Associated Press
There's no reason the United States can't once again lead the world in transportation innovation, except for the political opposition that forces us further behind countries like China.
China began service Wednesday morning on the world's longest high-speed rail line, covering a distance in eight hours that is about equal to that from New York to Key West, Florida, or from London across Europe to Belgrade.
Bullet trains traveling 300 kilometers an hour, or 186 miles an hour, began regular service between Beijing and Guangzhou, the main metropolis in southeastern China. Older trains still in service on a parallel rail line take 21 hours; Amtrak trains from New York to Miami, a shorter distance, still take nearly 30 hours.
Completion of the Beijing-Guangzhou route is the latest sign that China has resumed rapid construction on one of the world's largest and most ambitious infrastructure projects, a network of four north-south routes and four east-west routes that span the country.
Keep in mind, this isn't just about bragging rights. China has invested heavily in transportation infrastructure, including this remarkable network of high-speed trains, and the result has greatly benefited the nation's economy and created "as many as 100,000" jobs.
China has also, incidentally, helped integrate regional economies, linking cities and provinces in new and efficient ways, which in turn is expected to strengthen China's manufacturing and exporting centers.
And then there's the U.S., where the Obama administration has repeatedly argued that high-speed rail boosts economic development, creates jobs, fosters innovation, relieves crowded roads, and even reduces emissions, and where Republicans say investing in infrastructure costs money -- and spending is, you know, bad.
Remember, GOP opposition to similar projects is so strong that in some instances, we've seen Republican governors -- including Florida's Rick Scott and Wisconsin's Scott Walker -- turn down high-speed-rail funds from Washington, just on principle, regardless of the economic benefits to their state.
What's more, while our international rivals take the lead in transportation innovation -- it's easy to win a race when your competitor stops trying -- we're still struggling to address cracks in our outdated infrastructure.
There are thousands of faltering sewage plants like these across the country, staffed by operators who dread rainy days. Civil engineers in every state are monitoring ominous cracks in roads and bridges that carry freight and school buses. And millions of transit commuters are awaiting new equipment and long-deferred maintenance on systems that are reliable only when the sun is shining.
The need for investment in public works, never more urgent, has become a casualty of Washington's ideological wars. Republicans were once reliable partners in this kind of necessary spending. But since President Obama spent about 12 percent of the 2009 stimulus on transportation, energy and other infrastructure programs, Republicans have made it a policy to demonize these kinds of investments.
When the president asked recently for a modest $50 billion for transportation improvements in the "fiscal cliff" talks, Republicans literally laughed out loud. There will be no stimulus in any deal, said Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Obviously the economy needs another boost, in part because the austerity being demanded by Republicans is likely to slow down growth. Big government construction projects put people to work, and those new jobs have enormous ripple effects -- $1.44 in benefits for every government dollar spent on public works. An infrastructure bank for energy and water projects, started with $10 billion in government seed money, could leverage hundreds of billions in private investments.
But the biggest reason to spend money on these projects is that they are desperately needed in every city and state.
For now, and for reasons that only make sense to the right, Republicans refuse to even consider these public investments.
Leave a Comment:
Meanwhile, the GOP can't even pass a farm bill here.
Small thinkers achieve only small things. Non-thinkers achieve NOthing.
I swear we are living in the downfall of the American Empire.
I wonder though just how much industrial policy that Dem party elites believe is good policy.
We have little trouble with the basic research, but almost totally ignore applied research- the work of translating raw science into technology that is applicable to real world problems. That traditionally has been carried out by labs at IBM and Bell, but nowadays these institutions are reduced in scope.
In my view, tax policy should more forcefully assert itself against unproductive activities like high rate trading (we should put in the financial transaction tax), and be even more generous about companies expanding their hiring of researchers for real research.
Companies must not be allowed to play accounting games with research. Adobe counting the work done for the next version of photoshop is not research, whereas investigation of compression techniques for visual data is. One red line is whether the person is employed in a product group or has any reporting relationship to someone in a product group. If they do, that's not research.
John, your comment is one of the main reasons I read the comment thread. Totally off topic, but interesting none the less. My guess is I am the only person reading this thread who even has a clue what you are writing about. From the perspective of a software company I can tell you our lobbyists haven't secured that many special deductions so the research tax credit is important.
I did find the jump from the financial transaction tax to the tax credit for research to be a little jarring.
Either crush the Republican party or this is the beginning of the end of a once great country.
This isn't going to happen only in transportation. This is going to happen in green technology and in all technical and scientific fields.
This is only the beginning of the slide brought on by 30+ years of failed conservative ideas, policies, and governance.
High speed rail. Didn't Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida refuse funds for high speed rail that were part of stimulus package? Both Walker and Scott are beholden to the Koch Brothers and what are the Kochs highly invested in? Oil and gas. The Kochs have the power to have "their" elected officials hinder or stop any energy usage that doesn't put money in their pockets. The Kochs are into oil shale and fracking. What do you think the keystone pipeline is all about? Move Koch oil from Canada to the Gulf so they can export it. Interesting the power the Kochs and their $62 billion earned in 2012 have in shaping the energy policy of the USofA.
Hewlett Packard, once a leader in innovation, made the strategic decision years ago to look to financial answers to increase their bottom line at the expense of research and development - they are now hanging on by their fingernails. IBM and Apple continue to fund research and development and are still going strong. We have board rooms full of directors afraid of stockholders not liking the next quarterly dividend instead of leaders looking to drive the economy of the future. High marginal tax rates, the bane of conservatives in this country, encouraged companies to direct profits into research and development in order to keep them from being taxed and USA companies and products thrived in the 50's and 60's. Stockholders, take heed: if this continues this country will be trying to sell yesterday's products and solutions to tomorrow's customers and problems - what will that do to your quarterly dividend? Companies can either lead, follow or get out of the way. We used to lead and we can lead again when we return our focus on the future instead of the next quarter.
I suppose if someone were willing to pay good money, there would be writers willing to generate a few thousand words explaining how if the US invested in high speed train technology, the design work might generate a few thousand jobs for a few years, but the bulk of the mass manufacturing jobs- the track and the trains could very easily go to foreign workers. Even laying fast rail track is not necessarily US jobs because for example the new Oakland bridge being constructed in pieces in china. Why wouldn't a US technology track get bid out the same way, and why wouldn't China lose money getting such contracts, since in the long run acquiring the technology and investing in developing the manufacturing process know how would be the most lucrative move to make? Where are the would be profit analysis champions for such longer term industrial vision horizon? Certainly not in government- that would be "choosing winners and losers". Certainly not in the boardroom, where projections and profit/loss consequences in fast moving fields out beyond one year is considered shear fantasy.
Anyway, such words could be written, but then how many of the electorate would be interested in getting off into such "esoteric" analysis of the future of US industrial strength? From MSNBC's perspective, it would be a poor editorial allocation of resources. Not enough willing consumers of such information.
So we talk about the shiny subjects like sexy bullet trains.
It's not Benen's fault that these stories miss the reality of our jobs situation. The edge we have is in innovative information economy stuff, and that means incenting increase of jobs in fields like genetics, software and other areas where our passion for scientific exploration can create lucrative economic opportunities. The nasty part is that though it plays to our strengths and does generate lots of GDP, the work is not at all labor intensive compared to to previous American industrial booms. If the bulk of the jobs for some "think big" project will very possibly go offshore, then it makes me wonder what public policy genius is recommending this kind of initiative with such low (or negative) return on investment.
Currently our strength in innovative scientific exploration is diverted towards unproductive activities. In Margin call, there is this character Sullivan, with an MIT doctorate and adept at sophisticated numerical analysis of dynamic systems. His previous work was in modeling aeronautical friction in reduced gravity. Maybe you and I find it not at all surprising for Sullivan to see the differences as not that big a deal stating, "It's all just numbers really, just changing what you are adding up, and to speak freely, the money here is considerably more attractive." (32 minutes in) 2008 was not just expression of disastrous industrial policy with respect to regulation, but equally disasterous with respect to how our best and brightest are being drawn into fundamentally unproductive economic activities.
It is profound market failure, yet we do nothing as Rome burns. That sort of discussion is not happening- not even the one having to do with re-regulation of financial markets or removing the incentives for the arms race of rapid analysis of market movements. Ok- everyone is transfixed by the budget fight- but is there any talk of the FTT? That would de-incent those high volume program trades, increase market stability, decrease the prostitution of our Sullivans, and so on. After all the intense interest in Wall Street and more recently feverish discussion of tax policy, what do you suppose the public awareness of the FTT is? I wouldn't be surprised if awareness of the meaning of the acronym was in the single digits.
Obama is committed to a full energy policy that includes oil, gas, coal, solar, wind and even nuclear. Obama has this country moving so quickly toward energy independence that the Kochs and others are planning to export our oil and gas to where they can an even higher price than they get here.
The GOP want to be slumlords over the rubble that used to be America.
Innovation? Jobs? Repairing the infrastructure? Bah! We need to give Donald Trump another million dollars!
Obama doesnt even want a soverighn USA so dont talk about how the Gop is the downfall.
When the Left figures out HOW to spend money responsibly then you can talk about "ohh really fast trains"
Protect my children when they go back to school. Not we need what China has.
You opened up with a ridiculous claim from a ridiculous documentary that is simply ridiculous.
How do you know what Obama wants, and what exactly did he say that convinced you of it?
Why can't your beloved GOP House get anything done? Are you content with paying $8 for a gallon of milk and $5 for a load of bread just because your party is focused on protecting low tax rates for millionaires?
Do you really think the best way to protect your children in schools is to put more people with more guns near them all the time?
We simply can't have projects that help people, right? It's much more important to focus on canards...
Thanks for demonstrating what the world looks like to someone who has his head up his ass.
Here's an ad hominem reply to you, Really --
Learn how to spell correctly, then someone might believe that you mean what you are trying to say, and that your reasoning and arguments might have some merit. As it is, sadly....
Really's misspelling is on purpose. He knows better. He also knows that Obama is committed to a full energy policy that includes oil, gas, coal, solar, wind and even nuclear. Really knows that Obama has this country moving so quickly toward energy independence that the Kochs and others are planning to export our oil and gas to where they can an even higher price than they get here. Really, Really knows.
Look at Los Angeles. Every public transportation project has been a resounding succes, and more trains are on the way to link the Westside to Downtown. Only fools drive to Staples Center when you can take a train and save the parking and hassle. USC students crowd the trains each morning now that the campus is linked in. Right wingers abhor anything collective, regardless of the circumstances or reality. They box themselves in...
This isn't about commuter rail which is a good thing. This is about long distance high speed rail which would only be successful if the ticket price is cheaper than an airline ticket by a decent amount. Otherwise if the price is about the same, most people would fly for a few hours rather than ride for 7 or 8 hours. In your example the only choice is to drive or ride a train, not fly, which is another option when you are talking about long distance.
Republicans fight every attempt to build any kind of infrastructure, and they fought hard against each commuter rail project in Los Angeles. High speed rail will obviously hook up with existing projects, and the certainty you feel you have with the future of cars and air travel are not certain. It's truly weird to me how Americans always fight against high speed rail when it is so popular in other countries. Imagine if a war broke out in the Middle East, would all your price projections still hold? Of course not...
Lewbowsky,
I ask you, would you rather take a 10 hour train ride from Chicago to LA or a 3 hour flight? Most likely the ticket price would be similar and I think most Americans would pick air travel simply for the time reason. High speed rail travel works in Europe I believe, because of the proximity of the various countries. Even in Europe I do not think there is much interest in a continuous high speed train ride from say, southern Italy up to Scandanavia. Most likely even Europeans would take a plane for anything over 800 miles or so. High speed rail may be sexy, but it is still pretty slow compared to a 757.
Yes, if there is a crisis in the Mideast resulting in a fuel distruption, then all bets are off with my argument. The price of air travel would go up, but then again, trains also use fuel so their price would also go up - maybe not as much but still up. An to spend billions (probably hundreds of billions) on the premise that air travel would be drastically more expensive is not worth the expense.
yes, but a 5 hr Chicago to NYC trip--downtown to downtown would take the same time (2 hr flight time, plus 45 min trip to airport plus 1.5 hr security plus 30 min trip to downtown at the other end). If tickets run $100, it would work.
Note, Accela prices in Northeast Corridor ridiculously high and without high speed track, not that fast.
vs.
I know that given the current choice between flying and driving, flying is an absolute last resort. If high speed rail were available odds are high that I would also prefer it to flying. Maybe you are right that most Americans would pick the flight. But I think that most Americans are smart enough to realize a "3 hour" flight is anything but.
golack and Mech,
Don't get me wrong - I love train travel and have used it for short trips from Chicago to Michigan and Wisconsin as well as the commuter rail system here. I am just stating my opinion that most Americans favor air travel, at least at the ticket prices offered now. Your points on traveling to the airport is a valid point, but don't you think that if rail travel becomes a popular mode of travel, the security setup/delay would be the same? Also, the downtown train stations here in Chicago are convenient to get to....if you take mass transit to them but are a parking nightmare if you drive to them. Rail travel is not as perfect as advertised - especially when you factor in on-time arrivals.
No, it's not perfect. But the failure to even consider it as an option leaves people either stuck with driving (which I enjoy, but I know many people don't), or reliant on air travel that is an increasingly poor experience, with security theatre, nickel-and-diming fees, and the diminishing (if not gone) time savings.
I mean, we put a man on the moon, but we can't even consider how to make high speed rail work for us b/c...ideology? Land of opportunity, innovation, freedom--there is no reason it can't be tried and yet it's been a nonstarter for decades.
I don't think the government should be subsidizing milk production, we should let the market set the price of milk. If we subsidize milk production we are still paying a higher price, whether its the price of milk or taxes.
Your wingnut radar sent you to the wrong thread...
Thanks once again for demonstrating what the world looks like to someone who believes 2+2=22. Under your idea, you'll end up with no milk.
I agree - if the market doesn't support the current capacity for milk production, then maybe there should be less milk production. We should not be fighting the natural laws of supply and demand. Subsidies are type of entitlement we should be eliminating.
Subsidies for certain necessities like grain and milk are supposed to ensure that these vital industries can survive even if the products can be bought cheaper outside the country then imported. This is to safeguard against war, drought, disease, etc. completely cutting our supply lines.
First, unless the price of a high speed rail ticket between New York and Key West for example, is less than an airline ticket by a decent amount, I would think most folks would still rather fly for 3 hours than ride a train for 8 hours. Second, anyone that cannot afford a plane ticket and/or a rail ticket (if comparably priced) would still drive. The only reason people would stop driving is it the rail ticket is drastically less than an airline ticket. And if it is drastically lower, most likely it would be subsidized by the government which means it would be partially paid for by taxpayers.
That was not really the point of the op , but the gop complaining about and obstructing EVERYTHING is always at hand , huh skip?
When the president asked recently for a modest $50 billion for transportation improvements in the "fiscal cliff" talks, Republicans literally laughed out loud. There will be no stimulus in any deal, said Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, the incoming chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
And gee , there is no one driving any where either huh skip , the highways are not full of cars or anything , everyone flys everywhere , right? Iowa gov braindead bransted shut down rail investment from here to chicago , that would have also connect the Twin Cities Mn , St Lou , and Madison Ws .....You seem to not understand the concept and thinking that people relaxing can be refreshed when they arrive some where , instead of the stress of driving 5 hours , then there is the weather and delays , congestion and pollution ect
But we can not invest and think forward in america , because ideology is more important , lots of jobs in that
Fine Pantango,
But this thread was/is about high speed rail. I have no arguement with you on the $50 Billion transportation piece. Also, with the lack of ridership for our current passenger rail system, I highly doubt that just because the train goes faster the average American will literally jump on board. For good or bad I think that the Amercan public favors flying big time. As long as the airline industry contiunues to offer the prices they do, high speed rail would not "fare" well unless the price is subsidized.
See above posts re: a "3-hour flight" is often more like 8 hours anyway when taking other events into consideration.
MSNBC,
Even the 8 hours you mention (which I think is exaggerated) is still 4 hours less that say the 12 hour train trip. Look, I do not mind going by train - high speed or otherwise - but I just think that mode of travel is just not what the average American traveler wants. They will still go through the hassle of airports and security (which would be the same at train stations if that became a major way of travel) to save even 2 or 3 hours off their trips.
Bear in mind that "modern" Republicans are really Old Confederates, whether they come from Florida or Wisconsin. Traitor #2, Confederacy VP Alexander Stephens, laid out the economic reason why bullet trains aren't supported by Confederates today, back in April 1861 in his Cornerstone Speech. From the section on economic development:
Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.
And old Alexander the Traitor demonstrates for us that for these idiots, nothing ever changes.
how many ways can we say that the GOP is committing ECONOMIC TREASON against this country?
Question, except for maybe the Boston to Washington corrador, what would America gain from bullet trains? Don't we already have jetliners that move twice as fast? Isn't the bullet train sort of like the SST the Europeans lost their shirts supporting for reasons of national pride. Something that is real cool, but uneconomic.
We need to work on infrastructure, but the work needs to be organic. We need to think about how cities should function. How we select our transportation should be a function of how we organize our cities, not what we think is cool or what the Chinese are doing.
I can certainly see light rail being important in a lot of cities, but until populations densities rise, they won't be economic in many more. I can see some of the trains between neighboring cities that Republican governors have rejected, but except for the Boston to Washington route, I just don't see long range bullet trains in the American transportation mix.
Maybe the better discussion should be what kind of America do we want to live in?
NOW I see what you are talking about LMAO
The fact is that airplanes are really hard to electrify and HSR isn't. Furthermore, our air infrastructure is stretched pretty thin as it is. I would prefer to be able to move around, buy a beer at my convenience and to be much more comfortable than in coach. I live in central CA and would love to hop on a train to get to LA or San Diego that didn't ride on Union Pacific track and that took 2-3 hours instead of 20. Part of the reason we have trouble with rail travel is that our passenger rail is the LEAST subsidized form of transportation we have - driving a car alone is the highest but almost a dead heat with air travel. All of our passenger rail is on freight tracks and Omaha can side a train with passengers for freight whenever they chose (and they do).
Catastrophic failures in infrastucture don't kill people; people kill people.
Catastrophic failures in infrastructure don't kill people because 65 years ago, a government scientist who worked for the Bureau of Reclamation was asked if there was some way to be sure that pre-cast pre-stressed concrete was actually solid without breaking it open (they wanted to use it for building dams, and needed that certainty). The scientist did indeed find a way (an electronic signal sent from point A on one side of the block to a receiver at Point B on the other side; it is already known, thanks to science, how long the signal should take to get from A to B, the percentage difference in speed - faster - is the percentage of air between the two points). Not only did this invention help the building of dams, but it revolutionized the concrete industry, since they could now be certain of their product, and in the years following, the invention was used to create the freeways - have you ever wondered if the freeway beneath your car was going to crumble? of course you haven't and this is why. And all those companies used that patented invention for free, not having to pay for licensing the patent, since the scientist who invented it was working for the government.
The reason I know this story is because that scientist was my father. As he used to say, if he hadn't been working for the government, our family would have been millionaires, but if he hadn't been working for the government, no one would have ever asked him the question.
Great story, TC, with so many lessons.
Some comments here seen pretty focused on bullet trains. After all, that's a pretty cool-lookin' bullet train in the picture. But I think Mr. Benen's point is more to innovation in general, not bullet trains.
We are so mired in ideological fights, bogged down in putting bandaids on problems, and just trying to keep aloat that we don't even think about great projects anymore. We don't invest in education; we don't even maintain what infrastructure we do have; and any project that might be conceived is promptly met with 150 reasons not to try it.
But hey, we have a whole lineup of reality TeeVee shows - 'cause we're all such big thinkers and dreamers.
Exactly , and like everything else the obstructionist get their hands on , they color coat it like they are presenting a reasonable alternative , when in reality they want zero gov investment in any infrastructure projects , if the billionaire koch brothers decide they want to invest in rail service , they will let the little peons know , until then all the surfs need to shut up and mind your own business
And lord only knows our airport infrastructure was built by the YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT drama queen gop party
Seriously, now you're just tryin' to piss me off!
What if the clips were eliminated and this really put an end to mass murders (not that it would)? There would still be +30k gun deaths per year, but apparently no basis for public outrage. It is very silly to direct gun control efforts to mass murders only.
Can't figure out how I was transported from the clips threads to rails.
Stories like this one out of China aren't just about investing in infrastructure. It's also about the power of a monolithic central government. When the government owns practically everything, and can with impunity take whatever it doesn't own, there's very little impediment to building a high-speed cross-country rail line. The reason this doesn't happen in the U.S. is because the current rail lines are privately owned, full of slow freight trains, and of insufficient quality to handle high-speed rail. And building new, dedicated tracks would require prohibitively expensive land purchases (plus the land owners who will choose to drag things out further by fighting the eminent domain in court).
Some parts of the US shouldn't have high speed bullet trains. Europe and Japan does well with this because they have population densities of over 100 people per square mile. In much of the rural United States, we only have population densities of 30 or less.
But along the east and west coasts, we're as densely populated as Europe. So put high speed bullet trains in here. This would be costly, but the cost of allowing our infrastructure to continue to crumble is greater.
When I lived in Alexandria VA and had to travel to Silver Spring to get my assignment at 8am, coming in would take an hour+ to go 15(?) miles with 8 lanes of bumper to bumper. Going back would take and hour+. Of course the 8+ lanes going in the other directions were all but empty,,,. Can't someone come up with a "walking" road divider that can move over 3 or 4 lanes depending on the traffic? Perhaps a snow plow like vehicle could move the dividers. What is it,, something like a 1/4 of the gas used is waisted in traffic jams?
And yesm, you might need 2 sets of dividers and cross-over paths when there's a ditch in the middle of the interstate.
had 'em for years. in boston they're called "zipper lanes." you should see the truck that moves them. it inhales the barrier in front and extrudes it one lane to the right, or left, as needed. unfortunately this just opens or closes one lane on the other side of the median divider.
the problem lies with the ramp structure, or the lack thereof and the isolation of the lane. you have to drive all the way to the end of the zipper lane and merge back into traffic because there's no way to exit until the end of the lane. since it's an isolated HOV lane there's no passing. breakdowns can get interesting too.
Any trip between 250 and 400 miles would be better done by
train. The time it takes to get to the airport, park, get through security, sit
on the runway and then do it all over again at the other end is more than equal
to the time "saved" by flying. Driving is stressful, expensive and wasteful
of time, money and resources. Not to mention dangerous. Plus, as the driver, I
don't get to see a darn thing and as a passenger on an airplane I get to see
even less. Bullet train from Seattle to San Diego and from Boston to Miami
would be a great idea and worth the cost in the long run.
- Any trip between 250 and 400 miles would be better done by
train
- Bullet train from Seattle to San Diego and from Boston to Miami
would be a great idea and worth the cost in the long run.
So which is it? Short trip or long trip. I'm sorry but if the choice is 12 hours by train from Boston to Miami or 4 hours by plane I will bet most folks will fly, even with the hassle of getting to the airport and security - which by the way if train travel becomes more popular, it will have the same security protocols. The ONLY way trains will become the mode of choice is if the price is drastically cheaper than flying. And in that case it most likely would have to be subsidized which means a tax on everyone for the subset of people that buy the tickets. Sorry, but I do not like that. It is hiding the real price of that train ticket.
and, possibly the greatest feature of the train... THE BAR CAR.
comfy seat (even if you're more than 5'3"), tables for work or play, dining cars and you can get up and walk for half a mile if you want (no cramps or deep vein thrombosis, unless you want them).
a side issue - how come nobody thinks of the advantages of putting freight on these kinds of high speed lines? the train is one of the most fuel efficient ways of moving freight and with the advantage of speed it would seem a no-brainer.
of course this would require an actual planned infrastructure and couldn't be done by the "don't tax but spend anyway" party. because, you know, government picking winners and losers, and because Obama, of course.
passenger trains used to have right of way over freight trains
now amtrack has to pull over for the freights
the new york central
Pennsylvania
etc etc all gone
all the airlines get subsidies
a train goes from downtown to downtown with no subsidies
general questions...
why do republicans put someone in charge of the transportation and infrastructure committee who obviously hates infrastructure?
and people on the science committee who hate science?
and people like bachmann on the intelligence committee?
are they stupid or just completely bought and sold?
I think you have to find a neutral person on these committees. Obviously if someone hates science or infrastructure they would be against most of the bills that come through, but on the other hand someone that loves science or infrastructure would want 120% of the projects funded - everything everywhere all the time. I don't know if that would be any better.
The high-speed rail in the US would be a good investment if a great many things had not already been done.
We have a national set of airports and airlines, but these are being exploited by cargo shipments as those services represent a growth area. However the airlines have been subsidized since the beginning and interesting show no net profit when all investments are accounted for.
Given the campaign donations from the shipping companies, and the robbing of the postal service, this cannot change, and not least because of landing rights for personal private air craft. (The latter is 'political'.)
The possibility of building new regional passenger or alternate regional cargo facilities, would cost more than we can imagine, hence we are sunk by our sunk costs.
The other major investment in the U.S. Highway system, which now has high sunk cost and seems (is) impossible to maintain, while suburban sprawl was a money maker or long time it was done assuming energy would always remain cheap and abundant, a wrong assumption.
Way back in 1911, you could traveled by 'light rail' from Boston to Detroit on a 'Trolley', but I am sure you would die after 169 stops.
But back to high speed rail to have any substantial impact it could possibly be used to connect Airports, ironic, but to have new stations at most major cities, in the US would very costly as like were would put it?
Then as each city and state would make a request for a station and stop there, the 180 mph train would average 30 mph. If instead if crowed Airports, we put the stations near transportation hubs that would mature in 50 to 80 years, near the new cities we are unlikely to consider building.
Given all the above what more need to we have to move people about when we can use the internet and do absolutely nothing. (Noting that with the same franchises in every city of American they all look just the same if not tick tacky.) [Google Earth in Real-time could save the planet].
Next would need new rights of way, if for other reason than, not taking a turn at 149 miles a, hour, in the U.S. all of that land is all privately owned, it's not 1866 anymore. (And using tunnels requires the high cost of ventilation.)
The real problem is that in Japan, China and even France and Germany, is that their cultures allow the roadbeds to be serviced overnight. High speed railroad beds are really hard to maintain, and require constant maintenance, it costly and we are unaccustomed to night work, just being nice here.
A country like China knows that it cannot afford and American style energy intensive highway system, and recognizes that the American Hub/Spoke model as insurmountable difficult in adding new Hubs and more so to add new Cities.
Because of the way the US was built, it will continue to develop the same way. The 1911 'Trolley' lasted until 1921, and like most of that time was killed by the automobile and the first federal highway system.
Note: The highest rail speeds in America were about 100 mpg in about 1900, and declined there after.
Questions?
Most of you guys talking about high speed trains not being accepted by the American public never rode on such a train. In Germany, the ICE needs six hours for a 600 miles ride from southwestern Freiburg to Berlin. This ride connects 8 cities between 200.000 and 3 million inhabitants. It runs hourly. And it's at least 60% full any time you ride it. Is it because flying is so expensive in Germany and trains are so cheap? Not at all. Mostly railing costs even MORE than flying! It's because sparing maybe 1,5 hours is nothing compared to:
- no waiting for hours in security check lines
- short ways from car to train
- control over your luggage from start to end (Chicago ate my luggage four times the last ten years)
- not being bondaged to a seat or even a waggon
- having enough space even if you exceed six feet
- having some real alternatives when it comes to choice of menu
- seeing Germany's beautiful landscape flying by
- arriving downtown with mostly immediate access to public transport and/or taxi without need to wait for luggage/passport control
- and many more
I drove Amtrack from Providence to Philadelphia two years ago and was rather shocked about the complete lack of anything resembling a modern train. So if you never rode an ICE or any of these trains you don't even know the comfort level you are talking about.
Visit Europe (or Japan or China) and check it out. And tell me you prefer a 757 over it. I agree I would probably NOT take a train from NY to LA. But along the coasts? Or around the big lakes? If it's under eight hours I'd prefer the train anytime unless I cannot afford business class on a plane.