Obama Proposes High-Speed Rail System For the US 1385
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?"
In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
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.
In two words (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell yes!
Absolutely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point is that this will allow people to work MORE than an hour's drive away from home.
Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
The only big highspeed I know of is the Acela, which goes from NYC to Boston or D.C.
The price: $90 each way, no wifi.
Or you can take a bus for $20 that has Wifi.
I hear the Acela is nice, but I'd rather buy a DS for my bus ride, and i'd still save money.
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
You mean, like the airline industry? Or GM and Chrysler?
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:4, 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.
And given the government's track record with doing things properly, even THAT probably wouldn't work in the US.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely not! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hardly anybody really uses a transit system in the U.S. That is why they have to paid for by the taxpayers. More people pay for bus and train systems than actually use them. The city I live in, opted out years ago because it was costing about $35,000 per year per rider. Whenever you look at actual cost per user, it isn't worth it. Just more waste of my money.
We already have rail (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember Amtrack anyone? The giant government boondoggle that loses money every year?
What makes anyone think that Amtrack:TNG is going to be a better idea? It's going to be a huge buildout expense, disrupt many communities, and in the end will still be slower than airline travel.
If you want something visionary, how about supporting large scale consumer adoption of small regional airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city? It's like the dream of the flying car but with practicality behind it and yields a lot more flexibility.
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.
Re:works in germany (Score:4, Insightful)
You also have the distance problem.
When I used to travel a lot a train never would have been an option. The distances where all too great for rail or I doubt that the train would have gone to where I needed to go.
The only a few places in the US I can see it working.
The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe.
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.
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.
Re:What about when I get there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, and do you now fly with your car in a baggage section of a plane?
Fast railways are great for distances like 400-600km (they are too big to comfortably drive by car and too small for planes).
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:2, Insightful)
The US really needs a good national transport system, but this isn't it.
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...
Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well,
I don't know why you need to be so condescending but I can tell you that the railways in the US are pretty ridiculous in terms of speed and improving them could bring big benefits.
For instance, the ACELA between Boston and NY is very slow (more than 3 hours to cover half the distance that the TGV covers in less than 3 hours).
Such a train uses half the energy of a plane, can arrive in the center of the city etc.
The Japanese Shinkansen is even better in some respect as it runs on schedules that are very intense.
Also, you don't need to change everything to achieve that, just some money and political will. The ACELA express is inherently slower (150MPH max instead of 200MPH and more) but that's not the biggest problem. They need to adapt enough tracks along the road to improve the average speed.
This is clearly a very political and complex subject. And bringing it up in the US is really quite innovative and politically risky as your post amply shows.
Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (Score:2, Insightful)
While air travel is technically much faster than rail, once you add in the overhead of scheduled flights, delayed flights, arriving 3 hours early at the airport, waiting for your connections, etc. it often seems that driving would be faster.
On the other hand, rail travel could be just as vulnerable to some of these delays.
About time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely, yes.
If I had to travel to anywhere it serviced, or had friends nearby the service areas, totally. It is so much more efficient for my time to sit on a train and read a book, type on my computer, or sleep than it is to be forced to pay attention to the road. Or, for air travel, I have a lot of stop and go action, driving to the airport, waiting in the security line, getting on and off the plane, inability to use electronic devices for large swaths of travel, etc. (Plus, no power.)
To make it analogous to computers, think of the brain as a processor. It's hella wasteful for it to be sitting idle. Public transportation lets it be more productively active. Parallel work flows.
Yes, but it's much harder for the "older generation" to see it. (You can define older generation for yourself.) As a 25 year-old, I grew up with congested roads, idiot drivers (you don't even know who you are!), and 30-minutes or more as a standard driving time. Hello suburbia and rural areas. Conversely, my father grew up when gas was 23 cents a gallon, and folks bought cars every other year because they were so cheap. Sunday drives "just because" were common, and, at the risk of getting flamed, with a slightly richer average socio-economic status associated with cars then, also came a slightly more educated and conscientious crowd -- i.e. less idiots on road in general.
I won't claim that I'm the norm, but I do claim that I'm on some part of a trend that will eventually be the norm.
Public transportation will happen, whether it's the rails this year, maglev in 20 years, or something else. Like a lot of other socially stagnant issues, the timeline is associated with the old ones digging their heels in. Change is hard, but when they die, it gets easier. Kind of like racist attitudes. (With exceptions, racist people generally don't change their minds. They die.)
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.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:3, Insightful)
Airfares are cheaper cause they are constantly getting bailed out by the fed.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Absolutely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:4, Insightful)
You are massively underestimating the size of the US. A system like one in Japan or Korea is simply impossible, the resources don't exist.
You'd be better off copying France or something.
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.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:3, Insightful)
That's Bullshit.
Figure the percentage of federal dollars vs fare dollars for each and your head will explode. Even if you assume that the average flight costs ~$100, the 700 million annual passenger flights makes a nice big number:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/airtraffic/annual/1981_present.html [bts.gov]
Re:Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you not think that roads enjoy the same subsidt transit does? ALL transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing because it's a public good.
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).
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
Second that; and the north-east has a number of cities spaced 100-200 miles apart, too much for driving comfortably (esp given traffic) and too little for flying sensibly (esp. given security measures and hassle). This is a perfect market for high speed trains. Oklahoma city to Houston or LAX-NYC will not be replaced anytime soon.
DC does not need to support commuter rail (or "beltway" and other city-infrastructure interstates, for that matter!), this should be left to the states or cities they are in. DC should be involved in interstate infrastructure, including rail where it makes sense.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares about world-class speed? How about something that actually gets me from where I live to the cities I want to get to without going through Chicago, which is six hours away even by car? I live within minutes of an Interstate that can get me onto a vast 70-mph network. I live on a spur of rail that only goes one direction from here. The number of connections on a network makes as much or more difference than the speed of any individual link.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:4, Insightful)
Much of government incompetence has come from the fact that a lot of people in the government believe in the political philosophy that government is no good, and private enterprise should do everything. When the people in charge of the government believe that government is incompetent, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The fact is, even in the United States the government is capable of doing a lot of things very well that the private sector simply can't or won't do. However, we've been so overtaken by this notion that government can do nothing right that we give up on government and starve it of all its resources, thereby assuring that government will not be able to do anything right.
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.
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:1, Insightful)
Pork barrel schemes don't create jobs, they only move them from the wealth-creating part of the economy to the wealth-destroying part.
Translation: giving jobs to poor people is bad. Better to leave the money in the hands of the elite in the form of tax cuts and let it "trickle down" to people who are losing their jobs and homes right now.
You fucking objectivists had your chance to prove that an unregulated free market would make us all rich and prosperous and like the communists YOU FAILED. Now shut the fuck up, and get out of the way of making this country back into something worthwhile.
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.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if the price of a ticket is the same, and its much quicker than it is now, I'd certainly use a train over flying. But the problem is that unless I WANT a sight seeing vacation, the train (and travel to and from it) just takes way too long.
Re:Monorail! Monorail! Monrail! (Score:3, Insightful)
No... Las Vegas is not planned to be incorporated into the high-speed train system. Core Cities are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Buffalo, Boston, and Montreal.
I think that one of these cities are not like the others. That being said, I would love a high speed rail link from my province to major urban areas in the US. If Montreal is to be included in some sort of upgrade, then the rail line from Montreal to Albany needs some serious repair. I took the train from Montreal to Phillydelphia a few years ago and was shocked at how slow the ride was. In Quebec, the train crossed Autoroute 20(freeway) and once the train got into the US and the Adirondacks, it snaked along between the mountains and Lake Champlain.
If the Canadian dollar improves in value v. the US dollar, weekend shopping trips to NYC could be a common occurence.
Major problem with your example (Score:3, Insightful)
Europe's population is FAR more evenly distributed than the US, where the majority of the population is clustered around large urban centers (cities).
In large urban areas, high speed rail is essentially meaningless. Commuter rail is more important and is going to go nowhere near 150 mph.
In the NE United States it MIGHT make a difference, as the population there is fairly tightly packed in the BosWash area.
In the Western US, it's simply faster and more economical (barring stupidly huge subsidies) to take a plane.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
It includes the word "Amtrak". Also, whenever you spend billions of dollars of someone else's money, you're likely to find waste, corruption and inefficiency even if it wasn't planned that way from the beginning. While technically it's not always true that "where there's smoke, there's fire" it's still pretty likely.
I'm a rail enthusiast; I really want it to work. Rail has many advantages, but it's hard to make it economically viable. (It would help if the government stopped subsidizing its competitors.) If high speed rail were profitable, it wouldn't need government money, just assistance with right of way and exemptions from local ordinances.
Also, it's far from clear that this proposal would create jobs. To determine that we would need to examine the opportunity cost of spending $13 billion.
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.
Depends on 3 things (Score:3, Insightful)
If I could take high speed rail back home to visit (about 1,100 miles) instead of driving or flying I would, assuming there was a route and it didn't cost more or take longer than driving.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination."
Exactly! I don't care about high-speed rail. Give me auto trains! Bonus if I can bring a boat/pwc trailer along for an extra fee.
You left out a few in Ohio (Score:4, Insightful)
Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati are core cities in Ohio on the Chicago Hub line, not just Cleveland. Five dots in Ohio. People never seem to realize that Ohio is actually a pretty highly populated state with six metro areas greater than 650K people. This rail plan is going to be great for my home (but not current) state.
What is it that Amtrak does wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can go to Chicago (six hours by car, probably 10 by rail) then to St. Louis (nine hours by rail).
Rail slower than car? What is it that Amtrak does wrong? City to City travel is almost always faster by rail than by car in most developed part of the world (at least in Europe, Japan etc.)
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the funny things, Unions, if you want to be a member, well, you are free to sign up for it.
Yeah... you're paying the dues anyway... whether you're a member or not.
Great to have, impossible to build? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unquestionably a modern, high-speed rail system connecting major cities would be a wonderful thing to have. But are we even capable of such massive, national projects anymore? Especially with a government that basically dances to the tune of big labor unions?
Imagine Boston's "Big Dig" project to submerge I-95 through that city, with all its corruption, delays and cost overruns -- times a thousand. Hell, times a million. That's what it would be like to build a national high-speed rail system in the U.S. It would be a complete clusterfuck.
Truly I say unto you: we'll see the damn Twin Towers rebuilt before anything like this gets done.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
How? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the airlines are getting subsidized -- but so what?!
Travelers don't care why it's cheaper; they just care that it is. The new high-speed rail is going to have to be cheaper, or nobody's going to use it. The government is going to have to subsidize it, or quit subsidizing the airlines, or both, or else it will fail. And I just don't see Congress agreeing to do that.
Don't think of the current rail system (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to those comparing on the basis of the current U.S. rail system: don't, because it's crap.
For e.g., Josh proposes linking San Francisco, L.A., Seattle and Portland...well hey, they're already connected. Have been for near a century, by the line / train now called the Coast Starlight. It's a beautiful journey from Seattle to L.A. through all the major (and some not so major) towns on the way, the ride is pleasant, the scenery is incredible...and it takes 26 frickin' hours. (I still prefer that to flying, but I'm in a minority there). That's because it's running on tracks that haven't been upgraded, it feels like, since 1926, using trains from 1963 through stations from 1886. It never gets past sixty miles an hour.
A proper Japanese- or European-style high-speed rail network would do *the whole trip* in, oh, seven or eight hours, maybe. Meaning many of the useful internal trips would be 2-3 hours. That'd be huge.
I would really, really love for the U.S. to build this, and for similar upgrades in Canada. I like to travel and I frickin' hate airlines, it would be so nice to have a pleasant, civilized way to cover this continent.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I can...IF...
Its gonna be cost analysis decision just like anything else. I, and I would expect most other people, am not going to go out of my way to use it.
So, my airport is 10 mins away. If I have to go an hour to get to the train, and I still will have to go through all the same hassles (security, ticket counter, etc) I am not going to do it.
Other factors come in obviously, if it crazy cheap, but its all just is this advantageous or do I literally and metaphorically want to "ride the train" because its the new cool thing to do.
BTW- Love that my captcha for this is ELECTIVE, seems quite fitting
I'm not too optimistic... (Score:4, Insightful)
In principle I think this is an awesome idea. Whether or not it works out in practice remains to be seen, especially with the way things are done in the US.
In Taiwan, just a few years ago, a high speed rail line was built from Taipei in the north to Kaohsiung in the south, nearly spanning the length of the island. It's done fairly well, almost meeting expectations. It's hurt the domestic airline industry somewhat mainly because the rail line only takes marginally longer to travel the entire distance; it takes a bit over 1 hour versus 45 minutes by plane.
The high speed rail line had a few advantage however. Nearly all of Taiwan's major cities run down the west side of the island where the land is flatter. It makes it easy to reach all the key population centers.
Secondly, unlike the US where Americans are used to having to drive long distances, Taiwan generally feel the 200+ distance is too long to drive. People do it all the time, but to them they might as well be driving from New York to California. And the cities are dense enough that it ends up being a hassle to drive around anyway. When I was in Taipei, for example, they had 2 or 3 cars for every parking spot. It's an exercise in frustration just finding a parking spot, let alone negotiating the dense, hectic traffic. The south is a bit better, but it's still a problem.
Third, many people already took buses or the existing, slower rail line, so the jump to high speed rail was a logical one. The question was if Taiwan, who generally are quite cheap, would be willing to pay a good deal more for a significantly reduced travel time. It turns out they are, but if I recall correctly the high speed rail company did lower rates at some point.
Construction was just beginning when I was living there between 2000 and 2002 and it was open to the public in 2007. The line itself runs just over 200 miles. The total cost was in excess of $15 billion. There's no way in hell we'd see a high speed rail line built that quickly and for that price in the United States.
Take the piece of garbage that passes for a high speed rail line in the northeast, the Acela. It runs on existing rail lines with slight upgrades and they still managed to finish it well behind schedule. The Wikipedia article claims it was a year late, but from my recollection of announcements at the time I'd say it was at least 2 or 3 years late. The Acela has to slow down at every single station it passes, so in my area it's barely going faster than traffic on the highway. All the trains on this line are consistently late, to the point that the scheduled times are more of an identification for the trains than an actual indication of when the trains will arrive. The best part is how every so often a train pulls down the power lines.
And I'm reminded of yet another issue, common courtesy. In Taiwan food isn't permitted on subways and most trains. And people respect those rules. In all the years of riding there I don't recall ever having seen graffiti more than a handful of times and very limited. I never had to worry about sitting in the mess someone left behind. Public bathrooms were always clean both because people weren't slobs but because they were also cleaned on a regular basis. If someone makes a significant mess someone will be by to clean it up in short order.
When is this ever the case in the US? People seem to have no respect for anything, like it's their duty to deface and vandalize. And imagine suggesting to any rider that they should wait 30 minutes, until they get off the train, before they eat. Instead they'll sit there slobbering over their food, making a mess and then have the audacity to leave the garbage sitting under the seat.
My point is that Americans turn public transportation into a miserable experience. Expect this money to be spend poorly and in the end still not provide the sort of experience that the European or Japanese high-speed rail lines provide. And just wait until every last town starts fighting for their own stop on the line. Or
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:3, Insightful)
Starving it? you have got to be kidding. The government can only do good things at such a blotted over budgeted price that it ceases being a good thing.
There are some things that the government is the only entity able to do things such as the highway system and certain utilities like power lines and water lines should have government support. I would even be for the government providing rail as a service to companies that would like to provide trains to run on it.
I am someone who loves the American ideas of freedom and liberty. That includes the freedom to fail. I don't want the federal government to pay for my retirement or health care. I don't want the government to take away my right to choose no health care.
I am a registered Libertarian, not because I think a 100% Libertarian Utopia is a good thing, but because where we are headed is in the opposite direction and I want to do my part to swing it back towards the center.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why rail works in the DC/Baltimore/Philly/NYC/Boston corridor. Regional rail is perfectly reasonable. I don't expect to see NY to LA anytime soon.
Aside from regional intercity rail, however, there still exists the problem of what to do once one gets there. I live in metro-NYC and frequently work in metro-DC, but I drive. I can get to Penn Station in NY very easily, and then get to Union Station in DC, but I can't get from Union Station to Northern Virginia beyond the beltway easily at all. Rail doesn't help me until I can get from Union Station to Herndon or Reston efficiently. In all these areas that developed after 1950 or so, the business destinations were spread out on the periphery - probably to avoid the taxes of the cities. It is really difficult to serve an area like Houston with subways/buses/light rail.
Re:In a word... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wide open areas with a huge lot of nothing in the middle is perfect for (wait for it)
air travel.
Really: why lay down several *billion* metric tons of expensive high quality steel as railway tracks in the middle of nowheere?
We have several large airports in operation, building another large airport only consumes valuable square kilometers, other than that only some million tons of concrete. Concrete and construction for runways is expensive, but overall still orders of magnitude cheaper than construction, concrete AND steel for thousands of railway kilometers.
Traffic control is needed for both, air and rail - and it's dirt cheap compared to the needed for maintenance of (otherwise dangerous) high speed track lines in the middle of nowhere.
Here in Germany, we have thousands of high speed rail tracks, but we have 80 million people are only some hundred kilometers apart, not some four thousand with incredible stretches of basically nothing AND the Rocky Mountains in between like the US. And even we do use airplanes increasingly, because the high speed rail is almost as expensive as air travel, but magnitudes slower.
Trains still need energy to move and that means Diesel, which incidentally is pretty much similar to Kerosene. Putting electric lines above all these planned rail tracks would be twice as expensive, even without all the energy lost in transit because railway power lines must have much lower voltages than regular interstate connections.
In short: there are good and efficient alternatives for rail for large stretches of land. Burning thousands of tons of Kerosene in take-off is a very very visible loss of energy and resources, but it's really only a fraction, a tiny glimpse of what has to be expended to cover the US with rail and train service.
It's true the US expends the most energy per capita worldwide. But constructing rail infrastructure will raise, not lower that for at least two decades. This is ridiculous to attempt when there's so many, so much easier gains to be had in lowering energy expenditures in automobiles, aircraft, heating, commercial operations/processes and recycling opportunities.
Mandating a reduced cruise speed for airliners could save billions, I think building rail is a publicity move and a bad one at that. And I certainly remember a politician who started extreme infrastructure projects to recover from a crisis. It really ended the economic downturn, but it also ended everything else, back then in 1933...
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.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:3, Insightful)
They are only in business because they keep getting propped up by the Gov. If they weren't in business, they couldn't offer fares at all, therefore they can only offer cheaper fares because of government handouts.
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?
Re:Absolutely... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm happy to pay a little bit extra to ride the train, just to avoid the horrible and invasive security theater farce at the airport...
I might be, too, but how long before the security theater farce moves to the rail station, too? We're willing to give up just about anything for a good security theater.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:In a word... (Score:2, Insightful)
Trucks didn't have to pay for their infrastructure
What do you think all of those weigh stations on the side of every interstate freeway in the US are for?
Re:In a word... (Score:3, 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.
This always frustrates me to no end, especially when they stop to wait for someone they think is about to leave, and block traffic that's trying to get to the open spots further away.
However, there is also the flip side of the coin. Here in Seattle, the public transportation is *terrible*. I like 1.5-2 miles from where I work. If I wanted to take public transportation, I would have to take 3 different buses. Assuming everything lined up exactly, it would take 20-25 minutes using that method. Given the poor scheduling here, it would probably be more like 45 minutes. I walk now (30 minutes), but I used to drive (10 minutes) in order to save time. Greedy parking-lot companies killed that option for me.
I imagine that a national rail system would encounter similar problems, because the US is so much more spread out than Europe is. If it used the kind of trains where you can bring along your car (to use for the remaining 50-100 miles after you reach the nearest rail hub), then it stands a better chance.
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.
Re:In a word... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stash an umbrella in your backpack/briefcase.
You know... be prepared."
Thank you for the answer...just still seems a bit more difficult than doing it the normal way and driving in. I mean, how do you lug all your stuff daily to/from work?
I mean, it would be a major PITA for me to daily carry....
1. Umbrella
2. Backpack (work papers, books)
3. Laptop (work)
4. Gym bag
5. Lunch (I bring food for breakfast, lunch and snack before gym, so this is a very full grocery bag daily)
And incidentals if need be. So, I'd have to lug this all daily..plus some kind of change of clothes?? I mean...down here in NOLA, as I've posted before...if it doesn't drop you off VERY close to your jobsite...during the summer (which is basically May through early Nov) you will be unprofessionally sweat soaked on a 5 minute walk, or you will be drenched by rains, and with street flooding that happens on very rainy days...even if you have an umbrella...you might be wading through a foot of water in places...etc.
I know the street flooding things is something special to THIS city...but, in the deep south...the weather will kill you on even short walks. I mean, I turned on my AC in early March, and it won't really go off till early November.
I won't even go into how I can't figure how people go grocery or other shopping with only public transit. How do you carry all that stuff around with you on a bus, train and changing buses and trains along the way. I do my shopping on Sat or Sunday...I usually hit 2-3 stores and maybe Sam's Club to get the best deals, and some things in bulk. I have to make about 2-4 trips to my car when I get home to unload all the stuff. How do you carry that much with no car?
I do this so I can cook most of my meals for the week on Sunday (breakfast, lunch and dinner) so that I can have time to hit the gym after work, and have mostly warm up food to eat for week meals. I'm lucky that I only ahve about a 10 min. drive to work...if I were to have to do hours on public transportation, well, hell...I'm out on weekdays from 8:30 or so till 6:30 or 7 by the time I get home. If I added all that travel time (or even shopping daily for food during the week), I'd have NO time on weekdays...and I have little enough as it is.
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.
Re:The man is completely devoid of ideas. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So Congress has the power to provide for the general Welfare of the United States...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
and regulate commerce when it's among several states...
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
... and it even explicitly mentions roads.
So it doesn't seem to me that building national infrastructure is outside the scope of the Federal Government's enumerated powers. On the contrary, I think if there are any 2 things that are properly the Federal government's business, it's keeping an army and developing national (interstate) infrastructure.
Admittedly, no, you don't get explicit mention of railways, power grids, or the Internet in the Constitution-- but then such omissions aren't very curious of a document written in the 18th century.
Re:Free market will kill it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Even an empty suit is better than... (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble is, this empty suit is continuing and compounding Bush's mistakes.
-jcr
Exactly. Based on the first 100 days, Obama is on track to be, at best, the second-worst president of my lifetime.
Is everybody excited about replacing an 8-year hopeless war in Iraq with a 10-year hopeless war in Afghanistan?
Bush recklessly grew the deficit. In a single year, Obama appears to be set to QUADRUPLE it. Oh, but don't worry, he promises to cut that in half by the end of his first term, which means we'll "only" be growing the debt at double the rate we were during Bush's final year, which was already way too high.
Lest you think I'm some kind of Republican shill: I'm fairly certain McCain would have been as bad or worse.
But hey, at least we're closing Git'mo (while retaining the option of holding enemy combatants without trial indefinitely... as long as it's not in that base.)
The only real "change" I'm seeing from Obama is what will be left of the tax rebate he's promising us after you subtract the cost of all his new hidden taxes that we will have to pay (i.e., carbon exchange taxes.) That will amount to change. Mostly copper.
Re:planes rule, trains drool. (Score:3, Insightful)
At least in the US. High speed rail has little to do with our "obsession" with cars. It has to do with the fact that we jumped on the regional airport route back in the 60s.
Rail, unlike planes, has the ability to use electric power vs oil. Which then means the power can come from any number of, more green/less foreign oil type, ways.
You are correct that the infrastructure currently is hugely slanted towards air travel but it's clear you missed part of the point.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is because your cities were planned around the car.
Urban Europeans will laugh at the ridiculous concept of driving to work in their 1000+ year old cities. On a bad day it could take half the day to drive a stretch that the underground would take you in 15 minutes, followed by half day of looking for a parking spot that would cost you only as much as a night in a hotel.
Europe does have acceptable public transport because it is the only alternative to buldozering the very heart of their cultural heritage to make way for the SUV. (As a general rule, you don't lightly bulldozer something millions of your people gave their lives for over the centuries)
The US doesn't have acceptable public transport because it has never needed it. There is an abundance of space, and most cities lack a pre-auto-age heart. It's doubtful whether a public transport system could really work now. Some cities are so vast and thinly spread that the cost associated with laying down the infrastructure to make every part accessible by public transport would be measured in numbers of Iraq wars. The metropolitan areas of Chicago and New York are about the size of medium sized European countries. Both in population size and in surface area.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW... your prediction is going to come true... not because of the inabilities of the government to actually do something that works well(see the interstate system) but because of ass-hat conservatives who want to block the legislation and money until it is so neutered that the only result is a craptastic system.