Languish.org

An opinion piece:

QuoteOthers leave U.S. in the dust on high-speed rail

Riding the MARC Camden Line to a conference on high-speed rail is a bit like taking a horse and buggy to an auto show.

But that's exactly what I did last Thursday. And by the end of the day's presentations, riding the pokey old train back from Union Station to Dorsey, the sense of being behind the times was overwhelming.

It came as no surprise that the United States is far behind Japan or Germany or France in high-speed rail. We've known for years that visitors from these highly developed industrial nations have been laughing behind our backs at our woefully antiquated rail system.

But it came as a shock to be confronted with the reality of how far behind we are in high-speed intercity rail compared with such countries as China, Turkey, South Korea and Brazil. Even Iran is planning a line from Tehran to Qom that will reach 200 mph - a speed that will make Amtrak's Acela (maximum 135 mph) look as if it were being pulled by Thomas the Tank Engine. At least we still have bigger bombs.

Perhaps no country in the world puts the American rail network to shame as much as Spain. Here is a former empire that the U.S.A. whipped in a war back in 1898, in which mosquitoes put up more resistance than the opposing army. Now the Spaniards have 988 miles of existing high-speed rail track and 1,386 under construction.

The service is so reliable that the operator will refund a passenger's full fare if the train is more than five minutes late. Riders also get their money back if the air conditioning or toilet malfunctions.

I'm not making this up, MARC riders. This is all information gleaned at the inaugural conference of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association in Washington last week.

Now this association has a definite point of view. It's advocating construction of a 17,000-mile high-speed rail network in the United States and parts of Canada - carrying trains at speeds up to 220 mph - by 2030. The conference drew participants from around the world, and it didn't take a detective to determine their motives. All over the globe, companies are slavering at the prospect of selling us equipment we don't make and expertise we don't have.

If you want an illustration of how the American obsession with roads at the expense of rails has cost this country, look to China. That country is building an extensive high-speed rail system to connect its cities. And who is supplying its billions of dollars' worth of locomotives and railcars? Siemens (Germany), Shinkansen (Japan), Bombardier (Canada) and Alstom (France).

This is a part of the equation that the folks at libertarian think tanks don't take into account when they pooh-pooh the idea of a national high-speed rail network. They dwell on the admittedly enormous cost of building - proponents estimated it at $600 billion over the next 20 years - but not at the costs of failing to get on board. Already, our reluctance to play in the high-speed rail market, which has been around since Japan took the lead in the 1960s, has cost the United States the opportunity to be a player in one of the world's leading heavy industries. Do we surrender that to other countries in perpetuity?

Much of the opposition to high-speed rail in this country stems from an ideological opposition to a government role in just about anything but fighting wars. But history shows that there has never been a significant advance in U.S. transportation without federal involvement on some level.

Many of the same arguments made against high-speed rail could be made about the Erie Canal, transcontinental rail and the interstate highway system.

Obviously, there is the small detail of how one would pay for such a national endeavor.

Norman Anderson, chief executive of CG/LA Infrastructure LLC, suggested a way to fund such big projects. He supports the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank - a concept President Barack Obama has embraced and for which he proposed $5 billion in the budget.

Anderson said that such a bank could be financed through the sale of federally backed bonds to private citizens, pension funds and other investors. The bank would finance the construction of rail lines - and other capital projects - that would be leased to operating companies. Without the burden of maintaining obsolete infrastructure like Amtrak's, he said, the operating companies could make a decent profit.

"No way would we go for new taxes at any level for anything," he said.

Would this work? I'm not sure. A robust debate is needed. But it's clear that the rest of the world is jumping on high-speed trains and getting around much faster than we can. Can the United States afford to be left at the platform?

Anyone who's taken the train from DC to NY knows this pain.

Well, something to consider is that the hubs and centers in Central and Western Europe are much closer together than in the U.S.

When looking at flight vs. train ride I often look at the travel times - a one hour flight may seem short, but you need to check in, pass security, check out, etc. so you can easily add two or three hours total travel time (not counting having ot get to the out of town airport in the first place).

What the Op Piece also doesn't mention on the other hand is that many railway companies over here have trouble competing with airlines in terms of fare. Buying a flight ticket to Hamburg is usually as cheap as, if not cheaper than taking a high speed train (I could also take the much cheaper night train that rumbles for 10, 12 hours through the night, but they're totally uncomfortable).

Some comments:

First and foremost, I must speak on behalf of mosquitoes. If you think they have ever been easier to defeat than enemy armies, you are sorely mistaken! Mosquito is the ultimate guerrilla warrior, agile, invisible, aggressive and resourceful... truly, when we attack they retreat, when we rest they attack, when we retreat they advance. And what can be more fit for a guerrilla than living on enemy blood?

Second, it's true that in the longest trips trains lose many of their advantages (although any person that has spent 6, 7 or 8 hours sat in a plane will appreciate luxuries like getting on your feet and walking to the wagon-restaurant... not to mention things like metal cutlery and keeping your shoes on, because these days airline passengers are treated too much like cattle, and dangerous cattle at that) but this fact doesn't explain why there is no high speed trains at all in the US. There are lots of high density routes, like Washington DC - New York,  Boston - Philadelphia, or San Francisco - Los Angeles, at "european" distances.

But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?   

Quebec-Detroit! Build it!

America made the choice to go with the car over the train decades ago.

Quote from: Syt on October 26, 2009, 05:30:17 AM
Well, something to consider is that the hubs and centers in Central and Western Europe are much closer together than in the U.S.

When looking at flight vs. train ride I often look at the travel times - a one hour flight may seem short, but you need to check in, pass security, check out, etc. so you can easily add two or three hours total travel time (not counting having ot get to the out of town airport in the first place).

What the Op Piece also doesn't mention on the other hand is that many railway companies over here have trouble competing with airlines in terms of fare. Buying a flight ticket to Hamburg is usually as cheap as, if not cheaper than taking a high speed train (I could also take the much cheaper night train that rumbles for 10, 12 hours through the night, but they're totally uncomfortable).

Wimp  :P

Spain as a model is very recent since the non high-speed network is still crappy unlike France or Germany.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 07:17:12 AM
Wimp  :P

Spain as a model is very recent since the non high-speed network is still crappy unlike France or Germany.

I can't sleep in planes, trains and automobiles. Doesn't matter if I can lie down or not. So this is hell for me.

Quote from: Syt on October 26, 2009, 07:39:53 AM
I can't sleep in planes, trains and automobiles. Doesn't matter if I can lie down or not. So this is hell for me.

They should make a movie about this.

I'm all for it, the idea anyway. Though it would likely have to be cheaper or at least competitive with air fare. The problems I see would be the funding of it, how and who funds it. Then acquiring the rights of way could be very tough, to put rail lines in or to rebuild unused lines. In Massachusetts there was a lot of opposition to rebuilding and reusing rail lines in towns along the south coast to Boston. People were just against it, thought the rail traffic would ruin their towns, property, be noisy, etc. Even though rail passenger transport would be great, given the tough auto commuting on those highways/roads. The rail line did go in, has been running for a few or more years now. And then going through environmental process - I can't imagine that would be anything but a horror. We couldn't even get a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts, even with all these enviro and "green"types. Some of them fought it too! That would be the same in many parts of the country. So this would be a great idea, I feel, but the political process would be a nightmare, I predict.

Amtrack is a non-profit organization in that they lose money every year. Last I had seen/heard they were requiring over a billion dollars each year from the government to continue operations. I cannot imagine that bill it would cost taxpayers to start running high speed trains.

Yeah, I don't think most of the country is densely populated enough for those to be profitable and most of us don't want the federal government to pump money into extensive lines for those parts that are potentially.

While high-speed lines are probably a bad idea on most of the US, I bet in certain areas (Cali, Northeast Coast) it would be a fairly good idea. The main advantage of these trains as far as I'm concerned is that you can get to the financial district of a big city much faster than in a plane. I can be in Atocha (downtown Madrid) in 90 min or so, including the time it takes me to get to the station here in Zaragoza.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2009, 08:45:05 AMYeah, I don't think most of the country is densely populated enough for those to be profitable

I don't think that anyone was planning a Topeka - Wichita Falls high speed connection either.  :P

For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 08:40:09 AM
Amtrack is a non-profit organization in that they lose money every year. Last I had seen/heard they were requiring over a billion dollars each year from the government to continue operations. I cannot imagine that bill it would cost taxpayers to start running high speed trains.

The word you're looking for is subsidized, not nonprofit.

I believe the push for the high speed lines is between hubs that are only loosely connected now- for example, getting from Philadelphia to Chicago is a trip that takes a bare minimum of 20 1/2 hours.  If I remember correctly, the push was to connect the Northeast Corridor more tightly to the Chicago hub, and to connect the Chicago hub to the West Coast (train travel from coast to coast is absolutely asinine nowadays).

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:05:28 AM
I don't think that anyone was planning a Topeka - Wichita Falls high speed connection either.  :P

Which is why you'd be hard pressed to get Kansas congressmen to vote for funding it. So it'd need corporate investors or state governments probably. California is broke and I don't think NY is doing much better.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2009, 08:45:05 AM
Yeah, I don't think most of the country is densely populated enough for those to be profitable and most of us don't want the federal government to pump money into extensive lines for those parts that are potentially.

I would like for the federal government to pump money into the Atlanta-New Orleans high speed rail line.

Quote from: Alatriste on October 26, 2009, 05:58:02 AM
Some comments:

First and foremost, I must speak on behalf of mosquitoes. If you think they have ever been easier to defeat than enemy armies, you are sorely mistaken! Mosquito is the ultimate guerrilla warrior, agile, invisible, aggressive and resourceful... truly, when we attack they retreat, when we rest they attack, when we retreat they advance. And what can be more fit for a guerrilla than living on enemy blood?

Second, it's true that in the longest trips trains lose many of their advantages (although any person that has spent 6, 7 or 8 hours sat in a plane will appreciate luxuries like getting on your feet and walking to the wagon-restaurant... not to mention things like metal cutlery and keeping your shoes on, because these days airline passengers are treated too much like cattle, and dangerous cattle at that) but this fact doesn't explain why there is no high speed trains at all in the US. There are lots of high density routes, like Washington DC - New York,  Boston - Philadelphia, or San Francisco - Los Angeles, at "european" distances.

But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?

By no means am I saying this is always the case, but roads in this country often are financed by their users: through gasoline taxes, licensing fees, ad valorem taxes, and tolls (a frequent way to pay for bridges and other construction projects are to finance through bonds that are paid off with toll revenue). Airports are also paid for by Fed Ex and UPS through their fees to use the airport (which are used to pay off bonds).

In the US there are routes that may make sense on their own: San Fransisco to LA is an example you mentioned. The problem is that those are still 385 miles apart. Are you going to build a station in San Fransisco that can only service LA? The next major city to the north is Portland, and it is 630 miles away. Las Vegas to the southeast is 570 miles away.

For a point of comparison, London and Paris are 292 miles apart.

Maybe not Cali, but the Northeast Corridor looks ideal for high-speed rail transportation, DC-Balitmore-Philladelphia-NYC-Boston would make a lot of sense.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

:huh:

We are talking Spain here, not mexico... there are a plenty of cars in Spain, roads enough to make rush hour, even *gasp* people with several cars...

I wager the density of cars in Spain easily is on par with the rest of western europe.

V

There's something to be brought up: trains as a potential niche alternative to plane travel.  We've over-tightened security for airline travel so much that if we had a rail infrastructure capable of handling the load, I think we'd see a lot of air passengers bail in favor of rail connections.

Quote from: Alatriste on October 26, 2009, 05:58:02 AM
But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?

Agreed, this is very silly.  The point of infrastructure upgrades is that they lift all the boats, directly and indirectly, and makes it hard to charge everyone who benefits from it.  That's why the government is supposed to be in charge of it.  Unfortunately, this point is lost on the penny-wise and pound-foolish libertardians in groupthink tanks.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:16:09 AM
By no means am I saying this is always the case, but roads in this country often are financed by their users: through gasoline taxes, licensing fees, ad valorem taxes, and tolls (a frequent way to pay for bridges and other construction projects are to finance through bonds that are paid off with toll revenue). Airports are also paid for by Fed Ex and UPS through their fees to use the airport (which are used to pay off bonds).

In the US there are routes that may make sense on their own: San Fransisco to LA is an example you mentioned. The problem is that those are still 385 miles apart. Are you going to build a station in San Fransisco that can only service LA? The next major city to the north is Portland, and it is 630 miles away. Las Vegas to the southeast is 570 miles away.

For a point of comparison, London and Paris are 292 miles apart.

You wouldn't need a new station if there is already one in existance, you might need to dedicate a track, or possible a platform.

In France some of the TGV stop more frequently, I took it from Disneyland to Charles de Gaule, a mere 15 min ride.

SF could easily service both LA and Vegas or even for that matter Denver. New trains are faster than the TGV, look at the Shangai magnetic rail :)

It shouls ofc be competitive to air, but in term of waiting and security you ought to factor that into a comparisson btw rail and air. If you had ecological costs most trains wins hands down over air :)

V

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:14:41 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

France is quite a bit smaller than the US state of Texas, and much more population dense than our country. Also, its biggest airport is a disaster that any sane traveller would want to avoid.

The Northeast corridor does look like the best bet for high speed rail in this county, the problem is that there has been rail in those markets and it isn't successful. It may just be a function that our interstate system is so strong and car ownership so prevalent that rail isn't the option of choice when travelling those distances for budget oriented consumers.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2009, 09:11:17 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:05:28 AM
I don't think that anyone was planning a Topeka - Wichita Falls high speed connection either.  :P

Which is why you'd be hard pressed to get Kansas congressmen to vote for funding it. So it'd need corporate investors or state governments probably. California is broke and I don't think NY is doing much better.

Yes, the political angle is a problem here as well. There is much resentment about the radial nature of the network. Also, some crazy Portuguese are apparently against a high-speed link with Spain because that would make them a colony or something like that. :lol:

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 09:23:43 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on October 26, 2009, 05:58:02 AM
But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?

Agreed, this is very silly.  The point of infrastructure upgrades is that they lift all the boats, directly and indirectly, and makes it hard to charge everyone who benefits from it.  That's why the government is supposed to be in charge of it.  Unfortunately, this point is lost on the penny-wise and pound-foolish libertardians in groupthink tanks.

If we are going to subsidize transportion, I'm glad we chose to focus on roads. When my house is burning down, it would suck of the fire department had to take the train to get to the fire.

Quote from: Iormlund on October 26, 2009, 09:04:10 AM
While high-speed lines are probably a bad idea on most of the US, I bet in certain areas (Cali, Northeast Coast) it would be a fairly good idea. The main advantage of these trains as far as I'm concerned is that you can get to the financial district of a big city much faster than in a plane. I can be in Atocha (downtown Madrid) in 90 min or so, including the time it takes me to get to the station here in Zaragoza.

The problem with HSR in the densely-populated areas where it makes sense is that the US has a much higher level of NIMBY than I perceive someplace like Spain to have, and so you have a huge number of people who favor it so long as it doesn't come anywhere near them.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 26, 2009, 09:05:52 AM

Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 08:40:09 AM
Amtrack is a non-profit organization in that they lose money every year. Last I had seen/heard they were requiring over a billion dollars each year from the government to continue operations. I cannot imagine that bill it would cost taxpayers to start running high speed trains.

The word you're looking for is subsidized, not nonprofit.

I believe the push for the high speed lines is between hubs that are only loosely connected now- for example, getting from Philadelphia to Chicago is a trip that takes a bare minimum of 20 1/2 hours.  If I remember correctly, the push was to connect the Northeast Corridor more tightly to the Chicago hub, and to connect the Chicago hub to the West Coast (train travel from coast to coast is absolutely asinine nowadays).

It was a joke which is why I clarified what I meant by non-profit. Amtrack loses a ton of money now and would lose more if they upgraded to high speed trains. It sounds good as an idea but it is not a practical one.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:32:07 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on October 26, 2009, 09:04:10 AM
While high-speed lines are probably a bad idea on most of the US, I bet in certain areas (Cali, Northeast Coast) it would be a fairly good idea. The main advantage of these trains as far as I'm concerned is that you can get to the financial district of a big city much faster than in a plane. I can be in Atocha (downtown Madrid) in 90 min or so, including the time it takes me to get to the station here in Zaragoza.

The problem with HSR in the densely-populated areas where it makes sense is that the US has a much higher level of NIMBY than I perceive someplace like Spain to have, and so you have a huge number of people who favor it so long as it doesn't come anywhere near them.

If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 09:25:06 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:16:09 AM
By no means am I saying this is always the case, but roads in this country often are financed by their users: through gasoline taxes, licensing fees, ad valorem taxes, and tolls (a frequent way to pay for bridges and other construction projects are to finance through bonds that are paid off with toll revenue). Airports are also paid for by Fed Ex and UPS through their fees to use the airport (which are used to pay off bonds).

In the US there are routes that may make sense on their own: San Fransisco to LA is an example you mentioned. The problem is that those are still 385 miles apart. Are you going to build a station in San Fransisco that can only service LA? The next major city to the north is Portland, and it is 630 miles away. Las Vegas to the southeast is 570 miles away.

For a point of comparison, London and Paris are 292 miles apart.

You wouldn't need a new station if there is already one in existance, you might need to dedicate a track, or possible a platform.

In France some of the TGV stop more frequently, I took it from Disneyland to Charles de Gaule, a mere 15 min ride.

SF could easily service both LA and Vegas or even for that matter Denver. New trains are faster than the TGV, look at the Shangai magnetic rail :)

It shouls ofc be competitive to air, but in term of waiting and security you ought to factor that into a comparisson btw rail and air. If you had ecological costs most trains wins hands down over air :)

V

The distance between San Fransisco and Denver is a couple hundred miles less than the distance from London to Budapest.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
The Northeast corridor does look like the best bet for high speed rail in this county, the problem is that there has been rail in those markets and it isn't successful. It may just be a function that our interstate system is so strong and car ownership so prevalent that rail isn't the option of choice when travelling those distances for budget oriented consumers.

The problem for rail is that it generatees a lot of positive externalities, so it can be socially beneficial without being able to make money as a private for-profit enterprise.  People driving on I-95 should be grateful that Amtrak is easing up the traffic considerably, but they're not paying anything for it.  They should also be grateful for cleaner air (well, not on New Jersey Turnpike, but you get the point).  Then there is just the general and hard-to-measure network externality of having cities be connected better.

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
:huh:

We are talking Spain here, not mexico... there are a plenty of cars in Spain, roads enough to make rush hour, even *gasp* people with several cars...

I wager the density of cars in Spain easily is on par with the rest of western europe.

V

:huh:  I was asking about Spain because in several European countries in which I have lived or visited extensively, a sizable portion of the population did not own cars, so i was wondering if that was also true of Spain.  If everyone in Spain owns one, then I wager the density of cars in Spain is higher than the rest of Western Europe.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:35:59 AM

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
:huh:

We are talking Spain here, not mexico... there are a plenty of cars in Spain, roads enough to make rush hour, even *gasp* people with several cars...

I wager the density of cars in Spain easily is on par with the rest of western europe.

V

:huh:  I was asking about Spain because in several European countries in which I have lived or visited extensively, a sizable portion of the population did not own cars, so i was wondering if that was also true of Spain.  If everyone in Spain owns one, then I wager the density of cars in Spain is higher than the rest of Western Europe.

Then again, Spain has certain characteristics that put it apart from most of Western Europe regarding transport infrastructure.

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Americans like cars, they don't recognise the fundamental, unpinnable awesomness of trains.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 09:35:54 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
The Northeast corridor does look like the best bet for high speed rail in this county, the problem is that there has been rail in those markets and it isn't successful. It may just be a function that our interstate system is so strong and car ownership so prevalent that rail isn't the option of choice when travelling those distances for budget oriented consumers.

The problem for rail is that it generatees a lot of positive externalities, so it can be socially beneficial without being able to make money as a private for-profit enterprise.  People driving on I-95 should be grateful that Amtrak is easing up the traffic considerably, but they're not paying anything for it.  They should also be grateful for cleaner air (well, not on New Jersey Turnpike, but you get the point).  Then there is just the general and hard-to-measure network externality of having cities be connected better.

I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Btw--I'm not advocating nixing Amtrak.

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:37:33 AM
Then again, Spain has certain characteristics that put it apart from most of Western Europe regarding transport infrastructure.

I don't understand.  Are these characteristics that make it unlikely to achieve the 100% utilization rate for high speed rail that you noted for France, or ones that make it likely?

The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 09:45:20 AM
The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

Huh. I did not know that. Actually, I thought Amtrak basically was the Northeast Corridor.

Not everyone owns a car here, no - for example I only started driving and bought a car after turning 30 since I needed one for work. But most of the passengers of high-speed links probably do. Poor people use the bus.
A lot of the passengers of high-speed trains are on business to or from Madrid and it's just faster and more relaxing way to get to the city center than in plane or car.

As for how do you get funding, bribes are fairly efficient. Which is basically the same as what happens in the US Senate. Remember that you don't have to bribe everyone. Usually just a small party or two will do ... and if you party has a sizable majority (like PP till 2004) not even that.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:43:31 AMA billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Are you kidding? A billion is peanuts when it comes to road building and maintenance.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 09:45:20 AM
The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

I think that's more a case of internal budgeting. Amtrack as a company is subsidized by the government because of losses. Parts of it probably do make a profit but the sum of whole is less than the parts.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:43:31 AM
I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Yes, that is the measure.  Given that
(1) constructing a mile of a single lane of highway costs about $2.5 million for materials and labor
(2) constructing each each interchange costs about about $10 million, and
(3) maintaining a mile of an average lane of road costs about $100,000 per year
we can calculate the opportunity cost of AMTRAK, once we include land purchases and planning costs in that total.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Because our political system doesn't work like that. MPs owe their allegiance first and foremost to their parties, not to the region they "represent". That way, votes are almost always along party lines. It's regional parties the ones that fill that category.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:44:48 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:37:33 AM
Then again, Spain has certain characteristics that put it apart from most of Western Europe regarding transport infrastructure.

I don't understand.  Are these characteristics that make it unlikely to achieve the 100% utilization rate for high speed rail that you noted for France, or ones that make it likely?

They're characteristics that make building such an infrastructure more difficult for Spain, in comparison with other countries such as France or Germany. It's about the relatively difficult geography of some parts of the country, the low population density, coupled with big cities being relatively far away and not too concentrated, and the fact that the construction of such projects uses to rely heavily on EU funding.

Btw, the point that the article makes about getting behind in the tech race is kinda valid. Germany has been eagerly developing a maglev train, but so far the only buyer has been China - attempts to build a German track failed, mostly due to budgetary reasons, but also because of environmentalist and security concerns.

The message broadcast to the world: "Yeah, we'd like you to buy this stuff, but NO WAY IN HELL will we build one in OUR country!"

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 09:25:06 AMNew trains are faster than the TGV, look at the Shangai magnetic rail :)

Yeap, the Shanghai maglev train has reached 500km/h.  It's a shame they've decided to cancel the Shanghai-Beijing maglev route and go with conventional high speed trains.

I actually thought that point was weak.  "We need high speed rail so that other countries would by trains from us" is a really, really stupid argument for high speed rail.

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 09:25:06 AM


You wouldn't need a new station if there is already one in existance, you might need to dedicate a track, or possible a platform.

In France some of the TGV stop more frequently, I took it from Disneyland to Charles de Gaule, a mere 15 min ride.

Exception, not the rule. A convenience for tourists. There are some direct TGVs to Bordeaux from Paris without stops, not even one.

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 10:34:49 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Because our political system doesn't work like that. MPs owe their allegiance first and foremost to their parties, not to the region they "represent". That way, votes are almost always along party lines. It's regional parties the ones that fill that category.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US.  :cool:

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 10:36:45 AM
They're characteristics that make building such an infrastructure more difficult for Spain, in comparison with other countries such as France or Germany. It's about the relatively difficult geography of some parts of the country, the low population density, coupled with big cities being relatively far away and not too concentrated, and the fact that the construction of such projects uses to rely heavily on EU funding.

Thanks for the summary.  It makes a case for Spain being a better model for the US than, say, France, which is what the OP was kinda suggesting. 

There was a time when the RR companies knew how to convince people that the railroad was a good thing, NIMBY or not.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freelreviewsradio.com%2Fblog-images%2FFrank.jpg&hash=22d931bc4a8b97fe67c9d0c0e740c69ced95175c)

:P

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:14:41 AM

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

It's more or less true, except when there is no REAL i.e high speed line not just TGVs rolling in standard lines.
Actually, the difference lies in the near absence of coach services between main cities.

Medium range niche i.e up to 1000 km (bit more than 3 hours) yes but IF the line is all high speed not like Germany where there aren't that many high speed lines and when there is it's not 300 kph cruise speed.
FYI, the ICE has its highest cruise speed in France, between Lorraine and Île-de-France whereas in the German part it only travels at  200 kph (not considered as high speed in France) between Frankfurt and Mannheim during 40 min or so.


As for the densities, I am not really convinced since the density in France is not that high, compared to Germany and not that much over Spain.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:54:47 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:43:31 AM
I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Yes, that is the measure.  Given that
(1) constructing a mile of a single lane of highway costs about $2.5 million for materials and labor
(2) constructing each each interchange costs about about $10 million, and
(3) maintaining a mile of an average lane of road costs about $100,000 per year
we can calculate the opportunity cost of AMTRAK, once we include land purchases and planning costs in that total.

If that is the way we are going to compare things, and those are the correct values, then Amtrak is going to have a hard time justifying its subsidy.

I did some research into passenger miles to compare the New Jersey turnpike to Amtrak (yeah, I know I'm wasting my time):

1998 data: New Jersey Turnpike passenger miles: 5 billion

http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/0/ba2414ce1eac182685256dc500674090/$FILE/NJTA%20proposal%20-FINAL-%205-22-01.pdf

2003 data: Amtrak Passenger miles: 5.7 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

The New Jersey turnpike is 122 miles long, and is between 4 and 14 lanes wide. So using grumbler's figures, and assuming lane additions equal to the New Jersey turnpike will accomodate the traffic from Amtrak, it seems like it would be more cost effective to add lanes rather than support Amtrak.

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 11:00:36 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 10:34:49 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Because our political system doesn't work like that. MPs owe their allegiance first and foremost to their parties, not to the region they "represent". That way, votes are almost always along party lines. It's regional parties the ones that fill that category.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US.  :cool:

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 11:23:51 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 11:00:36 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 10:34:49 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Because our political system doesn't work like that. MPs owe their allegiance first and foremost to their parties, not to the region they "represent". That way, votes are almost always along party lines. It's regional parties the ones that fill that category.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US.  :cool:

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Not to mention terrorists, cf. ETA's current campaign agains the Basque Y-shaped high-speed network...

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 11:23:51 AM

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Similar in Germany.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 11:23:51 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 11:00:36 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 10:34:49 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:35:07 AM
If you think that NIMBY-ism doesn't exist here at a similar level than in the US, you'd be reeeally wrong.

Really?  I never hear about it.  How does the Spanish government achieve funding for these high-speed rail systems given that a substantial percentage of the representatives from the affected areas oppose it (and pretty much all those from areas that do not benefit)?  Doesn't Spain have a representative legislature?

Because our political system doesn't work like that. MPs owe their allegiance first and foremost to their parties, not to the region they "represent". That way, votes are almost always along party lines. It's regional parties the ones that fill that category.

So NIMBYism doesn't exist in Spain at a similar level to that of the US.  :cool:

It exists, but is more expressed through citizen movements aimed at the government in general rather than political pressure at the particular representatives.

Not to mention terrorists, cf. ETA's current campaign agains the Basque Y-shaped high-speed network...

That's a very particular situation, it's not fair to extrapolate based on that.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 11:13:49 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:54:47 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:43:31 AM
I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Yes, that is the measure.  Given that
(1) constructing a mile of a single lane of highway costs about $2.5 million for materials and labor
(2) constructing each each interchange costs about about $10 million, and
(3) maintaining a mile of an average lane of road costs about $100,000 per year
we can calculate the opportunity cost of AMTRAK, once we include land purchases and planning costs in that total.

If that is the way we are going to compare things, and those are the correct values, then Amtrak is going to have a hard time justifying its subsidy.

I did some research into passenger miles to compare the New Jersey turnpike to Amtrak (yeah, I know I'm wasting my time):

1998 data: New Jersey Turnpike passenger miles: 5 billion

http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/0/ba2414ce1eac182685256dc500674090/$FILE/NJTA%20proposal%20-FINAL-%205-22-01.pdf

2003 data: Amtrak Passenger miles: 5.7 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

The New Jersey turnpike is 122 miles long, and is between 4 and 14 lanes wide. So using grumbler's figures, and assuming lane additions equal to the New Jersey turnpike will accomodate the traffic from Amtrak, it seems like it would be more cost effective to add lanes rather than support Amtrak.

I don't think grumbler's figures would apply to New Jersey.  Let's take Garden State Parkway widening project as an example, which is going on right now, and is sorely needed.  It's going to turn GSP from 2 lanes in each direction to 3, from exit 30 to exit 80, at a total cost of $900 million dollars.  That's about $9 million per lane-mile, although I ignored the cost of interchanges that are also affected.

I think we should replace intercontinental flights with fast steamships too.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 11:38:40 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 11:13:49 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:54:47 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:43:31 AM
I concede on the environmental component, but regarding the other externalities: Amtrak is heavily subsidized--someone posted a billion a year. The comparison shouldn't be how terrible the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared, but how bad the congestion would be if Amtrak disappeared and the subsidies were put into road construction and maintenance or airport expansion. A billion a year could support a lot of new lanes.

Yes, that is the measure.  Given that
(1) constructing a mile of a single lane of highway costs about $2.5 million for materials and labor
(2) constructing each each interchange costs about about $10 million, and
(3) maintaining a mile of an average lane of road costs about $100,000 per year
we can calculate the opportunity cost of AMTRAK, once we include land purchases and planning costs in that total.

If that is the way we are going to compare things, and those are the correct values, then Amtrak is going to have a hard time justifying its subsidy.

I did some research into passenger miles to compare the New Jersey turnpike to Amtrak (yeah, I know I'm wasting my time):

1998 data: New Jersey Turnpike passenger miles: 5 billion

http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/0/ba2414ce1eac182685256dc500674090/$FILE/NJTA%20proposal%20-FINAL-%205-22-01.pdf

2003 data: Amtrak Passenger miles: 5.7 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

The New Jersey turnpike is 122 miles long, and is between 4 and 14 lanes wide. So using grumbler's figures, and assuming lane additions equal to the New Jersey turnpike will accomodate the traffic from Amtrak, it seems like it would be more cost effective to add lanes rather than support Amtrak.

I don't think grumbler's figures would apply to New Jersey.  Let's take Garden State Parkway widening project as an example, which is going on right now, and is sorely needed.  It's going to turn GSP from 2 lanes in each direction to 3, from exit 30 to exit 80, at a total cost of $900 million dollars.  That's about $9 million per lane-mile, although I ignored the cost of interchanges that are also affected.

Even at $9 million per lane mile, I still think it would be worth it, though the numbers would be close and would depend on the maintenance number not being understated.

The reality is that Amtrak ridership is light enough that amtrak disappearing wouldn't be noticed in many parts of the country and could be absorbed by the existing road system.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
I think we should replace intercontinental flights with fast steamships too.

That is just silly. A much more practical solution is a trans-Atlantic tunnel.

Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 11:46:54 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
I think we should replace intercontinental flights with fast steamships too.

That is just silly. A much more practical solution is a trans-Atlantic tunnel.

I think the A-Hole evacuated tunnel shows a lot of promise...

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 11:45:25 AM
Even at $9 million per lane mile, I still think it would be worth it, though the numbers would be close and would depend on the maintenance number not being understated.

The reality is that Amtrak ridership is light enough that amtrak disappearing wouldn't be noticed in many parts of the country and could be absorbed by the existing road system.

I've heard estimates that if Northeast Corridor disappeared, I-95 would have to be widened by 7 lanes along the path (not just in New Jersey).  That came from a pro-Amtrak politician, so one should be skeptical, but your numbers in the other post make this figure seem plausible.

One of the most likely to succeed high speed rail projects is actually in Florida. The state has already secured a right of way for a high speed corridor between Tampa and Orlando, and has already completed most of the necessary impact studies. The main thing holding back construction is money. Supposedly, Florida has a really good chance of securing stimulus money in order to begin within the next couple years.

My main objection? Tampa and Orlando are both highly decentralized cities with poor mass transit. The fastest train in the world won't solve that problem. The main benefit will be for tourists- they will be able to take a train from the airport to Disney.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
The New Jersey turnpike is 122 miles long, and is between 4 and 14 lanes wide. So using grumbler's figures, and assuming lane additions equal to the New Jersey turnpike will accomodate the traffic from Amtrak, it seems like it would be more cost effective to add lanes rather than support Amtrak.

Yes.  If we use six lanes as an average, then the 30-year cost for the NJT is a bit more than $4 billion plus planning an land acquisition, as opposed to 30 billion for Amtrak. Land would have to be pretty expensive to make Amtrak competitive on that basis.

Quote from: stjaba on October 26, 2009, 11:58:21 AM
One of the most likely to succeed high speed rail projects is actually in Florida. The state has already secured a right of way for a high speed corridor between Tampa and Orlando, and has already completed most of the necessary impact studies. The main thing holding back construction is money. Supposedly, Florida has a really good chance of securing stimulus money in order to begin within the next couple years.

My main objection? Tampa and Orlando are both highly decentralized cities with poor mass transit. The fastest train in the world won't solve that problem. The main benefit will be for tourists- they will be able to take a train from the airport to Disney.

The problem still is that everyone in Tampa and Orlando has a car, plus if you are in either city you will need a car. Why not just drive?

(I have driven on I4 and was in a horrendous traffic jam, so if that is common, maybe that is a reason)

Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic  :cool:

As oil runs out, you won't even have to worry about adding lanes.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:10:37 PM
Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic  :cool:

Btw, given the high densities of the UK and relative small size, a high-speed network would work wonders there. Yet, nothing but a link to Europe by the Tunnel. Why ? Maggie's legacy?

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 12:07:56 PM

(I have driven on I4 and was in a horrendous traffic jam, so if that is common, maybe that is a reason)

There is bad traffic on I-4, but mostly limited to between Lakeland and Tampa during rush hour and in the Orlando metro area during rush hour. Hardly anyone commutes from Tampa to Orlando or vice versa on a daily basis. Theoritically, having a train option might create an incentive for people to commute between Tampa and Orlando, but I have my doubts. The proposed train would stop in Lakeland, so Lakeland commuters could very use it in theory to commute. But since Tampa is very decentralized, taking the train would probably be more of a hassle for most people. Like you mentioned, taking a car is going to be easier 95% of the time.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 12:14:07 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:10:37 PM
Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic  :cool:

Btw, given the high densities of the UK and relative small size, a high-speed network would work wonders there. Yet, nothing but a link to Europe by the Tunnel. Why ? Maggie's legacy?

Probably best not to get me started on that. I would be delighted to see the construction of such a network. But, for some reason, there seems little chance of it happening  :mad:

I wonder if someone could design a practical garage rail car, that would be the best of both worlds.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:20:31 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 12:14:07 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:10:37 PM
Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic  :cool:

Btw, given the high densities of the UK and relative small size, a high-speed network would work wonders there. Yet, nothing but a link to Europe by the Tunnel. Why ? Maggie's legacy?

Probably best not to get me started on that. I would be delighted to see the construction of such a network. But, for some reason, there seems little chance of it happening  :mad:

Given Britain's crazy pricing, I guess a single ticket would cost like hundreds of pounds, or something.  :P

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

I don't think it would be the factor, imho. I mean, in a modern Western country most of the populace should be able to afford a car easily - just look at Poland, where I think the number of cars is probably higher than the number of people, and we are definitely poorer than Spain. I think your argument here would be in reverse - in countries with high quality public transport, people don't buy cars because they are not needed (I don't own a car because I live in Warsaw's centre, and can get everywhere I need easily by foot or by bus/metro; and for longer distances I take a train or a plane).

Definitely, buying everyone a working car would be cheaper than setting up a high tech rail service, I think.

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
I don't think it would be the factor, imho. I mean, in a modern Western country most of the populace should be able to afford a car easily - just look at Poland, where I think the number of cars is probably higher than the number of people, and we are definitely poorer than Spain. I think your argument here would be in reverse - in countries with high quality public transport, people don't buy cars because they are not needed (I don't own a car because I live in Warsaw's centre, and can get everywhere I need easily by foot or by bus/metro; and for longer distances I take a train or a plane). 

The question I asked was not whether people in Spain could afford cars, but rather whether they had them.  You are reinforcing my argument with your own experiences, not demonstrating that levels of car ownership would not be a factor in rail success (or otherwise).  And, of course, the issue isn't how many cars per person there are in a country, but rather what percentage of people own cars.  A person with ten cars still only takes up 1/10 the road space of ten people with one car each, because a person cannot drive more than one car at a time.

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
Definitely, buying everyone a working car would be cheaper than setting up a high tech rail service, I think.

Perhaps, but automobile transportation systems require more than just cars.  They require roads, fueling stations, testing and qualification systems capable of handling the driving population, road traffic rules enforcement, etc.  It isn't clear to me that this is cheaper than rail.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 11:12:16 AMMedium range niche i.e up to 1000 km (bit more than 3 hours) yes but IF the line is all high speed not like Germany where there aren't that many high speed lines and when there is it's not 300 kph cruise speed.
FYI, the ICE has its highest cruise speed in France, between Lorraine and Île-de-France whereas in the German part it only travels at  200 kph (not considered as high speed in France) between Frankfurt and Mannheim during 40 min or so.

The "problem" in Germany is that it is much more poly-centric than France. In France, building a system where all trains go to Paris and may bypass smaller cities works. In Germany, that would never work because the regional politicians want that the train stops in their town. The best example for this is the high-speed track between Cologne and Frankfurt. The train goes up to 300 kph on that, but stops at some smallish town called Montabaur at roughly half the distance. That's because that town is in Rhineland-Palatinate which happens to be a different federal state than the ones Cologne and Frankfurt are in. So the Rhineland-Palatinatian politicians wanted a stop in their state. Totally pointless if you ask me, but that's how federalism in Germany works. But that train is so fast that Lufthansa no longer flies from Frankfurt to Cologne and rather gives that train a flight number for "connecting flights" from Frankfurt to Cologne.

High speed rail would be neat and all, but I'm more interested in light rail or something similar around this goddamn city with it's fucked up roads and shitty traffic. 

Thinking about just current travel times and costs though, I can jump on a plane and be in Dallas probably in the next 2 hours or so for ~$150.  Currently, Amtrak takes eight hours to get there.  Granted, it's only $30, but hell...my car can make it in something like 5 hours (going ~the speed limit heh) on a single tank of gas, and that only runs me about $35 using midgrade.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:20:31 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 12:14:07 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:10:37 PM
Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic  :cool:

Btw, given the high densities of the UK and relative small size, a high-speed network would work wonders there. Yet, nothing but a link to Europe by the Tunnel. Why ? Maggie's legacy?

Probably best not to get me started on that. I would be delighted to see the construction of such a network. But, for some reason, there seems little chance of it happening  :mad:

Because most routes are not profitable without massive government subsidy.

Been like that since the 1950s, IIRC.

The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

So connect them to European cities then.

Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 01:46:55 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

So connect them to European cities then.

:unsure:

:lmfao:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
The problem is that a lot of US cities may have the wrong structure to benefit much from high-speed rail links, as several posters have implied. The centres of most European cities are often quite compact; thats true of some US cities of course but not to the same extent I suspect.

In the east we certainly have cities where it would work out (specifically the cities that have good public transit systems within the city).  But yeah it wouldn't work so well out West as you'd still want a car to get around once you reached the city.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:48:13 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 09:45:20 AM
The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

Huh. I did not know that. Actually, I thought Amtrak basically was the Northeast Corridor.

I can go by train from Spokane to Chicago.

http://www.trainweb.com/routes/route_07/rg_7old.htm (http://www.trainweb.com/routes/route_07/rg_7old.htm)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainweb.com%2Froutes%2Froute_07%2Fempirebuildermap.gif&hash=c02d44d20c47a642a3b7a09c61810059125934d8)

How many weeks does the trip take?

Quote from: stjaba on October 26, 2009, 11:58:21 AM
One of the most likely to succeed high speed rail projects is actually in Florida. The state has already secured a right of way for a high speed corridor between Tampa and Orlando, and has already completed most of the necessary impact studies. The main thing holding back construction is money. Supposedly, Florida has a really good chance of securing stimulus money in order to begin within the next couple years.

My main objection? Tampa and Orlando are both highly decentralized cities with poor mass transit. The fastest train in the world won't solve that problem. The main benefit will be for tourists- they will be able to take a train from the airport to Disney.

Ohio is wanting some of that delicious Stimulus rail money too. They want to connect the 3 C's and restore the old network.

I'd ride it if it wasn't Amtrak. I don't trust those fuckers.

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:35:47 AM


The distance between San Fransisco and Denver is a couple hundred miles less than the distance from London to Budapest.

And? Yes it would take more time than a plane, but less than a car, and certainly be environmentally better. There are trains from Sweden to Rome by ordinary rails, if High speed, Stockholm - Copenhagen - Berlin - Munich - Rome,  was there there would be less cross European flights.

V

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 03:08:59 PM
How many weeks does the trip take?

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 03:08:59 PM
How many weeks does the trip take?

I don't know how many weeks it takes, but it takes 3 red, 4 black, 6 white, and 4 of any color tickets, at least, to get there.

Lots of points if you can do it though.

Damn. 45 hours for the Seattle to Chicago train.

Its crazy, but i also think Amtrak is doing their best to avoid customers.

I took Denver La in the mid 90's for the scenery, and what was suppsed to be 24 hours was more than a day alte due to single track, run down equipment ahead of us in the form of a freight train, worn out tracks, and.. a prarie fire :S

V

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
Its crazy, but i also think Amtrak is doing their best to avoid customers.

I took Denver La in the mid 90's for the scenery, and what was suppsed to be 24 hours was more than a day alte due to single track, run down equipment ahead of us in the form of a freight train, worn out tracks, and.. a prarie fire :S

V

I don't think Amtrak is to blame for being grossly underfunded all throughout its existance.  Deferred maintenance can quickly lay waste to rail infrastructure.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 04:08:43 PM

Quote from: Valdemar on October 26, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
Its crazy, but i also think Amtrak is doing their best to avoid customers.

I took Denver La in the mid 90's for the scenery, and what was suppsed to be 24 hours was more than a day alte due to single track, run down equipment ahead of us in the form of a freight train, worn out tracks, and.. a prarie fire :S

V

I don't think Amtrak is to blame for being grossly underfunded all throughout its existance.  Deferred maintenance can quickly lay waste to rail infrastructure.

Yeah you need more railroad barons to force new tracks laid by chinese labour :D


Or maybe mexican? :huh:


:p

V

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 04:08:43 PM
I don't think Amtrak is to blame for being grossly underfunded all throughout its existance.  Deferred maintenance can quickly lay waste to rail infrastructure.

Amtrak owns little track, IIRC.  They use freight track in most of the country, and the freight rail companies have been hauling in the lucre.

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:14:41 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

For lots of Americans, there aren't distances too long for a car.  The year that Origins was in Fort Worth TX, I drove there from central WV without a second thought.  About 1100 hundred miles IIRC, but it was all 4-lane (or more), and I was able to make the drive in 1 admittedly long day.  And I know plenty of people who have driven on trips longer than that, though it's about the limit of what you can do in 1 day (unless you are travelling with someone else and can switch drivers).   

Quote from: dps on October 26, 2009, 05:26:42 PM

Quote from: The Larch on October 26, 2009, 09:14:41 AM

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

Basically everyone, that's not the issue. High speed trains has a niche in medium range transportation, in distances that are too short for a plane, but too long for a car. FI, in France there aren't almost any internal flights, everybody takes TGV to travel inside the country, and when they have to take international flights everybody busses to Paris' airports.

For lots of Americans, there aren't distances too long for a car.  The year that Origins was in Fort Worth TX, I drove there from central WV without a second thought.  About 1100 hundred miles IIRC, but it was all 4-lane (or more), and I was able to make the drive in 1 admittedly long day.  And I know plenty of people who have driven on trips longer than that, though it's about the limit of what you can do in 1 day (unless you are travelling with someone else and can switch drivers).

Yeah, I have trouble with this idea of something being "too long for a car" trip.

Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
Yeah, I have trouble with this idea of something being "too long for a car" trip.

I dunno.  I wouldn't want to drive to the East coast or anything, but 1,200-1,500 km is eminently driveable.

Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
Yeah, I have trouble with this idea of something being "too long for a car" trip.

I dunno.  I wouldn't want to drive to the East coast or anything, but 1,200-1,500 km is eminently driveable.

Only because for that distance it becomes cheaper to fly.

1200-1500?  It's 2400km to Edmonton from here, and I've done that several times.

Quote from: stjaba on October 26, 2009, 11:58:21 AM
My main objection? Tampa and Orlando are both highly decentralized cities with poor mass transit. The fastest train in the world won't solve that problem. The main benefit will be for tourists- they will be able to take a train from the airport to Disney.

Actually, if anyone has the capital and will to do it, it would be Disney.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 03:08:59 PM
How many weeks does the trip take?

Depends. Do you stop to forage for berries, and do you pay the toll to take the ferry to avoid fording?

Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 01:02:40 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
I don't think it would be the factor, imho. I mean, in a modern Western country most of the populace should be able to afford a car easily - just look at Poland, where I think the number of cars is probably higher than the number of people, and we are definitely poorer than Spain. I think your argument here would be in reverse - in countries with high quality public transport, people don't buy cars because they are not needed (I don't own a car because I live in Warsaw's centre, and can get everywhere I need easily by foot or by bus/metro; and for longer distances I take a train or a plane). 

The question I asked was not whether people in Spain could afford cars, but rather whether they had them.  You are reinforcing my argument with your own experiences, not demonstrating that levels of car ownership would not be a factor in rail success (or otherwise).  And, of course, the issue isn't how many cars per person there are in a country, but rather what percentage of people own cars.  A person with ten cars still only takes up 1/10 the road space of ten people with one car each, because a person cannot drive more than one car at a time.

Well, as I said, in a typical Western democracy, most people are perfectly capable of affording a car these days.

And car ownership is a variable much easier to change than the quality of national railway network.

So it is only reasonable to assume that it's the state of the railway network that affects car ownership levels (i.e. in a country with good railways network people will buy less cars than in a country with a poor railway network), and not the vice versa.

Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:26:12 PM
Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

Doesn't it kind of blend things together, though?  It's almost like taking a subway to go from Brooklyn to Bronx.

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:26:12 PM
Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

So that's what, Houston to LA in 6.5 hours? Could be worse.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 06:33:32 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:26:12 PM
Anyway, during my time in Brussels I simply LOVED the high speed rail network. 45 minutes to Paris and 80 minutes to London is a fucking dream.

Doesn't it kind of blend things together, though?  It's almost like taking a subway to go from Brooklyn to Bronx.

Food is different and people speak different language. :P

Then again the same applies to going from Brussels to London, I suppose. :P

We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

I want to take my lunch hour in Paris.  I hear their McDonalds serves beers.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 08:19:33 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

I want to take my lunch hour in Paris.  I hear their McDonalds serves beers.

They have better fries than the American Mickey D's at least.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

Transfer booths aren't going to happen.  They're immoral.

Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 08:30:46 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

Transfer booths aren't going to happen.  They're immoral.

I have to agree, Star Trek style tranporters are definitely sketchy.

Quote from: citizen k on October 26, 2009, 03:04:24 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on October 26, 2009, 09:48:13 AM

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 09:45:20 AM
The Northeast Corridor is not subsidized, to my knowledge.  It's the parts of Amtrak elsewhere in the country that get the money.

Huh. I did not know that. Actually, I thought Amtrak basically was the Northeast Corridor.

I can go by train from Spokane to Chicago.

http://www.trainweb.com/routes/route_07/rg_7old.htm (http://www.trainweb.com/routes/route_07/rg_7old.htm)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainweb.com%2Froutes%2Froute_07%2Fempirebuildermap.gif&hash=c02d44d20c47a642a3b7a09c61810059125934d8)

Great name for a route.

I looked at that ride for a trip to Chicago, but there were no planes, trains or buses that would take me to Minot from Canada. Renting a car for 4 hour drive, parking it for a few days and then driving it back to SK would have much more than the train fare. So no dice.

anyhow, compared to VIA, Amtrack is an excellent system.

Quote from: dps on October 26, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
For lots of Americans, there aren't distances too long for a car.  The year that Origins was in Fort Worth TX, I drove there from central WV without a second thought.  About 1100 hundred miles IIRC, but it was all 4-lane (or more), and I was able to make the drive in 1 admittedly long day.  And I know plenty of people who have driven on trips longer than that, though it's about the limit of what you can do in 1 day (unless you are travelling with someone else and can switch drivers).

Isn't that mind numbingly dull, though? I mean all those straight roads, built for fast driving ... but not being allowed to?

Quote from: Syt on October 26, 2009, 11:30:12 PM

Quote from: dps on October 26, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
For lots of Americans, there aren't distances too long for a car.  The year that Origins was in Fort Worth TX, I drove there from central WV without a second thought.  About 1100 hundred miles IIRC, but it was all 4-lane (or more), and I was able to make the drive in 1 admittedly long day.  And I know plenty of people who have driven on trips longer than that, though it's about the limit of what you can do in 1 day (unless you are travelling with someone else and can switch drivers).

Isn't that mind numbingly dull, though? I mean all those straight roads, built for fast driving ... but not being allowed to?

IMO, it is quite dull.  You've got not scenery to look at, you're just at a runway that never ends, and curves only enough to keep you awake.  Local highways are more exciting, but have lower speed limits, and far more dangerous design, though.

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 08:19:33 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

I want to take my lunch hour in Paris.  I hear their McDonalds serves beers.

Don't know about Paris, but in Spain they certainly do

Regarding the number of vehicles in Spain, I have made some googling. According to the most recent statistics I found the numbers are about 22,000,000 cars (making 0.48 cars per capita), 2,500,000 motorcycles and 5,500,000 trucks, vans and buses.

QuoteStudy: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – U.S. taxpayers spent about $32 subsidizing the cost of the typical Amtrak passenger in 2008, about four times the rail operator's estimate, according to a private study.

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Stephen Van Beek, president of the Eno Transportation Foundation, a think tank, said the analysis could help guide decisions on how to spend $8 billion set aside for high-speed and intercity rail in a $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Rail planners may decide that spending the funds on high-speed rail makes more sense than slower intercity rail, which the Amtrak numbers show need higher subsidies.

Subsidyscope says its review counted certain capital expenses that Amtrak doesn't consider when calculating the financial performance of its routes, namely wear and tear on equipment, or depreciation.

Leading the list was the train traveling between San Antonio and Los Angeles — the Sunset Limited — which lost $462 per passenger. Taxpayers subsidize the losses to keep the passenger train service running.

The Northeast corridor has the highest passenger volume of any Amtrak route, greatly enhancing efficiency. The corridor's high-speed Acela Express made a profit of about $41 per passenger. The more heavily utilized Northeast Regional lost almost $5 per passenger.

Passenger rail systems throughout the world lose money and require government subsidies to cover operating expenses.

Marcus Peacock, project director for Subsidyscope, said his group's analysis should lead to more scrutiny for the Amtrak routes that are losing the most money.

Van Beek cautioned against holding passenger rail service to a higher standard than other forms of transportation.

"Let's not hold rail up and say it needs to make money when highways don't make money, transit doesn't make money and a lot of small airports don't make money and they all get subsidies," Van Beek said.

The Government Accountability Office had previously said the omission of depreciation substantially understates the capital expenses associated with Amtrak's routes.

Amtrak officials said they're working with the Transportation Department to come up with a fair way to determine capital expenses but the method used in the report unfairly burden routes whose equipment was sold and then leased back.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:20:31 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 12:14:07 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 26, 2009, 12:10:37 PM
Well, if you are on a train you can read a book, play a game on your laptop, have a gin and tonic  :cool:

Btw, given the high densities of the UK and relative small size, a high-speed network would work wonders there. Yet, nothing but a link to Europe by the Tunnel. Why ? Maggie's legacy?

Probably best not to get me started on that. I would be delighted to see the construction of such a network. But, for some reason, there seems little chance of it happening  :mad:

British policy idiosyncrasies are best left alone  :lol:

Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2009, 08:19:33 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

I want to take my lunch hour in Paris.  I hear their McDonalds serves beers.

Only if you order "food" as well;) and that's 1664 which got its alcohol content lowered recently from 5.9 % to 5.2 % :(

Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 08:30:46 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
We need transporters asap. I want to take my lunch hour in Hong Kong or Dublin. The infrastructure would be so much less clumsy and bulky.

Transfer booths aren't going to happen.  They're immoral.

Too much Sister Miriam Godwinson.

Quote from: Zanza on October 26, 2009, 01:30:28 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 26, 2009, 11:12:16 AMMedium range niche i.e up to 1000 km (bit more than 3 hours) yes but IF the line is all high speed not like Germany where there aren't that many high speed lines and when there is it's not 300 kph cruise speed.
FYI, the ICE has its highest cruise speed in France, between Lorraine and Île-de-France whereas in the German part it only travels at  200 kph (not considered as high speed in France) between Frankfurt and Mannheim during 40 min or so.

The "problem" in Germany is that it is much more poly-centric than France. In France, building a system where all trains go to Paris and may bypass smaller cities works. In Germany, that would never work because the regional politicians want that the train stops in their town. The best example for this is the high-speed track between Cologne and Frankfurt. The train goes up to 300 kph on that, but stops at some smallish town called Montabaur at roughly half the distance. That's because that town is in Rhineland-Palatinate which happens to be a different federal state than the ones Cologne and Frankfurt are in. So the Rhineland-Palatinatian politicians wanted a stop in their state. Totally pointless if you ask me, but that's how federalism in Germany works. But that train is so fast that Lufthansa no longer flies from Frankfurt to Cologne and rather gives that train a flight number for "connecting flights" from Frankfurt to Cologne.

Not all trains go through Paris fortunately. You can still travel 1067 km or so of high-speed line from Calais to Marseille without stopping in dowtown Paris. Two stops in the hubs as Valdemar mentioned though (airport and Eurodisney).
Why would one go to Marseille is another matter :D

I agree naturally with the poly-centric nature of Germany but yet there aren't that many NEW REAL high-speed lines (Hochgeschwindigkeitslinien if memory serves), the main ones are the one between Hannover and Berlin, the one you mention (best of all?) and some smaller ones like between München and Nürnberg. There are of course some improved classical lines and more building in progress/planned such as between Saarbrücken and Mannheim (right now it's slow for an ICE 100-120 kph to 160 kph on average). Not exactly great high speed if you ask me...

As to regional politicos wanting their stops for their hamlets, it happens in France cf. the stop in the middle of nowhere i.e Lorraine T.G.V far from both Metz and Nancy i.e the typical "beetroot" station. It is supposed to be "provisional" and it is close to some regional airport of very limited use...

Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:23:21 PM
Well, as I said, in a typical Western democracy, most people are perfectly capable of affording a car these days. 

That is what I would have said, as well, had this not been irrelevant.

QuoteAnd car ownership is a variable much easier to change than the quality of national railway network.

If the automotive infrastructure is there, yes.  If not, then the reverse is true. Road are much more expensive per mile than rail, and autos require much more infrastructure per passenger than rail.

QuoteSo it is only reasonable to assume that it's the state of the railway network that affects car ownership levels (i.e. in a country with good railways network people will buy less cars than in a country with a poor railway network), and not the vice versa.

But railways are not necessarily the driving factor.  Many people, even in countries that don't have a good railway network, will not own a car because they don't need to do much traveling that would require either autos or rail.  The question about auto ownership percentage is valid in the case where, as I postulated, the competition is not between autos and high-speed rail, but rather low-speed rail and high-speed rail.  If it is between auto and high-speed rail, then HSR is likely the loser, because it is overall less convenient.

Whether we should build high speed rail is the wrong question. We should ask how do we make high speed cars.

Automated high-speed cars would be good, as long as Microsoft didn't write the operating software.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 27, 2009, 08:02:39 AM
Automated high-speed cars would be good, as long as Microsoft didn't write the operating software.

Why not?  Microsoft seems fairly capable to me.

Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:20:58 AM
Why not?  Microsoft seems fairly capable to me.

Yeah I love how the new version of Excel dumps all its formatting from time to time.  It only took me years of careful cataloging to rate all those accounts but go ahead and dump it all Microsoft!  It was not like I needed that data or something.  Fucking Office 2007.

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 08:24:24 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:20:58 AM
Why not?  Microsoft seems fairly capable to me.

Yeah I love how the new version of Excel dumps all its formatting from time to time.  It only took me years of careful cataloging to rate all those accounts but go ahead and dump it all Microsoft!  It was not like I needed that data or something.  Fucking Office 2007.

An attempt to derail the high-speed train thread...

Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 08:24:24 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:20:58 AM
Why not?  Microsoft seems fairly capable to me.

Yeah I love how the new version of Excel dumps all its formatting from time to time.  It only took me years of careful cataloging to rate all those accounts but go ahead and dump it all Microsoft!  It was not like I needed that data or something.  Fucking Office 2007.

You don't have to use the new version--you can save documents in the old version if you prefer.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 27, 2009, 08:02:39 AM
Automated high-speed cars would be good, as long as Microsoft didn't write the operating software.

Isn't fuel economy a big problem?  You'd have to program all the cars to draft each other with 1 inch gaps between them, like in NASCAR at Talladega, to make this feasible.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 27, 2009, 08:49:03 AM
An attempt to derail the high-speed train thread...

Yet the thread keeps chugging along.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2009, 09:14:41 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 27, 2009, 08:49:03 AM
An attempt to derail the high-speed train thread...

Yet the thread keeps chugging along.

Because we choo... choo.. choose to keep it on track.

Quote from: Syt on October 26, 2009, 11:30:12 PM


Isn't that mind numbingly dull, though? I mean all those straight roads, built for fast driving ... but not being allowed to?

no. you have music as company, and the world surrounds you. it's really pretty comfortable.

Quote from: saskganesh on October 27, 2009, 12:32:17 PM
no. you have music as company, and the world surrounds you. it's really pretty comfortable.

Music, hell!  Books on tape make the miles fly by!

Quote from: alfred russel on October 27, 2009, 08:55:38 AM
You don't have to use the new version--you can save documents in the old version if you prefer.

Yeah well a little too late for that now isn't it?

I mean seriously why would MS release a version that destroys anything saved on the old version?  It is not like spreadsheet under the new version doesn't look exactly the same.  What kind of incompetent crap is that?

Quote from: Warspite on October 27, 2009, 07:54:14 AM
Whether we should build high speed rail is the wrong question. We should ask how do we make high speed cars.

Actually, the secret would be more efficient internal combustion.
I'm not talking better mileage, but currently gasoline engines are terribly inefficient.  Something like, what, only 30% of a gallon of gasoline is actually used during the process of internal combustion, and the rest is exhaust?

$300 billion +, over 3 years alone.

QuoteThe Shrinking of China

By Duncan Hewitt | NEWSWEEK 
Published Oct 24, 2009

For decades, rail travel in China meant an arduous overnighter in a crowded East German–designed train, riding along a rickety old track. Now China is undergoing a rail revolution. Over the next three years, the government will pour some $300 billion into its railways, expanding its network by 20,000 kilometers, including 13,000 kilometers of track designed for high-speed trains capable of traveling up to 350kph. Result: China, a nation long defined by the vastness of its geography, is getting, much, much smaller.

Already, the journey from Beijing to Taiyuan, the capital of Shanxi province, has been slashed from eight hours to three. Shortly before the Olympics last year, the 120km trip from Beijing to Tianjin was cut from almost an hour to just 27 minutes. In the next few years, a train journey from Wuhan to Guangzhou, halfway across the country, will shrink from 10 to three hours. The trip from Shanghai to Beijing, which currently clocks in at 10 grueling hours—and twice that, not so long ago—will be cut to just four, making train travel between China's two most important cities a viable competitor to air for the first time. Similarly, a trip from the capital to the southern manufacturing powerhouse of Guangzhou—more or less the entire length of the nation—will take just eight hours, compared with 20 before and more than a day and a half by bus.

In many ways, China's rail revolution is comparable to the building and opening of America's transcontinental railway in the 19th century or, more recently, to the opening of the U.S. interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s. In their own ways, each of those infrastructure projects opened up the United States for development, exploration, and trade. By making travel available to ever-larger numbers of people, they changed not only distances, but individuals' perceptions of their own limitations, shifting "people's mental maps of the land mass in which they lived," says Colin Divall, a professor of railway history at University of York in the U.K.

The advent of high-speed trains is likely to have even greater implications for China, given its larger territory, population, and history of regional unrest. By improving connections, they may help spread economic development more evenly around the country, helping Beijing to bind the nation together and strengthen its hold over the provinces, and decreasing the likelihood that China's internal divisions might one day lead it to fragmenting into "warring states," as some worst-case forecasts have predicted. In particular, the leadership hopes that its call for the nation's talents and industry to "go west" to China's poorer provinces may become easier once western regions become less remote, thanks to rail. Thus the gaps in wealth, status—even dialect—that now divide countryside and city, the more urbanized east and the mostly rural west may be narrowed, advancing Beijing's vision of a more "harmonious society."

Bullet trains are already expanding the definition of a day trip and could help transform isolated backwaters like the inland city of Xian into booming heartland hubs. With traffic already clogging China's expanding network of highways, bullet trains could ease the snarls while opening up travel to the millions of Chinese still unable to afford a car, or a plane ticket. In general, high-speed rail is likely to be just as fast as air travel, at half the price. By shrinking people's sense of the scale of the nation, fast trains may also help stimulate the creativity and new thinking that China needs for the next stage of its economic development. Xie Weida, a professor at the Institute of Railways and Urban Mass Transport at Shanghai's Tongji University, argues that "transport will have a big impact on every aspect of the entire life of our society," stimulating development "not just in the field of economics, but in politics and culture too."

Already, government investment has created something of an economic miniboom. At the railway station in Suzhou—the old Yangtze delta city north of Shanghai famous for its canals and ornamental gardens—teams of construction workers now spend their days suspended precariously from a latticework of girders high above the track. Soon, a brand-new glass-and-steel terminal will rise here, and the crumbling old 1950s station, with its few platforms, will be consigned to history. Guangzhou, Shanghai, and other cities are following suit, building shiny new stations to service the fast new trains. Authorities are so confident about the market that they've invested tens of millions of dollars in localizing production of bullet trains, with 85 percent of the parts for trains in the new Beijing-Shanghai line expected to be manufactured domestically.

Far bigger economic effects are down the line. The train tracks are helping to spur consumer spending, with Beijing residents traveling as far as 120 kilometers to shop in places like Tianjin, where prices are lower. The $8.50 one-way trip takes less than 30 minutes, attracting many middle-class passengers who see the bus—which takes three times as long—as a nonstarter. Beijing's campaign to promote development across regions—like the Yangtse River Delta around Shanghai, or the Pearl River Delta from Guangzhou to Hong Kong—gets a huge boost from the fact that it will soon be possible to traverse these regions in minutes. High-speed rail will cut the trip from Shanghai to Nanjing from what was originally four hours to just 75 minutes. The city of Wenzhou in southeastern Zhejiang—home to many of China's biggest private enterprises, including fashion brands like Meters Bonwe and shoemakers like Aokang—has long been hindered by its relative isolation in a mountainous coastal area. This month it opened high-speed rail tracks connecting it for the first time to Ningbo, a major port, and to the neighboring province of Fujian, an important hub for Taiwanese investment. The link, which will ultimately extend south to Hong Kong, is expected to further stimulate Wenzhou's legendary entrepreneurial spirit, which has seen it move rapidly from small family workshops to major textile and electronics manufacturing, as well as becoming the source of much of the real-estate investment around China.

The high-speed lines will also help eliminate trade bottlenecks by freeing up space on existing tracks. Paul French, head of the Shanghai retail and logistics consultancy Access Asia, says many foreign businesses are frustrated by the lack of space for transporting goods on China's railways, with freight trains monopolized by shipments of coal and grain. "There's too much investment in passenger rail now and not enough in cargo," he says, noting that this forces companies to add to the number of "overloaded trucks plowing along China's death expressways." But the investment in passenger tracks will allow the old lines to be used for cargo, aiding the Chinese economy by allowing for a more efficient freight-train network. Xie says the government also plans to bolster freight rail with a $40 billion investment on new rolling stock by the end of 2010.

That could put Beijing's policy of opening up the west in high gear. Introduced in 2000 with the aim of binding some of China's poorer western regions to the economic growth of the east coast, thus reducing dangerous social and economic imbalances, the initiative has been hampered by slow and expensive transport connections and the unwillingness of qualified talent to work in remote western regions. The fast-train links may help reduce all of these problems. The ancient capital of Xian has struggled to attract cutting-edge industries to its isolated location, 1,200 kilometers and 10 hours by train from Beijing, but soon that ride will fall to just four hours.

China's effort to develop medium-size cities across the country, in order to reduce the pressure of massive internal migration on big coastal cities, will also get a boost. The fast-rail links include rapidly expanding light-rail connections around major cities, encouraging moves from central cities to smaller satellite towns, or even commutes from one city to another. Retired people seeking a better environment are beginning to do the same.

Still, there is also the possibility that the unifying aim of the high-speed-rail project could create unexpected challenges for Beijing. Some of the fast-train routes are so popular that many passengers can be forced to stand throughout their journey. Outrage over this has led some media outlets to demand that the state-controlled railway system be opened to competition. "Only when monopoly is replaced by free competition," said an article in the Chengdu Business Daily, "can we expect real quality train services." What's more, improvements in mobility could begin to undermine the Chinese government's highly restrictive residency regulations, which even today tie people's right to welfare, health care, and education to the place where they were born or have worked during their adult life. Now, according to Mingzheng Shi, head of New York University's teaching center in Shanghai and a specialist in China's urban development, more and more people are moving across old administrative boundaries. "Their concepts of cities and distance are changing," he says. "People from Shanghai see no problem now in living in cities in southern Jiangsu province, where apartments are cheaper, and then taking the fast train to Shanghai in 20 to 40 minutes." Large numbers of urban residents moving away from the cities where their welfare entitlements have traditionally been located may prove too much for the household registration system, and could lead to its "eventual complete collapse," says Shi, removing a vital plank of the state's traditional mechanism of social control.

Over the longer term, easier travel could be the driving force behind a new understanding of what China can one day become. Chinese officials have long argued that the nation's vast area and population make it too unwieldy to be suited to multiparty democracy—and this idea has been deeply lodged in the Chinese psyche for generations. This may have been unsurprising in a country where a couple of decades ago it would often take half a day to get to the next town, and where it could easily take four hours to make a phone call from one city to another. Yet once people begin to sense that their country is getting smaller, those obstacles are likely to seem smaller, too. In fact, the effect of the high-speed trains could be that they do bring China together—just not in the way Beijing might have planned.

It's easy to build a massive, high-speed rail-transport structure when:

- You don't have to worry about acquiring right-of-ways from private property owners, related legal issues, etc.
- You don't have to deal with labor unions, high labor wages, worker's benefits, etc.
- You don't have to worry about environmental-impact studies, environmentalist lobbies, protests, etc.
- You don't have to deal with extensive government contract and construction bidding processes
- Etc.