It's time for high-speed rail in America
Promoted by Brendan -- good topic for discussion
The French and the Japanese have really kicked our butts for a long time when it comes to train travel.
A French TGV train set a new world speed record as it hurtled down a newly built track at 574.8 kilometres (357 miles) per hour in the country's Champagne region on Tuesday.
The train, called V150, is an enhanced version of the passenger vehicle that will run on the Paris-to-Strasbourg line from June 2007. It has been preparing for the record run for weeks and carried journalists and other guests for the official attempt.
The V150 was made up of two normal cars, which will run on the eastern TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) track, three special double-decker carriages, and three motorised cars. The train can develop over 25,000 horsepower – twice that of a conventional TGV – and uses 30,000 volt overhead cables rather than the normal 25,000 volts. The V150 also has larger wheels than regular TGV trains.
What I'd to know is why there is no high-speed rail service in the United States. This country, with its vast distances between major cities, seems like the perfect place for it.
Is it because we are so addicted to automobiles? Is it because we like taking off our shoes at the airport and having our shampoo bottles confiscated?
If you had to go from New York to Los Angeles and could choose between a plane and a high-speed train, which would you take?
Obviously, if such a system is going to become reality, it will have to be built by the government. It will take an effort similar to that which created the interstate highway system.
So here is my proposal --
1. The federal government builds the rail lines and finances it with a tax on gasoline of 15 cents (each penny of gas tax nationwide raises about $1 billion a year) and airline tickets.
2. The government then sells licenses to companies that wish to operate trains on the lines. License fees are used to expand and maintain the system.
3. The government would not be in the business of operating trains. Amtrak would be eliminated once high-speed rail is in place in those places where Amtrak currently runs.
- quaoar's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
BTW
I crossposted this at DKos.
qui tacet consentire
What's the safety
of high-speed rail compared to air? Maybe there isn't enough data yet but I know airplanes are pretty safe. Also, I wonder whether the long stretches of rail might present a security risk in this day and age.
If safety and security (and cost, I guess) isn't a problem this seems like it could potentially help with global warming.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Not sure
But if a train crashes you don't fall as far.
qui tacet consentire
At 357 mph...
...it really doesn't matter how far you fall.
Conventional trains haven't had the greatest safety record but then they've been operated in a pretty slip shod manner because they are seriously underfunded and the rails are not blocked from wildlife or people getting access.
On the other hand planes are enormously fuel inefficient which is going to make them harder and harder to operate as we slide down the peak oil curve.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Safety record
doesn't look bad:
TGV accidents
Sic semper tyrannis
impressive!
Though air travel is definitely much more convenient for longer distances, I like train rides. I hope it takes off.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It definitely would not be
very convenient for a transcontinental travel, but for 4-5 hour rides one can hardly do better. The problem with air travel is that you have to go to the airport out in the boondocks and then fly to another airport located somewhere in the sticks.
Sic semper tyrannis
But the SF to LA/SD run would be spectacular.
Compared to the waiting in airports and waiting for luggage, I'd take the train.
Yeah, the long time it takes
from getting to the airport to actually taking off is a big drawback to air travel that could be exploited by rail. The frequent additional delays sure don't help, and lost luggage is another common hassle.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
...but perhaps prohibitively expensive to impossible to build
It seems that most of these successful high-speed rail systems are over level terrain. I'm not sure about the engineering challenges but my intuition tells me that high-speed rail requires gentle grading, and there's no route between LA and SF that doesn't go over a couple of mountain ranges...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Maybe
there's an awful lot of traditional rail lines that go through mountains, though, so it can't be that hard to blast a path. Of course, I bet there's all sorts of pesky environmental regulations these days that weren't a problem before =)
Dunno what the balance between up-front cost and expected volume of passengers would be in this particular case -- you may very well be right.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It would be hugely expensive.
So I'll ask this question:
How much did the Federal & your State government spend on roads and Airports last year? That kind of brings it into perspective
Here's a plan I found for LA-SF 250 mph rail
$25 billion to construct in year 2000 dollars, so maybe $30-35 billion today?
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/plan/pdf/Plan_6.pdf
Lots of other interesting stuff here
.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
That's only a few months
worth of the dollars we're flushing away in Iraq.
qui tacet consentire
you're going to have to do better than that...
...to get this pork into MY budget ;-)
Seriously... the Iraq war has never been paid for in any year... like Medicare Part D, it has simply been put on the credit card-- not even any attempt at an offset. So if we manage to scale back our presence there or get out altogether, I really don't want to hear how that money is going to be spent, because that money never existed.
Maybe California ought to pass a sales tax increase if they want this rail project.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Luggage
Once high-speed rail has the same passenger levels as air, all those luggage and delay issues will return with a vengeance. Baggage will be routed to the wrong train, etc.
Security on a train is just as vital as on a plane, though trains are a little less useful for hijacking -- but certainly a train with a smuggled nuke aboard would keep the nation's tensions at an all-time high as W. (or his successor) bloviates about how we can't negotiate with evil terroris -- KABOOM!
Just like the misconception that the private sector is more efficient than the public (go ahead and scale a corporation up to the size of the government, and watch it fall apart like a house of soggy cards), we often see what happens with travel on a small scale and assume it would "scale up" and operate in a similar level. Sure, there are no big crowds and baggage problems when you take Amtrak -- because half the train is empty! Scale up rail-travel to the levels we use air-travel, and a lot of the same problems will be there. No, terrorists won't be driving the train into any skyscrapers, but the potential of intentionally-derailed trains hurtling into suburban neighborhoods will likely yiled even better results for our enemies.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Just to be clear...
when I said "conventional" trains I was referring to the "low speed" kind of train that is in common use. Notice that the article goes on to say:
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What a Neat Idea!
Which means--won't be happening.
You know, I think I'm too young to be so pessimistic about seeing good ideas go to waste. I want to believe that we can be energy independent some day--or at least off of the Mideast Crack Habit we have now. I see some promise, but I don't know what it will come to. I want to see fairer tax policy, improvements in Social Security, and health care. I've seen a plethora of good ideas, both liberal and conservative, but it seems as if there an invisible boogeyman that collects all the good ideas and places them in the political equivalent of Pandora's box.
If we could take your idea forward, I would support it wholeheartedly. I'd like to travel electric high-speed rail if it would be cheaper and more efficient for us. It reduces oil consumption, and is more common-sense based. We could start by connecting the major rapid-transit cities--Connecting cities like Boston, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, and Atlanta (although I've been on MARTA and it's more transit and less rapid). If I could get from NYC-ATL in 5 hours for for $200 on three days notice (compared to a 3 hour $450 plane ticket in the same time frame) I'd do it.
But I just know there lobbyists from the Airlines, Amtrak, etc would just throw a fit.
A guy can hope though, right?
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
There are advantages and disadvantages to them all.
The idea of a speed rail--interesting idea. There are some trains that are also pretty fast, such as AmTrak. Airplanes are supposedly safer than cars or trains, that's true, but the pre-flying ordeal seems like a big pain in the neck to me.
I also enjoy making road trips (I own a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid), which saves a terrific amount of gas, imo, and I've made annual road trips for the past several years to visit family out in another area of the country from where I live, as well as a couple of road trips to the Big Apple. I admittedly feel much more independent and in control and on my own schedule, and my hybrid gets great mileage both on the highways and in the city.
what's the mpg you get
on your hybrid? I drive for anything under 5-6 hours, but longer prefer a plane or a train.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Actually, the mileage I get on my hybrid tends to vary somewhat.
In the city, I can get anywhere between 35 and 40 miles to the gallon, whereas on the highway, I can get anywhere from the upper 30's to the low-mid 40's in the miles per gallon range, depending, of course, on how much driving I do. In addition to which I only need to gas up once or twice a month, also dependent on the amount of driving that I do.
You
feel much more independent and in control trying to park your car in NYC? :)
Sic semper tyrannis
Actually, woodsman,
my cousin lives quite far up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, almost in the Bronx, which is a 10-15 minute drive for her job from her apartment, since she works in the Bronx. Since it's not downtown or midtown, parking is pretty easy in her neighborhood, provided that one gets there early enough in the afternoon. I had no problems parking at all. That night, my cousin and I took the subway to midtown Manhattan where the movie theatre was located--I left my car where I'd parked it until I was ready to head home--voila--no problems.
I also might add that the morning last October that I
drove down to the Big Apple, I had started out with a full tank of gas that morning and, by the time I arrived in NYC, shortly after one o'clock that afternoon, my fuel tank was a tad or two over halfway full!