Billions for high-speed rail; anyone aboard? Not in America...

[SnoopDog]

"But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades."

Sort of says it all...

A country, a nation, cannot survive if it does not embrace infrastructure, knowledge, technology. It just means our politicians do not care about America...

We use to care. And just look around - America is dying...



................

Billions for high-speed rail; anyone aboard?
Popular in Europe and Japan, bullet trains have gone nowhere in the U.S.


To Americans, high-speed trains evoke the gee-whiz factor of a trip to Tomorrowland: Ride futuristic cars that zoom you to a destination in a fraction of the drive time — without having to fight your way through an airport. Read a book, do paperwork, take a nap while you whoosh ahead in high-speed comfort.

To governments, they evoke benefits to the common good — reduced freeway traffic, lower carbon pollution and more jobs.

But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades.

<more>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29900655/

[billyoc]

1. 200 mph trains will always be irrelevant

as long as their are 600 mph airplanes.

[tularetom]

2. You just made the point

600 mph airplanes may be on the way out at least as a means of mass transportation.

[billyoc]

6. What makes you say the may be on the way out?

[annabanana]

38. Kind of depends on the cost of fuel...

For a while there, the cost of the fuel to move a human from A to B outstripped the amount they'd likely pay for a ticket. You can't fudge those numbers for long.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Nowhere Near 600 mph for Short Hops

when you account for the time it takes to

get from downtown (or wherever) to the airport
get checked-in,
get through security,
get on board,
wait to take off,
fly for a few minutes,
wait to land,
wait to get to the gate,
get off the plane,
get your bags
get to downtown (or wherever).

They use trains for most short hops in Europe for this reason.

[knowbody0]

3. I do not agree

trains are so much more convenient.

[Horse with no Name]

49. and much closer to the ground!n/t

[SnoopDog]

7. As always, there is more to it than raw speed...

[wuushew]

8. Aviation fuel will continue to become more scarce and expensive in the future

Flying will again return to the domain of the wealthly.

[PM7nj]

9. Not in areas like BosWash, California, etc

Taking a train between two cities in the Northeast, between LA and San francisco, or Chicago and Milwaukee is much easier and usually faster than a plane. We should concentrate on building high speed trains in these highly populated, dense areas. We can leave the cross country trips to planes though.

[XemaSab]

19. To take the train between LA and San Francisco

First of all you have to take the bus to the East Bay.

Then either you take the Coast Starlight down along the coast, which takes 13 hours, or you can go up to Sacramento, down to Bakersfield, and take a bus to LA, which takes 8+ hours.

It's a lot more convenient to drive. First of all, you have your car there when you get to LA, secondly it's $75 bucks. It's cheaper to drive, but on the train you have to buy expensive train food.

It's been a painful process to acknowledge this, but it's a fact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. It's 350 miles; about the same as London to Glasgow

which is done in about 4 and a half hours (on a service with 6 intermediate stopping points), on tracks whose route was built over 150 years ago (and thus has a lot more turns than a modern track would have). SF to LA should be doable in under 3 hours with a non-stop train.

Are there really no train tracks left in the centre of the 2 cities any more? They don't have to be high speed ones - just ones that connect to a high speed track outside the city. It doesn't matter much if a train has to slow down to 50mph inside a city (it'd still be faster than most cars manage in cities).

Top tip: take your own food on to trains. Sandwiches, drinks that come in cartons, a water bottle you fill from a tap, that kind of thing.

[XemaSab]

36. As the crow flies? Or as the tracks wind?

There are multiple mountain ranges between the two cities, and either you can go down the coast, which is VERY windy, or you can take a straight shot down the Valley and take a bus to LA, 'cause there are no tracks over the Tehachapis.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Part of the point of this is to invest in decent tracks

and if that means building some new ones on sensible routes (which, outside cities, is generally possible), then that's what you do. I doubt the coast is so windy it would prevent trains running.

[XemaSab]

42. Not WINDY as in WIND

WINDY as in the tracks WIND.

http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/maplocate.cgi?9,current,234,0,468,0,34.971333,120.656500,5760,3600,217,370

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Ah, right!

:blush:

One solution to that, without having to lay expensive new track, is a tilting train. Britain tried it many years ago, (for its very 'windy' West Coast line - London to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow - 5 of the largest 7 or so cities in the country, so a very important line). Back in the 70s (or was it early 80s?), the technology proved unreliable; but in the past decade, we've imported the 'Pendolino' trains, which seem to be working well. They can get up to about 140mph, even on track with quite sharp curves - it's passenger comfort, rather than the forces needed to keep trains on the track, that limits train speed on curves, on the whole.

The other 2 or 3 main long distance lines in the UK had been designed (all in the 19th century) with tracks a bit straighter, and they could take non-tilting trains up to 125mph, even back in the 1970s (and now, 140mph). Not the speeds the French achieve, but still fast enough to make them good alternatives to flying for travel inside the UK.

[XemaSab]

45. Don't worry about it

It's one of the weird limitations of the internets. :D

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Heh - it reminds me of a moment in an electronics shop when I was a child

Me: "Why does that open-reel tape recorder have a button labelled 'wind speed'?"

It seems I never learn to think about the context of that word. :D

[immoderate]

47. You remind me of "Windy Mountain Road" in Westlake Village.

Always provokes a spirited debate when we drive by.

--imm

[MH1]

40. What, no subway or light rail?

Never been in LA myself, except the airport, so I don't know - but why wouldn't there be a faster mass transit option than bus to get you to the commuter rail or high-speed rail terminals?

Your point does highlight that more needs to be thought of than just the high speed rail route itself.

[wuushew]

12. Max speed is not average speed

Pick a random domestic flight
Northwest - NWA 1541

Departing, Chicago IL (O'Hare) Mar 26 06:53 PM
Arriving Minneapolis MN Mar 26 07:49 PM


A little over 300 miles in 56 minutes is not that fast. That is before ticket check in, baggage check and TSA cavity search.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. They're not irrelevant in Europe and Asia.

Obviously there's no sense building a high speed train to link two places 2000 miles away from each other. On the other hand, for linking two places 400 miles or less away from each other, it can make a lot of sense.

[AZ Criminal JD]

22. Aren't there 600 mph airplanes in Europe and Asia?

[billyoc]

24. Of course, or we'd never go there.

:hi:

[AZ Criminal JD]

32. Ahh no.

I'm not talking about us going there. I'm talking about Europeans and Asians going to other places in Europe and Asia. But of course you knew that.

[spanone]

44. so how do you explain 55 mph trucks?

[marmar]

46. When you factor in the transit time to and from the airport, the parking hassles.....

..... the check-in times, the security clearance and all the potential delays once you clear security, that 600 miles per hour (actually 530 mph is closer to the typical cruise speed) doesn't mean much.

[napi21]

4. I would love it, but then I liked riding the bus to work in Pgh. for years too,

When I was relocated to the South, everyone frowned on "public transportation"! Everytime I asked why, all they said was that only the riffraff ride that!

[dysfunctional press]

5. we've never built one because it's never been needed, or particularly wanted by the masses.

europe and japan have traditionally had higher population densities, higher priced gasoline, and shorter distances between population hubs.

there are a few place where 'bullet trains' might make sense in the u.s.- the boston-d.c. corridor comes to mind...but good luck obtaining the rights of way necessary to build one...:shrug:

we prefer personal vehicles in this country, and as electric and other alternative-powered vehicles come online to repace the internal combustion engines- most people will continue to prefer them.

[taterguy]

35. The masses want what's most affordable and convenient

Our government has decided to invest most of its transportation dollars on roads rather than rails.

This has made traveling by rail more expensive so rational people generally "choose" to drive.

Personally I prefer trains for trips between cities less than 300 miles apart. It's not for any lofty environmental reason but for the simple fact that on train trips I can do things like read, write and socialize with others. If I'm driving the only thing I can do is pay attention to the road.

[doc03]

10. That would be just great but if you haven't noticed we are broke

Maybe instead of putting just 7% of the Stimulus Plan into infrastructure we should have put the other 93% into infrastructure.

[SnoopDog]

11. Yes we are 'broke'....

We are by most definitions - a third world nation.

But there are alot of smart and technological Americans.

We need to start producing something of value and get out of the hole our government has put us into...

[doc03]

13. I just can't see the added deficits

in this proposed budget. Just how the hell can Democrats criticize Bush for doubling the debt in 8 years when you plan to double it or more in 4 years, it's insane. We are literally going to be taxed into poverty in a few years. They are already talking about taking that tax cut for 95% of Americans away in 2011, then the Cap and Trade and if they tax employer health benefits like the President is considering, heaven help America.

[SnoopDog]

18. Well bud, lets talk reality...

First, under Rep or Dem mentality, it does not matter about 'deficits' because they are NOT intended to to be paid back.
And 'our children' will not have to 'pay back the deficit' as 'they' or 'we' have not been paying back the deficit since its inception.

Second, here is some real reality - there are only two legitimate reasons to have an imbalanced budget - war and an economic crisis.

It is like a pump. Some pumps need 'priming' - do you know what I mean? You have to prime the pump to get it to work.

And that is our economy - gotta prime the pump or our economy never starts up.

The republican views on the economy are absolute failures - just read a newspaper or look out your door...

[doc03]

21. I won't argue we should have deficit spending to

stimulate the economy at this time. It is all the new programs that will literally bankrupt us. Deficits mattered when Bill Clinton was in office, he left with a surplus and I believe they projected the national debt would have been wiped out entirely by 2015. We all know what happened in 2000. Get our economy back on track then go for health care and other things. You know they forecasted the cost of Medicare would be just a fraction of what it is today. Then look at Bush's senior drug plan it has cost much more than first estimated. Now you look at the President's proposed budget it projects huge deficits and by past experience those deficits will in the end be far greater than what they estimate. Think about the debt and or inflation you are saddling future generations with. I will be retiring next year and I am really concerned how I will survive if I am fortunate enough to life another 20 years or more, the inflation will literally eat up our fixed incomes.

[SnoopDog]

27. Doc, I get where you are coming from...

"New programs' is a talking point. What did happen in 2000? Like I said, 'they' don;t ever plan on paying back the deficits.

Your fixed income, like mine, will be eaten up - but not because of anything we or 'they' do. It will be eaten up by the
greed of corporations and government, but I repeat myself...

[yodoobo]

20. The deficit is going to be cut in half, not double

Obama has been very clear that he intends to cut the deficit in half.

All this talk of doubling the deficit is just republican talking points.

And that was Mccain talking about taxing health benefits, not Obama.

[doc03]

25. Don't confuse debt and deficit, the deficit will be cut in half

but you are still piling up a debt and it will double, they say after I believe 2014 the deficit will start climbing again. Another thing those are estimates. Medicare has ended up costing many times more than was first projected and the same goes for Bush's Senior drug plan, what makes you think the cost of these new programs is anywhere near accurate? We are going to be taxed to death and I mean everyone, they are already talking of taking back that middle class tax cut Obama campaigned on. I think this budget is just insane and have let my Congressman and Senator both know my position on it. I am sure my Congressman Charlie Wilson and Voinovich will oppose this mess but doubt if Sherrod Brown will.

[TankLV]

29. At least you admit you're a repuke...sorry - we don't agree with you at all...

and neither do the experts or the facts or history.

Your WAR CRMINAL president GAVE AWAY all the CLINTON surpllus to HIS WEALTY BUDDIES and WE HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT!

President Obama will SPREAD THE CASH AROUND TO THE AVERAGE PERSON - i.e. NINTY FIVE PERCENT of us - and will leave behind INFRASTRUCTURE, JOBS, AND OTHER TANGIBLE ASSETS!!!

[doc03]

33. Just because I disagree with this President's

spending Bush was my President. President Obama is going to do exactly what he said he would do "spread the wealth around". The problem with that is about 85% of us will pay through the ass for it. Haven't you heard they are already talking about rescinding that tax-cut for the 95% in two years? Take the Cap and Trade, just who the f--- do you think will pay for that? You will pay out the ass for your electricity that's who, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of jobs it will drive to other countries. You know there are Democrats talking about taxing our employer paid health-care benefits don't you, and Obama said he is open to the idea. The only time I ever voted for a Republican President in my lifetime was in 1980 and that was a huge mistake. You are right Bush gave the surplus to his wealthy buddies and it has created a mess. I have no problem with infrastructure spending to get us out of this mess but only 7% of the stimulus went for infrastructure. First we need to get out of the recession, you can't tackle health-care and all the other programs without spending us into bankruptcy. I just hope there are a enough thinking Democrats in the House and Senate to prevent this President from digging us into a hole we will never get out of. The man has only been in office a couple months and he has laid out plans to double the national debt in 4 years. If the President would just focus on the economy and get it turned around in the next couple years he will get elected by a landslide, that would be the time to tackle the other stuff. The way it is now if this budget goes through we will lose the House in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012.

[immoderate]

48. Consider the idea of "return on investment."

Bush deficits were just spending. Military spending returns nothing to the economy. However spending on education, health care, and infrastructure accrue to our product output (or could.) The expenditures come back as increased revenues, and durable improvements that improve the quality of life.

--imm

[XemaSab]

16. I'll tell you what:

I have flown to New Hampshire, Florida, and Texas, and I have taken the train to New Hampshire and South Carolina...

Flying is much cheaper, faster, and easier than taking the train, by orders of magnitude.

For real.

[rebecca_herman]

17. I'd rather take a train...

but I realize I have an unusual situation in that my fear of flying is so severe I will not fly at all
but I agree the trains we have now are not great, I'd just rather take one if I absolutely had to travel somewhere and had no way to avoid it
I did NY-Florida and Virginia-Florida plus return trips, it wasn't that bad

[Silent3]

23. The point is that taking a train in the US sucks now...

...but it wouldn't have to suck so much if we invested in a good high-speed rail system. Rail is certainly far more energy efficient than flying.

[XemaSab]

26. This is exactly the point

Rail is too annoying and expensive to take for the entertainment value, and too slow and expensive to take for the efficiency value.

Unless you're taking a short hop, such as San Francisco to Sacramento, or DC to Philadelphia, or so forth, it's not worth it.

[NuttyFluffers]

30. anything roughly around and under 400 miles, high speed rail is faster.

pretty much each and every time. just because it doesn't exist in america doesn't mean it doesn't already work elsewhere. even in Korea it is faster to take the high speed rail train up and down the peninsula than bother with flying from Seoul to Busan.

of course from New Hampshire to South Carolina will be slower by rail -- that's way more than 600 miles.

never compare the anemic and pathetic excuse for train service we have in america for what trains can really do. it is a false comparison. compare the KTX, Shinkansen, TGV, etc. and you'll easily understand how much faster and better rail is for mid-distance travel. and it carries more passengers, too. further, when push comes to shove, with electric high speed rail (including mag lev varieties) we can plug that into any power source, not even carrying about jet fuel, its shipments or even politics -- something the airline industry is completely at the mercy of. i wouldn't want my high speed transportation held hostage, but that's what it is; why subject short and mid-distance travel to the same hostage as long distance travel? it makes zero sense logistically.

edit: fucking metric... i've been living overseas too long. was thinking kilometers but wrote miles, had to edit. america needs to switch over to metric already.

[XemaSab]

31. An additional point is public transportation

Getting off the train in the Bay Area versus, say, the sticks... sometimes it's easier to drive just so you can have your car there.

[Chan790]

28. As a train fan...

it pains me to admit that is true. It's not true however in the DC-Bos. corridor where we should be building these trains and tracks.

I've lived in Boston, NYC, DC, Baltimore, Philly, Hartford, New Haven and a bunch of smaller places like Columbia, MD and Annapolis, MD. From experience I can tell you that for trips under 150 miles, as is, it takes marginally less time just to get on the plane (after driving to the airport, getting through security, checking baggage, waiting for boarding to begin, etc.) than to simply take the train to your final destination. In most cases, the best fastest (and in a few cases: only) way to get to the airport in the first place is to take the train. Imagine if we had high-speed rail...it'd bankrupt the local airports.

[Optical.Catalyst]

39. High speed trains are good, but the Government needs to make Public Transportations more attractive

This 'car culture' mode of operations that Americans love to be in is just plain dumb. We regularly have one person, driving one car to a place where the car sits unused all day. If the Government would place strict restrictions to reduce the use of private cars to only what is necessary, and at the same time make Public Transportation much more attractive, we could solve many of our problems. The two problems that come to mind immediately are Global Warming and traffic jams.

[taterguy]

41. What's your definition of a necessary use of an automobile?

I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know.

My definition varies depending on my mood.

It's generally not necessary to drive a car less than three miles to work when the weather's decent.

But some days I'm in a hurry, or some days I have to pick up things from the store, and some days I just don't feel like riding a bike.

How would the government treat me?

[anonymous171]

51. America is bigger than Japan and most European countries.

National High-speed rail is not feasible here.

[Hannah Bell]

52. rail connects the entire european land mass, including eastern europe. bigger than the us.

http://www.eurorailways.com/kb/articles/ermap.pdf

connects turkey & russia too, though less densely.

in my experience, people who say it would "never work" in the us have never experienced a good system.