"Trains are for Tourists"

[p&sr]

Cost causers should be cost payers. The market will provide. Privatize roads, airports and rail...

And bicycles.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Volkins, cars are quaint antiques, a paean to an outdated and unrealistic idea called personal mobility. In 50 years, nobody will drive cars. Few people will fly. It will simply be too expensive to fuel or build them.

Investing money in the automobile and its infrastructure is about as pointful as eating it.

These are some of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen posted on here. The automobile or 'personal mobility device' is the most revolutionary device ever invented by man and there is no way it is going to disapear. It will get more efficient but it aint going away. The farmer still has to get to market and to town. The suburdanite still has to get to the grocery store and take the kids to school. You people that live in these big cities and don't own cars think that is the norm. Well it's not. Public rail based transportation will help us get to work perhaps, but it will never become a personal transportation vehicle. Highspeed rail is enormously expensive and will only work in heavily populated short distance markets. In the vast hinterland that is America it will have little impact. What is much more likely is that people will work from their homes and connect electronically with each other. Meetings will be over the internet. Inovations such as this will affect air travel more than any other means. But, you still have to fly to get to Europe. You can't ride a bicycle to London from New York. Dude.

What makes you think I live in a city? I don't. I also own a car. I find myself coming up with increasingly creative ways to avoid driving, but I do own one.

What I do do is walk a mile, through roads that are generally without sidewalk, to a bus stop on the towns central artery, and take it to a train station if I need to leave town. I can walk the mile to my supermarket pushing a laundry basket, pickup what I need, and walk back pushing my purchases.

I full well know that most people drive cars where I live. In fact, I think I'm the only person who takes the bus who is afforded a car. But you know what? Doing it this way is a lot less stressful. Mass transit works in surburbia. Anyone who doesn't think so is either lazy or has a genuine physical handicap.

 

[henryj]

Volkins, cars are quaint antiques, a paean to an outdated and unrealistic idea called personal mobility. In 50 years, nobody will drive cars. Few people will fly. It will simply be too expensive to fuel or build them.

Investing money in the automobile and its infrastructure is about as pointful as eating it.

These are some of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen posted on here. The automobile or 'personal mobility device' is the most revolutionary device ever invented by man and there is no way it is going to disapear. It will get more efficient but it aint going away. The farmer still has to get to market and to town. The suburdanite still has to get to the grocery store and take the kids to school. You people that live in these big cities and don't own cars think that is the norm. Well it's not. Public rail based transportation will help us get to work perhaps, but it will never become a personal transportation vehicle. Highspeed rail is enormously expensive and will only work in heavily populated short distance markets. In the vast hinterland that is America it will have little impact. What is much more likely is that people will work from their homes and connect electronically with each other. Meetings will be over the internet. Inovations such as this will affect air travel more than any other means. But, you still have to fly to get to Europe. You can't ride a bicycle to London from New York. Dude.

Mass transit works in surburbia. Anyone who doesn't think so is either lazy or has a genuine physical handicap.

Ive never seen it work and for the most part it doesn't exist in the US. I just got back from Europe where the fuel costs are some of the highest in the world, there is no parking and no garages to put your car in and they still drive cars, lots of them. Public transit ridership is higher, but if they have a choice they drive. You are living in a fantasy world if you think your lifestyle will ever catch on. Cars will simply become more efficient and probably smaller..............but people will never give them up. Rail transportation, and that is what we like or we wouldn't be on here, will have only a minor impact on transportation habits in this country. The country is simply too vast and too sparsely populated.

 

[Spokker]

It's one thing to say you don't think HSR will work in the United States. That's fine. I don't agree with it, but that's okay.

It's an entirely different matter when opponents of high speed rail mischaracterize how it's working out in foreign countries. There are highs and lows, but in the vast majority of the cases I've studied, HSR has created more positives than negatives. The industrialized world seems to get it, and so do some developing countries.

 

[George Harris]

Now this is about the best summary I have seen of the whole issue.

It's one thing to say you don't think HSR will work in the United States. That's fine. I don't agree with it, but that's okay.
It's an entirely different matter when opponents of high speed rail mischaracterize how it's working out in foreign countries. There are highs and lows, but in the vast majority of the cases I've studied, HSR has created more positives than negatives. The industrialized world seems to get it, and so do some developing countries.

Particularly for a crowded and mountainous country like Japan. Little over two years ago we took a week there, in mid-winter with nothing but a 7 day rail pass, a few maps, and cash and plastic money. Got a national rail schedule book the second day there. Rode Shinkansen trains, long distance trains, including one overnight, short distance trains, subways, and city buses, including train from airport on arrival and to airport for departure. I think we were in a taxi about twice. Had a great time. Ther are few things as beautiful as looking out the window from your berth to see sunrise over mountailns with heavy snow on the ground, or sitting in a nice seat with coffee in hand watching the scenery go past. It was great to visit a place where good public transportation was literally everywhere. Yes we also experienced a late train, due to wires down from heavy snow, and as a result came real close to having to spend a night on a station bench, but all worked out. Would have missed the problem if I had understood Japanese.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

I haven't gone looking at the numbers for this current article, but I'm sure some where in there a hole big enough to drive a truck through can be found. There's something that they did, something left out, or a certain number of years were sampled, to make the data come out the way it did. Someone looking hard enough with access to the raw data would be able to find something that either invalidates the entire thing or at least makes it irrelevant in the light of the actual numbers.

I believe Will Rogers said it: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[henryj]

It's one thing to say you don't think HSR will work in the United States. That's fine. I don't agree with it, but that's okay.
It's an entirely different matter when opponents of high speed rail mischaracterize how it's working out in foreign countries. There are highs and lows, but in the vast majority of the cases I've studied, HSR has created more positives than negatives. The industrialized world seems to get it, and so do some developing countries.

Actually I did not say HSR wouldn't work. I said it's enormously expensive and would be viable only in highly congested corridors. I don't see it working over long distances such as we have particularly in the western states. Even New York to Chicago is over 900 miles. We already have HSR Boston to Washington but that's really two 200+ mile corridors. Eventually I believe you will see HSR on the West Coast, and out of Chicago and maybe someday in central Texas between the three major population centers and perhaps Florida's east coast. Beyond that, I don't see it as being viable given the expense, but in a 100 or 1000 years who knows. There are even proposals to built HSR or maglev under the Atlantic ocean to Europe. But hey, I am just thinking in my lifetime what's feasible.

Europe and Japan have networks of HSR and it works great because of the shorter distances and the high population densities. I have ridden the Channel Tunnel and the German ICE's and they are excellent. The German regional trains however are just bare bones commuter trains.

 

[Dan O]

Investing money in the automobile and its infrastructure is about as pointful as eating it.

I too ride the bus some when I could drive more often. I don't every day though but a couple times a week I do. I half way enjoy it, seeing the denizens that ride the bus (runs once an hour and only those w/o cars ride it), and getting a couple mile walk in as well.

I don't agree with your posts on cars and children but I do enjoy reading them.

Dan

 

[jis]

It's not that much of a straw man argument. You may say that high speed rail doesn't compete with interstates but rather with flight, but in reality it often is a choice between funding interstates and HSR. O'Toole's comparison is reasonable in that case.
While it's true that France is a smaller country so we wouldn't expect each individual to rack up as many miles, that also means they shouldn't have had to pay as much to lay the track in the first place. The population is denser, which should have been another advantage in this cost vs use analysis.

So O'Toole's argument remains: when we look to decide between spending money on interstate expansion vs spending it on high speed rail we should consider that we've gotten more bank for our buck on interstates than either France or Japan has gotten on high speed rail.

I think the real problem is that US is less efficient in how it spends its money and even less efficient and certainly way less concerned in its public postures at least until the recent past, about energy consumption. The French have the TGV system in addition to an excellent highway system, that in general is better maintained than the US one. In US we endlessly keep on bickering about whether to build a railway system or to build a highway system, as if no balanced approach is possible. Lets face it that we just screwed up in the way we made our choices of building and managing our transportation infrastructure, under the able guidance of Cato Institute among others. Like an alcoholic in a recovery program, unless we are able to face up to the problems that we have created for ourselves, we will never find solutions that work. Meanwhile the screaming at each other based on false dichotomies will continue.

 

[p&sr]

There are even proposals to built HSR or maglev under the Atlantic ocean to Europe.

Now we're talking! To tunnel that far beneath the water, the Train would have to carry its own oxygen supply. This means the Tunnel itself could be reduced to about zero atmospheric pressure (with entry and exit through air-locks), and the Train, once accelerated, could coast freely with no air resistance at all. And if Maglev, then also no track resistance or wheel friction at all. Definitely *THE* WAY to FLY... on a Train, Underground, and Under the Ocean! Absolute Maximum in Fuel Economy.

I have ridden the Channel Tunnel and the German ICE's and they are excellent.

Yes, the German Trains give an outstanding ride. And great service.

The German regional trains however are just bare bones commuter trains.

Rather like Coach fare in Amtrak, as I recall, except that they run On Time and have convenient Rail Connections to and from Everywhere.

 

[jis]

Actually I did not say HSR wouldn't work. I said it's enormously expensive and would be viable only in highly congested corridors. I don't see it working over long distances such as we have particularly in the western states. Even New York to Chicago is over 900 miles. We already have HSR Boston to Washington but that's really two 200+ mile corridors.

Actually we don't have an HSR between Boston and Washington in the sense that the word HSR is used elsewhere in the world. We have an upgraded classic line operating at Medium to Low Speed by world standard for most of its length. If it was HSR we would have average speeds of 150mph, not max speed over 1% of the distance of 150mph.

When the first round of NECIP was being worked on before Amtrak came into existence, a Japanese team which was then working on their Shinkansen came to visit to see hat magic the USA had up its sleeves to beat the Shinkansen, which was a claim made by US DoT back then. They were absolutely astounded to see that the claim was based on what the old Metroliners were allegedly going to achieve. Since then, it seems we in the US have convinced ourselves that we got HSR, while the rest of the world looks at us and shakes their head in disbelief at our self-delusional ways

If California manages to build the CAHSR, that will be the very first true HSR system in the US. I am not holding my breath. Argentina will in all likelihood have theirs up and running way before we in the US will, thus being the first operators of HSR in the Western Hemisphere.

As for lengths, the magic number that has been generally considered to identify journeys for which HSR is suitable is those that take 3 hours or less, though there is anecdotal evidence that once service is available many people use them even for longer journeys. Using an HSR that can deliver a 150mph start to stop average speed one can cover a distance of around 450 miles in 3 hours. That is the sort of system that China for example is busy constructing. Meanwhile we cannot seem to find the money or the will to build any real HSR, let alone repair our existing highways to a good state of repair. Why is it this way? What suggestion do our geniuses from Cato or wherever have to fix this problem? The solution could not possibly be to build more highwayus when we can't even keep what we have in a state of good repair, can it?

 

[henryj]

Actually I did not say HSR wouldn't work. I said it's enormously expensive and would be viable only in highly congested corridors. I don't see it working over long distances such as we have particularly in the western states. Even New York to Chicago is over 900 miles. We already have HSR Boston to Washington but that's really two 200+ mile corridors.

Actually we don't have an HSR between Boston and Washington in the sense that the word HSR is used elsewhere in the world. We have an upgraded classic line operating at Medium to Low Speed by world standard for most of its length. If it was HSR we would have average speeds of 150mph, not max speed over 1% of the distance of 150mph.

When the first round of NECIP was being worked on before Amtrak came into existence, a Japanese team which was then working on their Shinkansen came to visit to see hat magic the USA had up its sleeves to beat the Shinkansen, which was a claim made by US DoT back then. They were absolutely astounded to see that the claim was based on what the old Metroliners were allegedly going to achieve. Since then, it seems we in the US have convinced ourselves that we got HSR, while the rest of the world looks at us and shakes their head in disbelief at our self-delusional ways

If California manages to build the CAHSR, that will be the very first true HSR system in the US. I am not holding my breath. Argentina will in all likelihood have theirs up and running way before we in the US will, thus being the first operators of HSR in the Western Hemisphere.

As for lengths, the magic number that has been generally considered to identify journeys for which HSR is suitable is those that take 3 hours or less, though there is anecdotal evidence that once service is available many people use them even for longer journeys. Using an HSR that can deliver a 150mph start to stop average speed one can cover a distance of around 450 miles in 3 hours. That is the sort of system that China for example is busy constructing. Meanwhile we cannot seem to find the money or the will to build any real HSR, let alone repair our existing highways to a good state of repair. Why is it this way? What suggestion do our geniuses from Cato or wherever have to fix this problem? The solution could not possibly be to build more highwayus when we can't even keep what we have in a state of good repair, can it?

Yes Yes Yes. The Japanese have true HSR. The Europeans, however, have used a combination of HSR and conventional to achieve their higher terminal to terminal times which is more in line with our NEC. Particularly in Germany where the ICE's run at 150mph where a HSR corridor has been built, but at more restrained speeds elsewhere. They don't have true 150mph averages terminal to terminal. But.......it works for them and they are continually improving it. Here in the US, we are light years behind. There is an article in this month Trains magazine on the 'Lincoln Corridor' and the things that need fixing after all these years is amazing. They call it a 'ragtag' corridor.

 

[Neil_M]

Particularly in Germany where the ICE's run at 150mph where a HSR corridor has been built, but at more restrained speeds elsewhere. They don't have true 150mph averages terminal to terminal.

Useful map here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICE_Network.png

showing the ICE speeds in Germany.

Interesting to note that the ICE 3 trains probably run longer at 300 kph in France on the through Germany to Paris trains on LGV Est than they do in Germany on the Koln to Frankfurt line!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Ive never seen it work and for the most part it doesn't exist in the US. I just got back from Europe where the fuel costs are some of the highest in the world, there is no parking and no garages to put your car in and they still drive cars, lots of them. Public transit ridership is higher, but if they have a choice they drive. You are living in a fantasy world if you think your lifestyle will ever catch on. Cars will simply become more efficient and probably smaller..............but people will never give them up. Rail transportation, and that is what we like or we wouldn't be on here, will have only a minor impact on transportation habits in this country. The country is simply too vast and too sparsely populated.

Tell me, if you had to pay, adjusted for inflation, $50 a gallon for fuel, would you drive? I'm not asking you if you want to. I'm asking you if you would. I don't think so. I think you couldn't afford it. I know I sure couldn't. People give up bigger things than convenience when they can't afford it. I've given up eating venison and duck in this economy- its very annoying, because they are my favorites.

Have you ever tried to use public transportation and your own feet to get around? Take a shot at it. Really take a shot at it. When you come back and tell me it doesn't work, I'll then respect what you say.

You're making the grave mistake of claiming the impossibility of doing something to someone who is already doing it.

I believe Will Rogers said it: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Samuel Clemens, also known as Mark Twain.

 

[Ispolkom]

I believe Will Rogers said it: There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Samuel Clemens, also known as Mark Twain.

I prefer claiming Benjamin Disraeli said it, though it does seem a bit vulgar for him. This is one of those quotes that is attributed to any number of people, probably was said by most of them, and was thought up by someone else.

EDIT: If you believe Wikipedia, Mark Twain attributed it to Disraeli, though there are other contenders for inventing the phrase. It still seems to be out of Disraeli's style to me.

 

[jackal]

Have you ever tried to use public transportation and your own feet to get around? Take a shot at it. Really take a shot at it. When you come back and tell me it doesn't work, I'll then respect what you say.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd chime in.

I love using public transportation in large cities. If it works for what I need it to do, I'll use it. (Of course, I'm the kind of person who dreamed about being a bus driver or train engineer in elementary...and maybe even later ...school because I thought those large vehicles were super cool.

But it doesn't always work. When my car went out of commission and I didn't have the funds to fix it in the winter of 2003-2004, I spent about three months during the winter riding the bus to work and, because the bus system stopped before I got off work, having a coworker take me home.

Unless something similar happens, you will not find me on the People Mover buses of Anchorage for anything more than a joyride. Why?

• The two-segment bus trip to work took an hour and a half (versus 18 minutes, with all stoplights against me, to drive)
  
• It was a 20-minute walk in the zero-degree weather to get to the closest bus stop (although this has since been rectified).
  
• After that 20-minute walk, the bus was invariably 20-minutes late.
  
• Buses only come around once an hour (maybe once every half hour during rush hour)
  

I have far too many things to do in the day than spend two and a half hours a day getting to work (five hours total round-trip if it operated after I get off work and I could use it going home). Plus, I like my sleep. Having to get up two hours earlier than I normally do does not go over well with me.

Sorry, but if you can't get me, a rail/bus fan, to use the system, you're not going to get anyone else to, either.

 

[henryj]

Have you ever tried to use public transportation and your own feet to get around? Take a shot at it. Really take a shot at it. When you come back and tell me it doesn't work, I'll then respect what you say.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd chime in.

I love using public transportation in large cities. If it works for what I need it to do, I'll use it. (Of course, I'm the kind of person who dreamed about being a bus driver or train engineer in elementary...and maybe even later ...school because I thought those large vehicles were super cool.

I have far too many things to do in the day than spend two and a half hours a day getting to work (five hours total round-trip if it operated after I get off work and I could use it going home). Plus, I like my sleep. Having to get up two hours earlier than I normally do does not go over well with me.

Sorry, but if you can't get me, a rail/bus fan, to use the system, you're not going to get anyone else to, either.

I have to agree with you. He just doesn't get it and never will. Of course I have used public transportation when it is available. From Katy I have express busses that take me straight to downtown Houston. However, I didn't work downtown. There is no way to get to work here in this area by public transit unless you are going downtown. So I drove just like everyone else does. And this in a city of 5 million people. When I go to Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, San Francisco I use public transit because it works and is convenient. In Anchorage Alaska you can drive anywhere in 20 minutes. Why wait an hour for a bus that doesn't go where you want. Europe has great public transit, but it cost a great deal of money. That is why they have $4 a gallon taxes on fuel and a 19 percent VAT tax on everything you buy. To answer his other question about $50 a gallon fuel...........if it costs that much then the smart people in this world will have figured out something else to power your 'personal mobility device'. We didn't get from the horse and buggy to where we are today by just sitting around doing nothing. People are creative and will find a solution to any problem. If you don't believe it then just hide and watch I guess. Public transportation in this country will develop and get better but.........it will never replace the car or whatever it mutates into.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Jackal, you are highlighting a system that doesn't work. My concept works a lot better when someone has actually bothered to put in a decent system, which is neither hard nor costly to do.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Jackal, you are highlighting a system that doesn't work. My concept works a lot better when someone has actually bothered to put in a decent system, which is neither hard nor costly to do.

Another issue is that the people who run transit systems often don't use those transit systems. (There's commuter rail near where the MBTA General Manager lives, but he drives an MBTA owned SUV into downtown Boston every day, for example.)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Jackal, you are highlighting a system that doesn't work. My concept works a lot better when someone has actually bothered to put in a decent system, which is neither hard nor costly to do.

Another issue is that the people who run transit systems often don't use those transit systems. (There's commuter rail near where the MBTA General Manager lives, but he drives an MBTA owned SUV into downtown Boston every day, for example.)

Yeah. I think Rich Sarles drives to work, too.