Slashdot Log In
Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Apr 17, 2009 08:48 AM
from the self-mucking-biodiesel-ponies dept.
from the self-mucking-biodiesel-ponies dept.
fantomas writes "The BBC reports that 'US President Barack Obama has announced his "vision for high-speed rail" in the country, which would create jobs, ease congestion and save energy.' Can rail work in the land where the car is king? Would you travel on the new high speed lines?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Example, I take the bus to work and it drops me pretty close to my building, that works great.
Recently, I changed locations, and now I'm about a 10 minute walk to my building, which is fine too, but some people I rode with drive in now because this new building has a free parking lot. Free parking is not worth 45mins of driving + traffic + burning more gas + milage on my car.
If the train station was more than a few blocks away from peoples' destinations, how many lazy Americans do you think will want to walk that far? I think most would say - F' it, I'll drive in.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most Americans I know are so lazy they'll circle the parking lot for minutes looking for a place in the first few rows instead of (*gasp*) walk from the far side, or even the middle of the lot.
Add in places like Chicago where it may be life-threateningly cold in the winter or here in Dallas where it's so hot in summer--even in the early morning that just a 10 minute walk will put you at work quite unprofessionally sweaty and there's no way I'm taking the bus that drops off about 10 minutes away though I cannot wait until they finish the rail line that will drop off across the street.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
We've somehow convinced ourselves that "convenient" is better than the alternative.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
A few blocks? For high-speed rail? High-speed rail is for between cities. Local light and medium duty rail won't get any faster.
Right now, Amtrak has a station in my city, but to get to St. Louis (two hours by car) I have two options by rail. I can go to Chicago (six hours by car, probably 10 by rail) then to St. Louis (nine hours by rail). Alternatively, I can get off the train and onto a bus for over an hour, then back onto a train to continue the trip.
If Amtrak had a rail line from where I live to St. Louis, I could usually live with three or four hours of regular-speed rail to get there cheaply and efficiently. I doubt I'll have high-speed or even regular-speed rail from here, though. They'll put in high-speed rail to some subset of the places already served, and people outside those markets will be stuck with what they have now.
I proposed on the web site the administration set up for proposals a sweeping growth of rail. I think that in order to convince people not to drive, we're going to need the traisn to at least go everywhere the Interstate highways do. Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination. Paying for the train then having to rent a car because your final destination is too far from the stations is silly, and that's one reason many people just drive the whole way.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Hell with high speed. 99.9978% of americans dont need to go from NY to LA via high speed rail.
They need to get from the suburbs and smaller outlying cities to the major city or nearest city.
how about fixing and replacing the rail system we used to have and need? Most 30 minute commutes could be eliminated by having a simple and useable rail system.
High speed is not needed, How about having REAL public transit? you know the stuff that Ford and GM tried so hard to kill at every chance for the past 100 years...
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree: what these funds really need to be used for heavy-rail transit (i.e. subways/elevated trains in the city) and commuter rail (i.e. regular trains that go back and forth to the suburbs and neighboring cities). Long trips are better served, at least for now, by airlines.
If they really want to spend it on long-haul stuff, they should consider improving freight rail. It's a lot more efficient and environmentally friendly than long-haul trucking, but it's been losing because the government essentially hugely subsidizes the trucking industry by maintaining the highway system, while railroads have to fund maintenance of all their track themselves.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This system won't take people from NYC to LA. It's for going from Minneapolis or Madison to Chicago. These are routes where air travel is wasteful (2 hours in the airport waiting for a one hour flight) and rail competes very well. Even with it's relatively slow speed and frequent stops, Amtrak's Empire Builder from the Twin Cities to Chicago is almost always packed. You usually can't get a ticket within a month of travel.
Yes, we need to invest in commuter rail and light rail. Many cities are doing just that. But there is most definitely a place for intercity rail in this country.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at California: it takes a full 8 to 9 hours to get from the north end of that state to the south end. If they can connect the Bay Area to Los Angeles and make it a 2 or 2.5 hour trip, it'll be a huge boon (HUGE) to everyone from tourists to commuters to business people.
There are fantastic possibilities here, they're not trying to send little Johnny from NY to California by rail.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Informative)
Government subsidies you say?
Like all of those FREE ROADS that all of the teamsters get to drive over?
Howabout those FREE AIRPORTS? Those just don't pop out of the ether either.
Then there's the entire air traffic control infastructure. Does AA pay for
that directly as well? Nevermind the fact that "big air" gets bailed out
by the feds because those companies are considered "too big to fail".
First put rail on par with trucking in terms of free infastructure and
let see what happens after that. Doubling the amount of cargo rail lines
would be a handy start.
Parent
Re:On behalf of all Canadians... (Score:5, Funny)
Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke?
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love trains but ... America just seems too big for inter-city travel. Wait 'til you find out how much it costs before you sign up for this.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
I love trains
So do a lot of people. Personally, I love four-masted schooners, but I'm not pushing a government program for them to replace container ships.
-jcr
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is too big for cross-country travel by train, but it is almost ideal for regional travel by train. The proposed high-speed rail corridors make a lot of sense, and the distances are small enough that taking the train will be faster than driving, and comparable to flying. Rail between NYC and DC, for example, makes a lot of sense. Rail between Denver and Boston, on the other hand, does not make a lot of sense. Most of the proposed regional routes are no longer than typical routes in Europe or east Asia.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! I mean, you don't see the government getting involved in building airports or the interstate highway system, do you?
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Traveling around Europe in so-called "night trains" is bliss: go to bed in Switzerland, wake up in Holland. Comfort level is not best, yet it gets you to your destination and with no apparent loss of time.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no doubt that it's better to take the train from DC to NY city than to fly. It's as fast, factoring the dismal security process and where you end up at the end of the trip.
A lot of the 'do trains make sense' depends on the distance, population density, time, cost of train, and cost of flight, which appears to be highly dependent on gas prices. It seems to me that the NE corridor is ripe for such a system. As are other high-population to high-population, limited-distance trips. But, it doesn't make sense to try to replace airlines for cross-country or even most of the way cross-country. Changing planes is a pain the the ass to begin with, but changing trains would be even worse. The autotrain from DC to Orlando makes sense because you just get on, eat, sleep, get off. No changes necessary.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
How would changing trains be worse then changing planes? I've had to change trains in Japan and its not a difficult thing. Maybe inconvenient if you have to walk to another station but not difficult.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, the US used to have a robust rail system (at least in the northeast sector).
What happened? Well, the US government started subsidizing roadways. Once the massive interstate highway system was in place, most companies found it cheaper to ship by truck. Trucks didn't have to pay for their infrastructure, and their infrastructure goes to more cities and more directly (you can shortcut *most* requirements to go through a central "hub" and get a moderately straight path to your destination).
Interstate rail simply ceased to be competitive for all but the largest cargo shipments. Without some of the smaller shipping, they took in less money... which led to less maintenance of the rail lines... which meant cutting routes... which led to less income... etc.
If the US had subsidized rail infrastructure as much as they subsidized roadways, we'd probably have good passenger rail from more suburbs to urban centers, as well as between cities. Unfortunately, we don't, because the US didn't subsidize that way.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
Fat people?
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?
Bus, Taxi, or the good old "Model 0 Mark 1" (hoof it).
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
Check a weather report in the morning.
Dress appropriately for the season. Maybe carry a change of clothes or stash some in the office if you need to.
Stash an umbrella in your backpack/briefcase.
You know... be prepared.
To me, especially living in the climate I do, that is the greatest impediment to any type of mass transit to go to work daily. It would take me much longer to catch and switch busses all over town, to get to my work...not to mention that there is not a bus stop very near either my home or office.
This is because the people who designed your local busing system are morons. If you are commuting to an urban center, the city bus shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to get you where you're going.
What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home?? How do you live like that without a car...I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
This is where public transportation needs to be viewed as a service instead of a profit-making business. The city/county/state population needs to decide, as a whole, that they WANT and are WILLING TO SUBSIDIZE public transportation such that it isn't only usable in a narrow band from 6:30-8:30am and 4:30-6:30pm with crapass route coverage the rest of the time.
IF they decide this - as most municipalities in Europe have - then the answer to your question is "eh, no big deal, I can take the bus to the gym/grocery store." Or there will be racks on the train/bus such that you can actually bring your bicycle with you (bike 5 min to train, get on train for 20 min, get off train and bike 5 more min).
IF, on the other hand, they treat public transportation as a "business" like most US cities do, then you get exactly what you expect out of a business that has a monopoly on the market and profit-taking interest; they will cut all but the "profitable" routes, leaving zero flexibility and crapass service.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because the people who designed your local busing system are morons.
Yea, government bureaucrats. Unfortunately, those same morons will be in charge of designing this new whiz-bang high-speed rail, too, except with more corrupt politicians and contractors involved.
I predict a massive money pit that will yield a few very expensive and unreliable trains, called "high-speed" because they defined it down to 80 MPH, that nobody rides because they're such a hassle.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
You die! YOU DIE FROM RAIN!!!
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you're going to laugh, but my former job pretty much was next to a railroad station. From my home it's a 10-15min walk to the train station. It was actually faster than taking the car. My current job is similar, but it's with buses: a bus stop is at 2 minutes from my home and oddly there is a bus stop at 2 minutes from my office. Frequency of buses is every 20minutes, frequency of trains every hour (more in peaks)
So, yes, usually it's just walking + bus/train.
The sweating is greatly reduced because you're actually doing the walking every day and you're getting used to it. Now granted, I don't work in a suit which would indeed be more uncomfortable. In high summer, I just wear a tshirt (and pants, I promise, I wear pants *grin*). Besides, nobody actually prevents you from taking a fresh tshirt (which is what I did when I occasionally biked to work)
The thing is, where I live (Europe), if you live pretty close to the closest city, you usually have good connections by bus or train. The buses often even have their own lanes and get faster through morning/evening traffic because of that. If you live in a small village, it gets harder but it is possible. Most small villages have a bus going through it at the typical worktimes. A couple in the morning, a couple in the evening. Another alternative for many people is to drive to the closest train station and take the train to the city. The parking next to the train stations are free and you burn less gas. Parking in the city is expensive (think 10€/day if you're lucky, but I don't know for sure, I haven't paid for parking for a whole day in ages)
You go to a gym/shop on the route between your work and home? Besides, if you actually do the walking, you won't need a gym. The trick with going grocery shopping is simple: take one large bag and buy foodstuff for one or two days. The shopping frequency is greater, but your shopping time is reduced (you need few things) and you eat fresher fruits/vegetables. Also, instead of just going to a big mall, you stop at the local butcher, the local bakery... all by foot.
It is entirely possible... Hey, I even have a supermarket reachable by foot... There are even sidewalks *grin* and the bus stops pretty much in front of it. So, going home, I get off a few bus stops earlier, do my shopping and walk home.
The thing is that you have to start thinking differently: if you take the car, the world revolves around your schedule. That is not true anymore when you take public transportation: Instead, you need to plan a bit more carefully. Your workday, really becomes an 8h workday because, hey, you're going to miss the bus if you're still there late. The other aspect is that the infrastructure must be there (and it isn't in most of the US). I think the two are linked, because the US way of life/thinking is very "ego-centered" and this means your own transportation, and hence public transportation is seen as something undesirable and is thus not funded.
Hope that replied your "honest question"....
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?
As you've noted, that's a real problem in the USA. A few of our cities have decent public transportation, but few have really good setups.
Despite your objections, I'll begin by saying that my ideal answer is "the bicycle". First, the facts: it's by far the most efficient transportation ever invented in terms of passengers*distance/energy, speed/cost, speed/maintenance, etc., easy to carry on trains and buses, cheap enough (to buy and to store) to leave one at each end of your commute, very fast for distances under 10km or so, almost surreally safe (cyclist deaths are almost always due to cars, not bikes, and there are stunningly few of even those amongst commuters obeying traffic laws), very healthy, and wonderfully pleasant through a broader range of weather conditions than most people realise--it's no accident that it's frequently a form of recreation in this country. And while you can push and go 20mph for long periods, if you're hot you can cut back and go 10mph for 1/8 the power output, which is now far easier than walking but with better wind cooling. But (as you allude to) bicycle-commuting does require some good city planning--bike lanes, secure (and ideally sheltered) places to park (like cars, but much much cheaper), somewhere to change (and shower in warm, humid climates) when you get to a destination where you don't want to look like a bike commuter, and people who prefer not to be obese (these are in short supply here). And bikes aren't great on snowy or icy roads, although they're not as bad as many noncyclists would expect. Yes, it's impractical in much of the USA right now, but given the political will that could be changed.
Failing that, a local public transportation infrastructure that puts most popular targets within walking distance is quite feasible if there's sufficient demand. New York and Boston are decent in this respect. LA is miserable. It sounds like wherever you live is just as miserable. Change is required, for sure.
Another solution is to have transportation hubs with zipcars or carshare systems, etc., or taxis. With a bit of luck, autonomous cars are within 30 years--this would lower the cost of taxis significantly. But just the cost of parking is more than the cost of a short taxi ride or two every day; it's just that parking costs are frequently hidden or subsidised by businesses who pass the costs along to you.
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
You've got me there. I've been out in some weather that I'm glad not to have to bike through, but I have never had even a tiny bit of difficulty walking a mile. I think it's a Swedish saying: "There is no bad weather, only bad clothes." Perhaps you could describe the weather problems that make walking difficult? Is it just the humid heat? Or perhaps you live somewhere far more evil than my hometowns (Halifax, Boston, San Francisco, Boulder)?
a bicycle wouldn't cut it. What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home??
People have been doing this on bikes for a century. Racers spurn fenders and racks and panniers, and only racers are visible in this car-obsessed country. But a rack on your bike will let you carry easily 60 liters of groceries, or gym clothes, or a suit (wrinkle-free, even) without even noticing. Not that you'll need to go to the gym anymore unless you're doing specific training for some other sport.
I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
I suspect that the problem here may be that what we think of as "normal" is not. It's an artifact of a system that relies on heavily subsidised energy and infrastructure. Cars are not "normal"; they're just ubiquito
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Funny)
Most major downtown districts in the country have more than one subway stop. They're usually placed convenient enough that most people can walk between their place of work and the stop quite easily. If it's raining, they have this neat invention called an "umbrella". If it's snowing, there's something else you put on your feet called "boots", and most people wear another thing called a "winter coat".
Parent
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
When a flight takes about an hour, high speed rail will beat it in both real door-to-door speed and price. This doesn't just help the NE corridor, but allows for lines like Columbus-Chicago-St Louis-Kansas.
Parent
Free market will kill it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice idea, but it'll never happen. These kinds of projects are only ever successful when a government steps in and does them properly. The process of doing it with "private enterprise" or a "public-private partnership" always kills anything good that could come out of it. Compare the shinkansen in Japan and the TGV in France to the farce that is privatised railways in Australia for a good example.
Heard of Amtrak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amtrak has dragged it's feet on restoring the Sunset line east of New Orleans for over 3 years! Keep in mind that Amtrak now gets $2.6 BILLION [latimes.com] annually.
CSX confirmed that all track repairs had been completed in mid-2006.
Believe me, I'm heading back to Houston from Tallahassee for Mother's Day and I'd love to grab a ride on sunset, but it looks like another airport shake-n-dance. Amtrak has 3 more months to offer a "plan" to restore service...wanna bet that no one ever asks for this plan?
A government controlled-business does not make it some magical, ne'er-do-bad business.
Parent
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes I agree its not exactly as exciting. The Koreans also totally beat it with 350 km/h trains and they already have them working just like Japan etc... This 150MPH train system is years from being a reality. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Train_Express [wikipedia.org] This idea could be so much more. Considering the size of America and modern engineering methods, the proposed speeds for this system already fall way below existing trains like the Shinkansen. (I had to look it up, I remember many years ago the so called at the time Bullet Trains were already fast and they are old).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen [wikipedia.org]
Surely America can aspire to build something world class rather than average. Other countries are already doing more. America has the knowledge and engineering capabilities, it just fails in the management will to do something impressive and would sooner spend vast sums of money on proping up corrupt banks and their rich directors etc..
I'm disappointed rather than exciting by this news. It could have achieved so much more. In some ways it feels like a lost oppotunity that could so easily have really impressed and create something truely useful.
Parent
More details at White House website (Score:5, Informative)
Here [whitehouse.gov].
Absolutely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I like rail.. the bad part however is it will cost ALOT.. and Amtrak isn't exactly doing a 'great' job thus far.
Will it create jobs? Absolutely.. will it lower congestion at airports, absolutely..
Will it work as a mass-transit system (be sustainable, profitable, used): I'm willing to find out, but it ends up horribly mismanaged and failing or inaccessible because of it; I'm gonna slap someone.
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you think that's automatically a 'pork barrel' scheme?
Rail systems are absolutely superb in European countries (very often it's FASTER to take a train then fly by plane).
USA could use something like this.
Parent
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I look around the world, I will find a direct correlation between taxes and unemployment? Because I don't see it.
Perhaps if I pick a single country and look through history? There does seem to be one, but it's where government spending made jobs (such as the new deal and WWII).
On what planet does the presence of concentrated wealth mean that jobs will be made. I don't see it at all. Companies will continue to spend as little on employment as possible to make their revenue streams look as good as possible, because the people who make the decisions (executives and stock-holders) are directly tied, not even to the long-term survival of the company, but rather to the stock value... wich is from the earnings report... which is most effected in the sort-term by reducing costs (like employees).
Parent
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, one of the reasons that America has such a poor public transport system is because 'wealth creating' companies such as GM bought them and shut them down. God forbid the government try to undo some of the damage caused by decades of corporate greed.
Parent
works in germany (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (Score:5, Interesting)
And how much money have the various airlines received from the Fed?
Parent
Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the map of planned routes in the TFA. They are not that long, and the whole network will be shorter than railway network in Germany or France.
So no, "USA is large" argument does not work here.
Parent
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The great myth is that this kind of FUD has existed for so long.
Parent
What about when I get there? (Score:5, Insightful)
High speed inter-city rail means that when I get to my destination I have to rely on public transportation (not very efficient in most US cities), or rent a car.
If I'm renting a car, this doesn't reduce congestion. The congestion is in the cities themselves, not between them. Also, the car rental costs money. I doubt it will be cheaper than driving.
I'd love to see rail as a replacement for flying, but I doubt it will be fast enough.
Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
But the economy's still all cracked and broken!
Sorry guys, Obama's spoken!
Monorail... Monorail... Monorail!
If it's affordable, I would LOVE it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate owning a car. Cars are a pain in the ass. They burn fuel, need repairs, require me to get them inspected, cost tons of money to clean, dirty easily, have to be parked, etc.
I have been to nearly every state in the U.S. either by car or by plane. I've crossed the country four times from end to end by road. In nearly every one of these cases, rail would have been my first choice, but Amtrak always costs significantly more than plane or car.
I LOVE the rail systems in Europe. I LOVE the relaxation, the space, the reasonable air and relaxed rules (unlike plane travel) and the fact that I get to see lots of places without having to be stuck in traffic in them. It's damn nice to go by rail.
Within cities, I love commuter and transit rail systems. I took the BART when I lived in San Francisco and I took the TRAX when I lived in Salt Lake City and I took the TriMet when I lived in Portland and I took the El when I lived in Chicago and I now use the MTA Subway system heavily in NYC.
I love, love, love rail and it would be a dream come true if someone at the top of this country could put together a working rail system that's affordable between major cities in the way that Europe's rail system is.
If the price can even match the actual purchase price of air travel, I'd take rail instead at least 75% of the time.
If rail ends up being 2x or 3x more than air, as it has been, though, I'll still end up driving or flying. Right now in the U.S. long-distance and inter-city train is a luxury mode of transportation.
Can't mix freight and passenger railways (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's plan simply will not work because he plans to mix freight and passenger rail routes. I would not call the examples in Japan and France a _financial_ success, but they are indeed impressive technologically. However, neither of those systems would work if they did not dedicate their tracks to passenger transportation. Freight would slow everything down dramatically.
Airports == hassle (Score:5, Insightful)
Done right, and for short haul travel, rail is way better than air travel. What you lose in sheer speed of the plane, is more than made up for, by the time saved by not getting to the airport, checkin, luggage screening, and that sort of thing.
I've found that going to Paris on the Eurostar (French TGV bullet train that links central London and central Paris) beats air travel in just about every way. I had my parents insist on catching the plane to Paris.
This is what happens when you go from London to Paris by air:
1. Catch bus or train to airport (1hr)
2. Allow three hours to check in, get through security, board the plane, and have your plane sit in a long queue to take off (2-3 hours)
3. Fly to Paris (50 minutes)
4. Disembark at Roissy, go through immigration, get to the RER train (30, 40mins)
5. Get an RER ticket, catch train to Gare du Nord, trying not to get robbed by pikies on the way (40, 50mins)
Compare with catching the Eurostar:
1. Go to Kings Cross St Pancras, go through French immigration on British side, security screening (20 minutes). Immigration is no more than waving an ID card or passport.
2. Train trip (a bit over two hours)
3. Train arrives in middle of Paris.
Price wise, you might save a few quid catching the plane, but if you factor in airport transfers, security screening hassle and all that rubbish, then train travel comes out way ahead.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:5, Insightful)
Traveling by airplane already accomplishes that. The important distinction for high-speed rail is that it would need to be cheaper than airfare, and/or provide other benefits (e.g. the ability to take extra luggage, such as your car, with you).
The sad thing is, as much as I like trains and wish it would, I just don't see that being successful. Even the normal, slow Amtrak fares are often more expensive than discount airfare between the same two cities. I can't imagine any scenario, short of huge subsidies (which would be fine with me, but Congress would never approve it), that would allow an expensive, brand-new system to improve on that.
Parent
Re:The USA: Developing Country (Score:5, Informative)
Germany: 357,000 km^2
Japan: 377,000 km^2
Shanghai: 6340 km^2
United States: 9,826,630 km^2
Maglev speed: 300 mph
757 Economical Cruising speed: 530 mph
You figure it out.
Parent
and the federal highway system....makes money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
I suppose the Federal highway system makes money? No. It costs us several hundred billion dollars a year.
How about the airline industry, which has been a bailout baby for decades?
Parent