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?"
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.
Bullet Trains (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me something at least resembles the Shinkansen and I'll ride it.
its about population density (Score:4, Interesting)
rail is king is japan and europe because these places are so much more dense population wise than the usa. however, this is on average. rail can be king in the usa in dense areas like california, and the northeast. rail doesn't make sense in kansas or nebraska. still, a high speed rail link between major urban centers has some value. fast enough, and they can compete well with air travel. it will be very expensive to set up, but once the infrastructure is in place, its nothing but gravy savings
even with all of that considered, the usa still has to look beyond the automobile in an age of ever increasing energy insecurity, and rail and nuclear are neglected and unsexy but utterly solid alternatives to oil funded geopolitical problems and oil fueled atmospheric degeneration: never mind the CO2, air quality in our cities is a valid reason to go to more rail. when you fill up your SUV, you fund russian neoimperialism, you fund islamic fundamentalism, you fund trolls like chavez in venezuela. who funds the enemies of the usa in this world? soccer moms do. this is an insanity that has to end, and if it means we ride more trains, then its a no brainer
Re:In a word... (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who strongly prefers not to drive and does not have a car, YES. I live in NYC, which while having not such a great subway system, has a system I appreciate being able to use every day.
I just hope this doesn't displace automobiles completely. Cars/highways definitely allow us much more freedom that I don't want to see creep away.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Germany's cities are much closer together. (Score:5, Interesting)
And how much money have the various airlines received from the Fed?
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Being such a large, open land this makes perfect sense."
No. Quite the opposite. Being so large and open is what is going to make it so outrageously expensive that it won't make sense at all.
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.
Re:Reasons it won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been driving 45 minutes one way to work for over a decade & I'd get on a freaking train in a heartbeat if it was fesable for me to get to work by one.
Re:Heard of Amtrak? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Hopefully, the cities will improve bus service to the central station, and the larger ones might invest in light rail. Making the bus cheap to use can help -- e.g. make use of the buses free with the long-distance rail ticket.
Bicycles also work well in combination with trains (full-size ones, or folding ones, as appropriate).
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I like rail! Great mass transit in Europe (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, in the US, anything that has enough money attached automatically becomes a "pork-barrel" project. It's like the lunar cycles and the tides. Can't stop it, can't change it.
Second, it will be a union setup, with all the unfortunate consequences arising therefrom.
Third, the management will be as greedy, uncaring, and corrupt as the guys who proposed & funded the system. You can't expect a system built by shameless self-promoters to be staffed by honest people all of a sudden.
Fourth, there will be almost no attention paid to the system's usability, accessibility, or consumer-driven design. They won't consider the importance of precise timing (like the Japanese and the Swiss train systems). The interface won't be nearly as well-designed as London's Underground. The stations won't be decorated and made pleasant, like the Moscow Metro. And moreover, I sincerely doubt that there will be any kind of integrated passenger information system, whereby one could instantly find out where s/he is, what options are available, and where the trains are at the moment.
Considering the track record (pun oh-so-intended) of the US mass-transit enterprises to date, compared to Europe or Asia, the end result will be an unreliable, expensive system, that will be hard or impossible to navigate for anyone with disabilities, with cookie-cutter stations and ugly signage, staffed with union workers who can't be fired and therefore simply do not give a flying fuck about customer service.
Yes, I have zero faith that we could ever build anything approaching the TGV, the Underground, or the shinkansen.
I really hope to be proven wrong, though.
Re:Ride the Rails (Score:4, Interesting)
How about federally-operated rails with privately-operated, competing railroad companies? You know, like the trucking companies and airlines operate as independent entities unlike Amtrak, but actually have a huge network of infrastructure that can get you places more directly than Amtrak's limited rail system? Build enough rail to enough places, and license more than one company to operate trains on them.
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.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
We've somehow convinced ourselves that "convenient" is better than the alternative.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you (as someone who lives near Chicago).
To add to your post, I also submit that it could be very efficient for crossing the vast stretches of emptiness that are Nebraska, parts of Wyoming and Iowa. I would have no problem visiting places like Colorado, Cheyenne (for the mountains), and other beautiful states if I could just get past the mind numbing 15-17 hour drive through nothingness to get there. Hop on high speed rail and be there in a fraction of the time.
It could significantly grow Chicago's wealth as a city if a few western cities could use Chicago as a hub.
That also assumes the cost is less than flying, or at least competitive if I can have an effective way of getting around when I reach my destination.
Boondoggle (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Interesting)
By definition you wouldn't need a highway-capable car at the destination, so glorified golf cart [gm.com] would probably do.
I would love to see a future where people use lightweight, low-speed vehicles for tooling around town, and load those vehicles onto railroad cars for long-distance travel.
Re:The USA: Developing Country (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
A+++++ Would ride again. The only downside was having to board at Gare de l'Est, which is a frigging hole with the warm scent of urine provided for no extra charge.
The Three Strikes Against HSR in the United States (Score:3, Interesting)
One: The existing rail infrastructure in the united states is ill-suited to speeds above 100 miles per hour (i.e. no banked curves, street level crossings, not enough straight stretches of track, etc).
Two: The existing rail infrastructure is owned by the freight companies who don't care about passenger service. Here in California I once took the Amtrak from San Diego to San Luis Obispo, a distance of ~325 miles, and I must say that the experience was a test of patience. There were three hours of delays, making for an eight hour total trip. We had to pull over and stop for half an hour on side switch tracks so that freight trains loaded with sugar beats, a higher priority than making 1000+ people wait in the eyes of the freight company, could pass us by going south...twice. If high speed rail is to happen here in the United States then it will need dedicated and exclusive tracks like shinkansen [wikipedia.org] in Japan or TGV [wikipedia.org] in France...period.
Three: The United States is the land of lawsuits and we are a nation of NIMBY [wikipedia.org]s who will not want to see their neighborhoods "degraded" or their property values reduced by a noisy high speed train passing nearby. If a train is traveling at 200+ mph with steel wheels on steel rails then it is going to make a fairly large amount of noise when it passes. In Europe they make it more difficult for individual special interests to stand in the way of progress on such issues, but here in the United States just getting the right-of-ways established for the tracks would be a nightmare and just about every community along the proposed route will sue to prevent the train from exceeding 80 miles per hour along the stretch passing through their neck of the woods. So, what you will end up having is the high speed train that can do 200+ mph, but in practice is limited to no more than 100 along much of the route due to NIMBYs and their lawsuits, which mostly defeats the purpose of high speed rail.
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"....
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
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, in which model city do you live? Just about any city I've been to in the USA, I see people circling the parking lot looking for that "perfect spot" close to the entrance. I am also an American, and see this all the time. At the movie theater, at the mall, at the stadium--anywhere.
I always aim for the farthest spots (I enjoy walking and am not in a hurry), so I avoid the contention; but I can see, for example, some person in their car waiting for a little old lady to finish packing her bags in the trunk of her car and pull out so that they can take her parking space--while just a few yards away, there's a bunch of empty spots, which happen to be a bit farther from the door. They'll even honk the horn if the little old lady takes too long! I pressume they are in a hurry.
The funniest thing is that, sometimes, they are still waiting for that perfect spot by the time I park my car in the farther end of the lot, walk in, and reach the entrance.
-dZ.
Re:In a word... (Score:2, Interesting)
The supermarket is a direct result of car culture. The supermarket did not come first. You buy your week's food in some nations, you know, during the week, when you are going to eat it. From a store around the corner from your residence. This model makes much more sense sustainably - smaller, local businesses (owned by the people who live around you) are supported, food does not need to have billions of preservatives, and you get fresher food. As someone who likes to cook, I think you would be all about this.
That you do all of your shopping once every week sounds like madness - not just on your part, but on the part of the stores which are designed for people to do just this.
I've been biking to work and stores for a couple years now, and it works out just fine for me - I take a large backpack and can fit at least 3 days of food in it - even including the massive amounts of wine I drink. When going to work I can easily fit bike gear, folders, a laptop, and a change of clothes in too. Lunch maybe, but I've never tried. In any case, I'm just saying that if you wanted to, it would be completely doable by just adopting more community-based habits. (assuming you live in a very urban environment here, or europe)
I doubt a better nationwide rail system will help this much, but at least it's a step in the right direction. maybe if the government provided more aid to city-wide transit, we'd be getting somewhere.
Re:In a word... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Why should there be a human at a weigh station at all?"
Because they don't only weigh the trucks for proper weight, weight distribution and axle loads. They also physically inspect trucks as well for safety issues when they spot an unsafe looking rig. Plenty of trucks on the road now that have minor to serious safety issues because everyone wants to beat the system and make more money. There was a video on youtube, I cant find the link, that was taken by a weigh station officer. It showed a trailer that was missing an entire set of duals which the driver chained the axle up, rusted out brake chambers (which wont do jack) and a whole laundry list of serious safety issues. The trailer wasn't loaded but it looked like a logging trailer, they get loaded upward of 50+ tons. You want that guy driving through a weigh station and just getting a green light? Officers man them for a very good reason. You should think before you speak.