I love it, it seems there are a couple places were large cities can be connected: San Diego to Seattle, New York to Miami, New York to Chicago.
Would paying for it be so bad? There are a lot of offsets: Airport and highway expansion can be reduced, construction and train operation jobs will be created, city centers will be lifted economically, reduction of gasoline consumption, and related emissions, etc... #rants
Fine, as long as I don't have to pay for it. If they can find places to put them where they'll actually be used enough to offset their cost, build them.
Since private industry hasn't done that yet, in spite of the technology having been available for decades, I don't think there is a strong business case for them.
Naturally, coast to coast service does not make sense, but say along high density corridors, it does. Say from San Diego to San Francisco and from Chicago to New York and New York to Washington. Others exist as well.
Transportation is just too important and we need high speed trains and regulated airlines more than we need failed dogmatic socio-economic religions. It is a shame that the Japanese have had the Shinkansen for decades while too many in the US see it and poop their diapers in fear of the boogeyman of socialism. There is the phrase - America: Love it or leave it. Ummmmm, how about we make it better? #rants
Another advantage of HSR is that if you’re a terrorist or an anarchist, you can cause major carnage with very little investment. A simple cow on the tracks would be devastating.
@Flathead Smith: using that as an arguement against high speed rail (in a sarcastic tone) is akin to saying we shouldn't be allowed to live and work in tall buildings, because they are far more efficient at allowing lots of people to die when the terrorists blow them up. #rants
But commuter rail leads to functioning high speed rail. It all has to work together, or else you might as well not do it.
Also, check out the Swedish X2000 train. It has a suspension which leans it in turns, making special tracks unnecessary. Good for those countries who only want to dip a toe into HSR.
@Mr.choppers - Delenda Carthago Est: Like the Northeast corridor, where the Acela uses just such a system. Unfortunately, you still need jointless track to attain high speeds (from what I understand). #rants
@drewdrawshashtags: Yes. You also need tracks far enough apart so when the trains tilt, they don't hit each other. Part of the reason the Acela doesn't go as fast here as it does in France is they had to restrict the speed due to the tracks being too close together to take advantage of the full tilting feature.
Makes you glad they figured that out _before_ they started running them, eh? #rants
@mechimike: They actually didn't. I worked for Amtrak's insurer at the time they were testing and one of the reasons for the many delays was that the trains were hitting things when they tilted. Luckily, no severe accidents, but I think some poles were taken out. #rants
all of these convos about europe vs US are unnecessary. The fact is, if a high speed rail was available from the DC to Boston corridor, millions of people would ride it every year and give up driving or flying. The current train from NY to Boston goes about 15 miles per hour for a great distance in CT. A 200mph train from NY to Boston would only take an hour fifteen minutes. People who frequently fly the route would pay hundreds of dollars for that ride. The current system is garbage, and thats why people don't use it that much, because you pay lots of money for garbage, not because people are culturally against the idea of the train here moreso than in the rest of the world. If operating a car in the US was as expensive as it is in europe, and rail travel as cheap, then millions of people would make the same choices europeans do. Grow up!
@gdiamond: There technically is a 150+mph train (Acela) running between DC and Boston, it's the infrastructure in CT (track) and NJ (level crossings) that isn't up to the speed of the train. Also, at 200mph it would still take nearly an hour to get between NYC and Boston, which are about 190 miles apart.
And, for the record, 12 million people per year use Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor alone (almost 4 M between NYC and Boston), so unless you're being sarcastic, I would say everything you want pretty much already exists and is heavily used.
Amtrak service in the Northeast isn't garbage, nor is it stupidly expensive, it's just that cars are still cheaper (airlines, not really) as long as gas prices are below $5/gallon and parking is available.
the whole problem with rails in the United States starts with Our Politics. When Europe was concentrating on making traveling by train available, we were focusing on the moon. Back to today, we have no trains, and on top of that we share our space technologies with the European and that includes joint space ventures. I personally think the European Gambled right.
Having said that, The US has one big disadvantage compare to Europe: It's size! With that said, Bullet train needs a different policy, before succeeding. First, Just like NASA, there must a budget for it. Not on the state level. And that includes laws that all states must abide by. Which means the US Government says we'll start building rails from state A to state B, then State A & B has nothing to approve regarding the budget, affordability, and the construction of it.
Last, The US Government will decide which corridors needs priorities, and which one will have to wait.
On top of that, all major Cities with population reaching a certain amount should be required to built a reliable metro system that has a connection HUB with the Bullet train. #rants
It also helped that Europe had the dubious luxury of getting to rebuild their entire infrastructure from scratch after WWII. Moreso than size, Europe is far more urbanized than the US, which makes things more conducive to rail traffic. #rants
@Powerlurker: Yes, but that only goes so far. There weren't any high speed trains in 1947. There's something to be said for having newer, modern infrastructure, but it's far from the whole story. #rants
But just imagine, if you could park your car in a boxcar and take it with you to your destination, no rentals required. Unfortunately, if the government funds it, the government runs it; and then we end up with the same disaster as Amtrack and the DMV.
@Zoidberglundberg: Its "Amtrak", and they have that already. Its called the AutoTrain, and it runs between NYC and Florida. And its very heavily utilised. #rants
Having had the pleasure of riding the Shinkansen in Japan, I'd hop aboard a high speed train at the drop of the proverbial hat. For small land mass countries like Japan, it's a god-send. I spent 2.5 months in Japan on '07, mostly in a small-ish town outside of Nagoya. The Shinkansen got me to Tokyo in 2 hours, and Kobe in about the same. Fuji Speedway was another destination served almost completely by train (and a highly entertaining cab ride through the country side). No one does rail like the Japanese. The first time you're at a Shinkansen station waiting for your train, and an express blows through at a good 150mph is seriously awesome. Fun fact: the Japanese rail system averages schedule deviations and variances in seconds.
States such as California could surely benefit from such a system. It's got a large population across a very serviceable area. Unfortunately, there's no way in hell the state could ever pay for it (I'll spare you all any diatribe aimed at our crew in Sacramento).
Edited by evoCS-Hench-Minion to the stars at 11/14/09 1:08 AM
evoCS-Hench-Minion to the stars was starred
evoCS-Hench-Minion to the stars was unstarred
@evoCS-Hench-Minion to the stars: To be fair... The Japanese put the first Shinkansen in service (running 125 MPH) 5 years before we put a man on the moon. They've been at this a while. #rants
i rode amtrak from boston to nyc once. although a flight is much faster, i wanted to try the experience, and i really enjoyed it. if the fare is always as affordable as it was when i bought it, i would take it more often.
i rode the KTX in korea before. i don't think it's as fast as it's european or japanese counterparts, but it was a pretty comfy ride. it was cool to see how fast we were going. and the price was reasonable.
but alas, price will always seem like an obstacle in the US. #rants
In Italy we have this one: is named "Freccia Rossa" (Red Arrow), it's designed by Giugiaro, has a maximum speed of over 300 Kph and is equipped with restaurants, bars, lounges and onboard wi-fi. The present travel time from Milan to Rome (600 km), is about 2 hours and half, because unfortunately we've a lot of mountains to cross... France has an easier life with her TGVs, since it's flat like a billiard... [en.wikipedia.org]#rants
This stuff drives me bananas. Doesn't Amtrak get something like $1.5 or $2 billion in subsidies? A lot of money, until you think that that one highway interchange(Springfield, VA mixing bowl) cost $650 million. For one interchange outside of one city.
You always get into a chicken or egg argument when you talk about intercity rail in the US. If it's fast and reliable, it will succeed. 150-200 mph travel up and down the coasts works immediately, especially when you consider your other drop-off point is JFK or LAX.
The political and economic arguments always point out the subsidy per passenger on some line through the corn belt. Well, maybe it doesn't work there. We're subsidizing ethanol already(thanks ADM!). Keep the subsidies there(let's face it - they're not going anywhere) and improve the productivity and the quality of life in the most populous parts of the country.
I love cars, and will always have one(three if my wife doesn't see this). I have to think this can work in the most populous parts of the country.
One last thing: the automobile really is a symbol of the American ideal, but I've got to admit I never have felt that freedom on the NJ Turnpike, 4 miles and 20 minutes away from the Vince Lombardi Service area. #rants
@shmendo:
We don't make the car companies build the roads, so what's the difference between "subsidizing" the rail industry by building rails and the current case of building roads for cars? Not much as far as I can reckon.
I'd be perfectly fine if the feds stepped in and built a ton of high speed rail instead of a lot of other crap they spend money on.
Plus, it'd be nice if we could go back to the days where we did ambitious stuff because it was a great idea (building interstates, going to the moon, etc.) rather than bitching that it is expensive and letting the rest of the world pass us by all the time.
@ShababBabby:
"Plus, it'd be nice if we could go back to the days where we did ambitious stuff because it was a great idea (building interstates, going to the moon, etc.) rather than bitching that it is expensive and letting the rest of the world pass us by all the time."
NICELY PUT! Where's the ambition today? It's sorely missed, that's for sure. #rants
@HoyaCarLover: Back in the early 1800's NY state put up about 3 million dollars +/- and built something called the Erie Canal. As a result, NY from NYC to Buffalo experienced 100 years of economic growth and prosperity. Now most of NY is in decline, and people like me are fleeing the state in droves. NY (and the rest of this country) needs to get off its butt and remember history. We didn't have Rush Limbaugh spouting off about the spendthrift "liberals" back in the 1800's when we built the Erie canal, we just built it. It wasn't pork- it was an investment and it paid off big time. The money NY borrowed to built it was paid off in a few years from tolls on the canal. #rants
Well, I read most of the comments and skimmed the last few. It is hard to compare Europe's rail system to the U.S.A's system. If the U.S. were to implement a rail system in the manner that it was done in Europe, then first we would have to start a war with Canada and Mexico, get our asses handed to us, bomb out most of the cities and country side and have some benevolent country from overseas come up with a "Plan" to rebuild our country with a train system in place. Obviously, we could kick Canada's ass with only a partial showing from the mid-west states and Mexico could be handled by Texas and Oklahoma, so, it's never going to happen.
And of course, GM and Ford paid to make sure that the trains didn't work and people went with automobiles. #rants
Well ranted. I still think some of the $700 billion should have been spent on infrastructure, rather than shoring up bankers' bonuses. Two coastal rail networks and maybe one spanning the continent would truly be grand. #rants
@Mobius: We used to have this sort of thing. The argument everyone seems to miss is that once upon a time, Americans had a rail system that was the envy of the world. #rants
Now, if you really want to see the tree-huggers' heads explode, suggest we build nuke plants to power the trains. Trains are green, but they're powered by nukes! Aaagh! Boom!
Seriously, we need to do this. True, it makes no sense to build a high-speed train from Fargo to Baton Rouge, but there are plenty of corridors where it makes perfect sense.
We have to think ahead. Flying and driving may be cheaper now, but $4 gas will be back. Airlines have never covered their cost of capital. How long can this last? The days of cheap driving and flying are numbered.
I love driving my cars (all 25 of them), but I use the train as much as possible. Knowing when it's more responsible not to drive is the best way to preserve the privilege. Also, if you want high-speed trains, use the ones we have now. Don't just wait for it to happen. If the railroads can show people are using the train, it's easier to justify the investment.
11/15/09
Would paying for it be so bad? There are a lot of offsets: Airport and highway expansion can be reduced, construction and train operation jobs will be created, city centers will be lifted economically, reduction of gasoline consumption, and related emissions, etc... #rants
11/15/09
Since private industry hasn't done that yet, in spite of the technology having been available for decades, I don't think there is a strong business case for them.
Yet anyway. #rants
11/15/09
Transportation is just too important and we need high speed trains and regulated airlines more than we need failed dogmatic socio-economic religions. It is a shame that the Japanese have had the Shinkansen for decades while too many in the US see it and poop their diapers in fear of the boogeyman of socialism. There is the phrase - America: Love it or leave it. Ummmmm, how about we make it better? #rants
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/15/09
11/14/09
Also, check out the Swedish X2000 train. It has a suspension which leans it in turns, making special tracks unnecessary. Good for those countries who only want to dip a toe into HSR.
[en.wikipedia.org] #rants
11/14/09
11/14/09
Makes you glad they figured that out _before_ they started running them, eh? #rants
11/15/09
11/16/09
Hearties for both of you for expanding my knowledge. #rants
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
And, for the record, 12 million people per year use Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor alone (almost 4 M between NYC and Boston), so unless you're being sarcastic, I would say everything you want pretty much already exists and is heavily used.
Amtrak service in the Northeast isn't garbage, nor is it stupidly expensive, it's just that cars are still cheaper (airlines, not really) as long as gas prices are below $5/gallon and parking is available.
11/14/09
Don't forget the Chinatown buses either. #rants
11/15/09
11/14/09
Having said that, The US has one big disadvantage compare to Europe: It's size! With that said, Bullet train needs a different policy, before succeeding. First, Just like NASA, there must a budget for it. Not on the state level. And that includes laws that all states must abide by. Which means the US Government says we'll start building rails from state A to state B, then State A & B has nothing to approve regarding the budget, affordability, and the construction of it.
Last, The US Government will decide which corridors needs priorities, and which one will have to wait.
On top of that, all major Cities with population reaching a certain amount should be required to built a reliable metro system that has a connection HUB with the Bullet train. #rants
11/14/09
It also helped that Europe had the dubious luxury of getting to rebuild their entire infrastructure from scratch after WWII. Moreso than size, Europe is far more urbanized than the US, which makes things more conducive to rail traffic. #rants
11/15/09
11/16/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
States such as California could surely benefit from such a system. It's got a large population across a very serviceable area. Unfortunately, there's no way in hell the state could ever pay for it (I'll spare you all any diatribe aimed at our crew in Sacramento).
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
i rode the KTX in korea before. i don't think it's as fast as it's european or japanese counterparts, but it was a pretty comfy ride. it was cool to see how fast we were going. and the price was reasonable.
but alas, price will always seem like an obstacle in the US. #rants
11/15/09
11/13/09
In Italy we have this one: is named "Freccia Rossa" (Red Arrow), it's designed by Giugiaro, has a maximum speed of over 300 Kph and is equipped with restaurants, bars, lounges and onboard wi-fi. The present travel time from Milan to Rome (600 km), is about 2 hours and half, because unfortunately we've a lot of mountains to cross... France has an easier life with her TGVs, since it's flat like a billiard...
[en.wikipedia.org] #rants
11/13/09
You always get into a chicken or egg argument when you talk about intercity rail in the US. If it's fast and reliable, it will succeed. 150-200 mph travel up and down the coasts works immediately, especially when you consider your other drop-off point is JFK or LAX.
The political and economic arguments always point out the subsidy per passenger on some line through the corn belt. Well, maybe it doesn't work there. We're subsidizing ethanol already(thanks ADM!). Keep the subsidies there(let's face it - they're not going anywhere) and improve the productivity and the quality of life in the most populous parts of the country.
I love cars, and will always have one(three if my wife doesn't see this). I have to think this can work in the most populous parts of the country.
One last thing: the automobile really is a symbol of the American ideal, but I've got to admit I never have felt that freedom on the NJ Turnpike, 4 miles and 20 minutes away from the Vince Lombardi Service area. #rants
11/14/09
We don't make the car companies build the roads, so what's the difference between "subsidizing" the rail industry by building rails and the current case of building roads for cars? Not much as far as I can reckon.
I'd be perfectly fine if the feds stepped in and built a ton of high speed rail instead of a lot of other crap they spend money on.
Plus, it'd be nice if we could go back to the days where we did ambitious stuff because it was a great idea (building interstates, going to the moon, etc.) rather than bitching that it is expensive and letting the rest of the world pass us by all the time.
11/14/09
"Plus, it'd be nice if we could go back to the days where we did ambitious stuff because it was a great idea (building interstates, going to the moon, etc.) rather than bitching that it is expensive and letting the rest of the world pass us by all the time."
NICELY PUT! Where's the ambition today? It's sorely missed, that's for sure. #rants
11/14/09
11/13/09
And of course, GM and Ford paid to make sure that the trains didn't work and people went with automobiles. #rants
11/13/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/13/09
Seriously, we need to do this. True, it makes no sense to build a high-speed train from Fargo to Baton Rouge, but there are plenty of corridors where it makes perfect sense.
We have to think ahead. Flying and driving may be cheaper now, but $4 gas will be back. Airlines have never covered their cost of capital. How long can this last? The days of cheap driving and flying are numbered.
I love driving my cars (all 25 of them), but I use the train as much as possible. Knowing when it's more responsible not to drive is the best way to preserve the privilege. Also, if you want high-speed trains, use the ones we have now. Don't just wait for it to happen. If the railroads can show people are using the train, it's easier to justify the investment.