers. The reality is that the numbers for "high speed", auto, and air are quite similar. Also consider that autos and air becomes more fuel efficient every year, whereas there will be very little extra efficiency that technology will be able to wring out of high speed rail.
Sorry, but the efficiency arguments for high-speed rail are simply misinformation and wishful thinking.
-
16
03/11/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
As a European, high speed rail won't work in many parts of the US because population densities are so low (lucky you). But trains running on existing tracks (mildly upgraded) at 125 mph in Britain compete with air between large cities up to about 250 miles apart, just as Amtrack do between Washington - NYC. LA - Frisco should be possible without new tracks, electric wires etc. - all the stuff that sends capital costs through the roof. That's an issue you look at after the first decade.
-
17
03/11/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
Trains are merely another option in the transportation mix.
Why are they necessary? Many people don't care to fly for one
thing. Why subsidize? Everything else is subsidized, from cars
to busses to airplanes. If you don't think so, you're fooling
yourself. Any service that comes under the heading of mass
transportation or public utility has to be subsidized. Personally
I like trains. I remember as a child getting up early every
morning to watch the City of Orleans pass my grandmother's
house because more than being a fun, comfortable, civilized
way of traveling, trains inspire one to dream.
-
18
03/12/10 | Report as spam
Ooops, I was wrong above.
It's $82-million per-mile. So NYC to LA would be well over $2-billion
to build, for a single route!
-
19
03/13/10 | Report as spam
Ooops, I'll try again.
$2-trillion for a single route, or roughly 2/3rds of the Federal budget
for a single year.
-
20
03/15/10 | Report as spam
Infrastructure does not directly pay for itself and it never has
Those who claim rail will never pay for itself and make all sorts
of claims about lack of value forget that we have subsidized all
infrastructure from the "King's Highway" to canals to airlines and
airports. This is the traditional role of government because
commerce works best when there are many convenient ways to
travel from one place to another. If we were to build our
interstate highway system from scratch today how much would
it cost?
As the article states, well placed and planned rail is critical. A
line that traverses the entire US in one trip would have a hard
time competing with airlines, however between large
metropolitan areas (i.e. Twin Cities-Chicago-Cleveland-
Pittsburgh). That makes more sense. Right now it takes about 6
hours to drive from Saint Paul to Milwaukee. It takes 3.5 hours
to fly (including travel to and from the airport, check-in, etc--
and the airports are not near where I want to be). To travel from
downtown to downtown would be ideal for business and
pleasure. If we keep thinking that spending money is bad even if
spending money helps make money, we are dooming ourselves
to eventual third-world status.
-
21
03/30/10 | Report as spam
RE: High-speed rail helps European economy; can it help the US?
Here on the West Coast passenger trains are side railed for the freight trains so the supposed 10 trips can be well over 16 hours or more. My Mom uses the rail to travel 450-600 mile trips which can be driven in 8-12 hours yet her train trips are often double or triple those time. There are delays in their arrivals and departures. I have personally experienced 8+ hour delays in departure, now we start calling the train station to see how late the train is running, of course it is only 20-30 minutes delayed each time you call, so you have to keep checking even if it will be several hours late, it is always 20-30 minutes behind schedule.
Remember to add in all of the $5 soft drinks, etc to your travel expenses. I find it much cheaper to fly or drive especially if you add in the value of my time.
Then there is one of their many interesting policies of pulling up all of the extra cushions so you can not lay down across the seats, the breakdowns where it takes hours for them to get you off the broken train, transfer to a bus or another train.
Then there was the recent train ride from the Midwest (Kansas - Northern California), visit to the grandkids, back to the Pacific Northwest. I believe the whole trip was 3 days! Yes, 3 days of travel due to routing, layovers, etc. At which point you are sleeping sitting up as the costs of a sleeper are unbelievably high and you have to buy food on the train at their incredibly high prices as well.
The list goes on.
I do believe if it were to become competitive it would certainly become a viable alternative out here in the west. As it stands now it is very difficult to consider it. We do need to consider trains as one of several avenues to address our transportation needs.
_300dpi_1452846_270x194.jpg "High-speed rail")
