China's High Speed Rail
- Thread starter John Picard
- Start date
Wherever you install passenger train service along a chain of more than two cities you will probably need local and express service. Passengers traveling between San Fransisco and Los Angeles aren't going to be happy about sitting stationary while the train waits at platforms in places like San Jose, Salinas and San Luis Obispo. You will need expensive parallel tracks for each of these cities long enough for the local service trans to decelerate into those stops and accelerate back up to the express service's speed.
Today's passenger trains are already being delayed by freights operating on the same freight railroad company owned tracks. Those stock financed roads have revenue from freight operations as their priority. Frequent passenger service along those tracks would interfere with freight operations so much the freight operations would barely be possible. High speed passenger service will need parallel tracks to avoid those delays. There may be problems with the existing right of ways being wide enough. In many places the radius of curves will need to be increased to accommodate the higher speeds, also leading to right of way issues.
Collisions with autos and trucks at crossings are a persistent problem for railroads. There are some drivers that insist on ignoring the warning bells, flashing lights and even gates. Some drivers even pull across the tracks when they cannot pull clear due to traffic congestion on the other side of the rail line. All of those grade crossings will need to be replaced by overpasses (sometimes referred to as a flyover) or underpasses, with provisions for relocating any businesses who would lose their access to the street when the street is raised or lowered to get across the tracks.
Today's passenger trains are already being delayed by freights operating on the same freight railroad company owned tracks. Those stock financed roads have revenue from freight operations as their priority. Frequent passenger service along those tracks would interfere with freight operations so much the freight operations would barely be possible. High speed passenger service will need parallel tracks to avoid those delays. There may be problems with the existing right of ways being wide enough. In many places the radius of curves will need to be increased to accommodate the higher speeds, also leading to right of way issues.
Collisions with autos and trucks at crossings are a persistent problem for railroads. There are some drivers that insist on ignoring the warning bells, flashing lights and even gates. Some drivers even pull across the tracks when they cannot pull clear due to traffic congestion on the other side of the rail line. All of those grade crossings will need to be replaced by overpasses (sometimes referred to as a flyover) or underpasses, with provisions for relocating any businesses who would lose their access to the street when the street is raised or lowered to get across the tracks.
Why Train and Bus Ridership Is Hitting the Stratosphere
Sorry, but overall, the US would be so much better off with rail systems, both nationally and locally.
Sorry, but overall, the US would be so much better off with rail systems, both nationally and locally.
So, because rail is a good idea along one corridor, it's a good idea everywhere? I agree that it's a good idea in some places. As I've already said several times, and as your quoted article points out, rail is a good idea on the east coast. On that route mentioned as an example above, I'm sure that there are lots of people travelling from between Boston and New York or points in between.
Let's look at a typical route in the west for comparison. I'll use the Salt Lake City to Sacramento route, because I've made that trip many times. One can fly round trip for less than $250. The flight is about 1 3/4 hours. There is a direct Amtrak line between those two cities. On Amtrak, one can travel round trip for about $135. That's quite a bit less, but the trip is over 15 hours each way. HSR would shorten that trip to probably about 5 hours, but the cost would be comparable to or more than flying. To build that line would probably cost over $10 billion. The ridership would be a minute fraction of that on the Boston-New York route above, so there's no way the development cost could even begin to be paid.
Trains work in some places, but not all.
Let's look at a typical route in the west for comparison. I'll use the Salt Lake City to Sacramento route, because I've made that trip many times. One can fly round trip for less than $250. The flight is about 1 3/4 hours. There is a direct Amtrak line between those two cities. On Amtrak, one can travel round trip for about $135. That's quite a bit less, but the trip is over 15 hours each way. HSR would shorten that trip to probably about 5 hours, but the cost would be comparable to or more than flying. To build that line would probably cost over $10 billion. The ridership would be a minute fraction of that on the Boston-New York route above, so there's no way the development cost could even begin to be paid.
Trains work in some places, but not all.
I just took a 2-leg flight, BTV-JFK-IAD, yesterday for < $100.
Granted, Dulles is almost an hour's drive out from DC proper, but there are cheap bus-and-Metro routes to get you in there.
The point is, airfare is so variable by airline, route, and time of purchase that any definitive statements about its costs relative to other travel methods must be suspect. Adding an extra leg onto a route can reduce the price in some cases, oddly enough.
That said, if you have the time, a train trip can be a nice alternative to flying in some cases.
That's BS. How many times do I have to point out that trains moved everything and everyone in the US from the 1840's up until the late-1940's? The car companies pushed the US Government into building highways all in the name of manufacturing jobs (namely automotive) which resulted in the killing off of both local and national train routes.
Right now, in OKC, the crosstown expressway of I-40 is being reengineered to the tune of $130M+
http://www.40forward.com/global/glossary.aspx
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20020514/ai_n10153038/
There isn't a week that goes by that part of the structure needs emergency repairs. $130M for approximately 5-7 miles of roadway. This is just one example of many across the US. Houses and businesses have to be displaced, which is utterly ridiculous. I also fail to see how that $130M will be "paid back", as you like to point out.
The big problem with the US is people scoff at Urban Sprawl, and yet bitch that more roads are needed an cause Urban Sprawl. Then, every single year, funds are short for regular road maintenance.
You use $10B as a scare tactic. "ZOMG! WE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT WILL COST THAT MUCH." Do you have any idea how many bridges in the US -- county, State, and Federal -- are in dire need of replacement, and what it would cost to replace all of those bridges?
If an intelligent, well thought out rail system were set up for each city, I guarantee people would use it, especially if US cities were to follow London's lead and implement a Congestion Charge. Make it too expensive for people to want to drive in town, followed by raising the tax on gasoline, license fees, etc. The $10B investment could easily be recouped once citizens change their travel habits. I would love to be able to take a catnap on the way home from work. When I lived in Washington, we would take the ferry over to Seattle, rather than driving, because we could get out, stretch, get something to eat, and take it easy. Same amount of time as driving, but without the hassle.
Rail has worked in the past, and it can work. You've also conveniently ignored the fact that air travel is becoming more and more cumbersome. Gone are the days when one could arrive at the airport 20 minutes before a flight and hop on the plane.
I would certainly agree that increased coverage of city metro systems is a good thing. The question, I believe, is the viability of providing rail systems between cities to an extent that common routes are usually viable. The problem with Amtrak at the moment is that most routes don't actually line up well time-wise, resulting in the possibility of 10+ hour layovers to get anywhere unusual.
You can still do that at small airports, the sort that have one or two gates and *maybe* a control tower.
You can still do that at small airports, the sort that have one or two gates and *maybe* a control tower.
See thats the Solution to our evoinment. We need high speed trains and restrict Airplanes flying. Airplanes are the worst evoinmental thing on earth.Its far more worse than Cars & Trucks that polute our planet. We must build tunnels for high speed trains that go from NY-LA in 1 day NY.. NY-Dallas in 16 hours.. NY-Miami in 8 hours.
If you're planning to travel from Boston to Virginia Beach, VA you better plan on traveling the last few miles by road, because there's absolutely no scheduled air or passenger rail service to a facility within the city limits.
Norfolk International Airport is just across the city line, but the passenger terminal is on the side of the airport opposite Virginia Beach. There are some long stretches between the passenger terminal and the city line that are very unfriendly to pedestrians.
Virginia Beach barely has any active freight rail service. There's a couple of miles of track in a light industrial area adjacent to Norfolk's airport. That area connects to the rest of the nation's rail infrastructure through a freight car ferry across the eighteen mile wide Chesapeake Bay and a roundabout route through Petersburg, VA. The line connecting a point west of the the Virginia Beach oceanfront resort area to the Norfolk business district has been abandoned for several years and saw infrequent freight traffic (mostly gravel gondolas) before that. The portion of that line within Norfolk is in the process of being converted to a light rail line that's running nearly 50% over budget.
The passenger terminal in Norfolk was demolished decades ago. Any "Amtrak" service requires a bus ride to a tiny passenger rail terminal in Newport News. That bus service is vulnerable to terrible road congestion crossing the Hampton Roads harbor between Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Newport News.
Norfolk International Airport is just across the city line, but the passenger terminal is on the side of the airport opposite Virginia Beach. There are some long stretches between the passenger terminal and the city line that are very unfriendly to pedestrians.
Virginia Beach barely has any active freight rail service. There's a couple of miles of track in a light industrial area adjacent to Norfolk's airport. That area connects to the rest of the nation's rail infrastructure through a freight car ferry across the eighteen mile wide Chesapeake Bay and a roundabout route through Petersburg, VA. The line connecting a point west of the the Virginia Beach oceanfront resort area to the Norfolk business district has been abandoned for several years and saw infrequent freight traffic (mostly gravel gondolas) before that. The portion of that line within Norfolk is in the process of being converted to a light rail line that's running nearly 50% over budget.
The passenger terminal in Norfolk was demolished decades ago. Any "Amtrak" service requires a bus ride to a tiny passenger rail terminal in Newport News. That bus service is vulnerable to terrible road congestion crossing the Hampton Roads harbor between Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Newport News.
John Picard, you seem to think I'm against trains. I'm not, I actually like trains and wish they were more of an option. You keep pointing out the role of trains in the building of the west. I agree, they were vital for the settling of the west. At the time, though, there weren't roads, cars, or airplanes, so trains only competition was covered wagons, horses, and walking. Also, the needs then were very different than they are today.
You also seem to think that since I don't belive high-speed rail will work in the western US due to the very low population density and long distances of nothing between the few cities there are that I also don't think trains should be used in cities or anywhere else. Commuter rail around cities works great. Until now, I haven't said a word about these systems. Please stop expanding my comments that are specific to high-speed rail in western US to rail in general.
I'm not ignoring the increasingly cumbersome nature of air travel. The figure above (100-500 miles) takes into account the extra time required for air travel. That is the distance over which the total travel times are comparable.
You also seem to think that since I don't belive high-speed rail will work in the western US due to the very low population density and long distances of nothing between the few cities there are that I also don't think trains should be used in cities or anywhere else. Commuter rail around cities works great. Until now, I haven't said a word about these systems. Please stop expanding my comments that are specific to high-speed rail in western US to rail in general.
I'm not ignoring the increasingly cumbersome nature of air travel. The figure above (100-500 miles) takes into account the extra time required for air travel. That is the distance over which the total travel times are comparable.
Im against big huge Boeing 747 and other Boenig made aircrafts. But im not against small planes not talking about private jets though. So the only way Boeing 747s can be use is flying across the atlantic or pacific. Boeings should not be used for fly across land. So we have Trains to replace this. Its the Boeing planes and jets is harming our planet.
Shorter hops delegated to Boeing 727s?! With the turbojet technology they utilize? Most of those have been sent to the bone yard or sold to third world airlines because the newer fan jet engines are much more efficient in their use of jet fuel! Even some of the earlier 737s were equipped with turbojets. There's also the issue of structural fatigue associated with the high number of operating hours and cabin pressurization cycles of 727s and older 737 aircraft. Remember that 737 that suffered a huge fuselage breach flying between two of the Hawaiian islands?
The twin fan jets on the Boeing 777 generate as much thrust as the four earlier technology fan jets on the early 747s! While there's a reduction in redundancy, that's more than offset with fewer failures with the reduced number of parts in half as many engines.
Larger planes consume less fuel per passenger, thus produce less emissions. They ease the airborne congestion around the busier airports too, lessening the chance that pilots will miss a directive from air traffic controllers or air traffic controllers making a fatal error.
Cross country rail tunnels? Imagine the expense boring those, lining them and keeping them dry.
A big difference between the US and many other nations are retail gasoline prices. The population of the US has a long tradition of hating taxes. Many of the disputes that lead to the revolution were based on the British government's taxation. Compared to the rest of the world, the US has very low tax rates on automotive fuels. People in other countries simply can't afford all the taxes they would pay driving their vehicles as much as Americans do. The long availability of so much automobile use has resulted in a housing, retail and industrial development pattern that is going to be very difficult to handle with any type of mass transit. Unfortunately the non-tax portion of fuel prices will at some point increase dramatically, as they did to some degree in 2008, and Americans will join the rest of the world in being driven to mass transit by economic necessity.
The twin fan jets on the Boeing 777 generate as much thrust as the four earlier technology fan jets on the early 747s! While there's a reduction in redundancy, that's more than offset with fewer failures with the reduced number of parts in half as many engines.
Larger planes consume less fuel per passenger, thus produce less emissions. They ease the airborne congestion around the busier airports too, lessening the chance that pilots will miss a directive from air traffic controllers or air traffic controllers making a fatal error.
Cross country rail tunnels? Imagine the expense boring those, lining them and keeping them dry.
A big difference between the US and many other nations are retail gasoline prices. The population of the US has a long tradition of hating taxes. Many of the disputes that lead to the revolution were based on the British government's taxation. Compared to the rest of the world, the US has very low tax rates on automotive fuels. People in other countries simply can't afford all the taxes they would pay driving their vehicles as much as Americans do. The long availability of so much automobile use has resulted in a housing, retail and industrial development pattern that is going to be very difficult to handle with any type of mass transit. Unfortunately the non-tax portion of fuel prices will at some point increase dramatically, as they did to some degree in 2008, and Americans will join the rest of the world in being driven to mass transit by economic necessity.
True, I haven't seen all that many of them around lately. Airbus seems to be making significant inroads in the Express plane market.
The Canadair CRJ planes are being used a lot now for shorter flights as well. Earlier this year, I was flying about 3 times a month (flights of about 200-600 miles), and nearly every flight was on a CRJ-200 or a CRJ-700. Several years ago, I flew the same route several times, and at that time, it was all 737s or MD-90's. Also, it seemed that nearly half of the planes I saw at the airports on these recent trips were CRJs.
We'll have to see what these new security measures really amount to. When I screened through BTV after New Years, there was nothing notably different about security.
Still, it does put an additional emphasis on the benefits of flying myself places rather than going commercially.
Still, it does put an additional emphasis on the benefits of flying myself places rather than going commercially.
I am biased, but when I do air fare price checks and compare them to AMTRAK, the train is so expensive i dont know why anyone would do it.