Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHigh-Speed Rail in the United States: Back on Track after 50 Years of Neglect
Long before he became president, Barack Obama had a hankering for the TGV and other fast trains. "I am always jealous about European trains," he told an audience during a visit to Strasbourg last spring. "And I said to myself: why can't we have high-speed rail?"
![[France's V150 TGV fast train on the high-speed line between Paris and the eastern city of Strasbourg. Although the full flowering of the US rail renaissance is unlikely to get under way while Obama is still in the White House,an initial infusion of $8bn, set aside under the spring's economic stimulus plan, the Obama administration is embarking on the most ambitious expansion of passenger rail in 50 years. (Photograph: Francois Nascimbeni/AFP/Getty Images)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/bullet_train.jpg "bullet_train.jpg")
Well, maybe America can, although the full
flowering of the rail renaissance is unlikely to get under way while
Obama is still in the White House. With an initial infusion of $8bn,
set aside under the spring's economic stimulus plan, the Obama
administration is embarking on the most ambitious expansion of
passenger rail in 50 years, with the construction or upgrade of up to
10 routes from California through the midwest to Florida.
Apart from California, none of the other routes envisaged would meet international standards for high-speed trains. But rail advocates say Obama has still taken an important first step towards the transformation of US rail.
"It is not going to be probably as good in the short term as what is currently in China, Japan and Europe, but it doesn't have to be," said Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic congressman from Oregon and deputy chairman of the House of Representatives committee on global warming. "What is revolutionary is that the US is starting to invest in higher-speed intercity networks. This reverses 50 years of passenger rail neglect."
Passenger rail reached its low point under George Bush, who sought to eliminate all public funds for the Amtrak network. But the security queues at US airports after the 9/11 attacks, and last summer's high petrol prices, have spurred official and popular interest in reviving rail travel. Last month, 40 states put forward 278 proposals for spending the $8bn in stimulus funds.
Obama views transport as crucial in meeting the US commitment to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions. He has budgeted an additional $1bn a year for rail over the next five years. The House of Representatives added an additional $1.4bn. The next step is a transportation bill now before Congress in which Democrats are seeking $50bn for passenger rail over the next six years.
But the initial $8bn will cover only a fraction of the costs of building a new network. The proposals submitted last month together amount to $108bn.
"We can't build a high-speed rail network in the United States for $8bn. What we can do is show the public that the $8bn has been invested wisely and created tangible benefits," said Kevin Brubaker of the Environmental Law and Policy Centre, an advocacy group.
48 Comments so far
Show AllFar too little cash to do more than taken improvement, but at least it's back in the budget. The amount needs to be put into the context of how much is spent on highways and air travel subsidies. http://www.dvds-online-rental-review.com
there is a common thread here that seems typical to the USA. Think about all of the options, start a multi million dollar study, conclude that none of the proposals are perfect and then ask for more money for further study. if we are honest this thread is not much different than a room full of politicians. all talk and no admission of complicity. I am beginning to think that the down side of the internet is, it creates an illusion of contribution to action. it becomes addictive to endlessly defining the problems of the world, especially the blaming of the govt. We gave and continue to give our power to them and expect them to have the same concern as we would. Well now it is theirs and they intend to keep it. so, if we ever expect to see the likes of high speed rail in this country, we must stop ALL expectations and then think and act from HERE.
I travel to Europe yearly and normally do a SW German, Swiss, Italian route to visit friends and relatives. I buy a Eurail pass for every trip, I stopped car rental several years ago. Rail is inexpensive. I do my rail bookings on line now. Seat reservations are easy to come by that way. One can do them even faster in the train stations, for practically any other country in Western Europe. I always look forward to the "Cisalpino" leg of the journey between Basel and Milan.
I recently made a two week journey to the US west coast to visit my daughters in Seattle and LA. I decided to travel by train between the two cities, roughly a 1000 mile journey. The trip was quite scenic and pleasant, as riding first class might be in Eastern Siberia or India. There as a car reservation but no seat reservation, the conductor managed the seat assignments at the door of the car on a slip of paper, much like the score cards one encounters at a mini-golf course. Once inside the people who sat across from me commented on the station wagon on the platform. It was quite quaint, one of those old models on sees in old pre-WWII motion pictures with its flat plank body and oversized wheels. They wondered if it was for show. I said that I doubted that very much. I made a side comment to them that the system struck me as primitive, at least 50 years if not more behind Europe, almost 19th Century vintage. The whole experience was comfortable and quaint. It lasted 38 hours from beginning to end, or about at an average speed of 26 MPH. I think this west coast Evening Star express was one of my best train experiences in the US.
I once took a train trip from Karlsruhe, Germany to Oslo, Norway- about 1600 KM - in a little more than a day (26 or 28 hours), changing trains twice along the way. I have spent decades carping about the abysmal state of the US rail system and what a waste of energy autos are for long distance travel. I had mentioned high gas prices throughout Europe were partly connected to the development of public transportation infrastructure there. Reaction to the carping was usually indifference. I think its too late now for us. We wasted our money on cheep petro. The days of post-WWII economic sunshine are over. There isn't any more money to build a system of European quality.
It’s unfortunate we’ve waited too long.
Here's a thought: high-speed trains have been implemented on any considerable scale only in countries where governments have got involved early on. And governments got involved because elected politicians there had to work a bit harder to prove their worth. Or in countries where the governments had a greater control over things - such as in China and South Korea today and in post-War Japan. And they used this control in a better way than in some tinpot dictatorship. Although all these countries are capitalist and have large corporations, corporations are still kept somewhat under check and don't try to run the entire country for their short-term benefit. You can see this even in Europe - while in UK, high-speed trains face some kind of opposition, or at least scepticism, from airlines (they welcome high-speed trains from the airport to the city, though), they are more popular (and available) in many other parts of Europe.
There's no point in spending a dime on "high speed rail" if it's not maglev. I am hearing no mention of this in this article nor in the comments. Why not, I wonder?
Any train system built that's not maglev is a waste of time, money and energy. Maglev is the technology of the future. One day it will be commonplace, but today it's nearly unheard of.
I won't yammer on about Maglev any longer. I encourage you, reader, to find out what maglev is. Type maglev into your favorite search engine and get educated.
And what do you use to power the MAGLEV system?
Walk in peace.
The entire track and skin of the cars can be covered with pv solar tiles. Windows too can generate electricity using nanosolar technology.
Let us not be limited by lack of imagination and innovation. We are homo sapiens, wise humans.
Ride in peace.
As an EV experimenter, I can assure you that what you suggest would not be near enough solar-cell area to work. Each car would need panels about the size of those on the Hubble Space Telescope to provide enough power. And what do you do when it is cloudy.
Give up on the automobile.
Hey maybe we should just quit traveling with a motor under our asses.
My step-daughter and her husband just returned from a 2000 mile bike ride. We need to simplify. I'm spending more time in my garden this year than any year in the past, and doing more shorter trips closer to home by bicycle and on foot.
There are numerous hiking trails not far off that I've yet to explore, yet I've been to places 10,000 miles from home.
What I'm saying is maybe we should all just mellow out and quit thinking we're entitled to do whatever we want to do because, well, we're Americans, goddammit!
My wife and I even turned down a wedding invitation because we decided that Maine is just too far to travel and it would put too much carbon into the atmosphere to haul our bodies and luggage on a stratospheric slipstream.
MagLev uses electrical power and, compared to other modes of transport, it's very stingy because:
1. Mass (vehicular weight) is minimized: a) There is no onboard fuel load. b)The MagLev engine is a linear induction motor - half of the motor's weight is actually in the track, not on the train.
2. MagLev trains have a very low coefficient of drag due to their tightly streamlined fuselage and the fact that there is no bearing friction (wheels) - when in motion, the train is MAGnetically LEVitated 3/8" off the track.
Other considerations:
The trains themselves are emmission free. Emmissions from electric power production are confined to centralized plants where they can be more efficiently controlled.
The trains are virtually silent except for minor slipstream noise (providing we don't run them past the sound barrier).
Easements (rights-of-way) for tracks already exist in several forms such as Interstate highway routes and conventional RR tracks. The trains are relatively light so the track can be efficiently elevated to permit installation along congested routes with minimal impact on other traffic or land use.
The technology is off-the-shelf ready: many other nations have already deployed it.
(Japan ran one at 361mph in 2003.)
With inclusion of MagLev in a comprehensive urban/interurban transportation strategy, auto and air traffic can be significantly reduced within about 40 years.
I believe that the key is the "comprehensive strategy" part. Smaller, more socially coherrent nations have pulled it off. I don't know if the U.S. is capable of it.
Every MAGLEV train I have seen has been regarded as a toy, great for proving the technology works, but not terribly practical.
And the problem they keep having is powering the magnetic coils that suspend the train. Last I heard they were still fighting with that one.
The 'controlled' emissions from the power plants are anything but. Most powerplant operators fight like hell to get exemptions from air pollution regulations. After cars, powerplants are the next greatest source of CO2 and other green house gasses. Oops. Try again.
Walk in peace.
Galen, maybe it's not my place to say this, but I am very disappointed that you don't come up with any alternatives to rail. You've already made your position perfectly clear about being anti-train, we get that already. What do you want? More cars, more expressways? I would love to hear your alternatives. I'm all ears.
Thanks for your input. I stand corrected:
MagLev is not "off-the-shelf" ready and although the Shanghai Maglev Train has been in public service since 2002, most installations are still experimental. There are numerous issues with these systems, including electromagnetic pollution that can scramble harddrives and pacemakers. There are some smart people continuing to pursue this so time will tell.
A major limitation in the U.S. is a current lack of military interest in MagLev. A significant objective behind the Interstate Highway system was improved military logistic capability which helped obtain the funding. Likewise, the presursor systems that led to the internet.
So, MagLev could be like the "BetaMax" video format - interesting but not salable.
None the less, the core point of the lead article is correct: rail, in a variety of proven formats and applications, is superior to auto and air transport.
Personally, I like the old streetcars.
There's no difference between the 2 political parties: high speed rail vs. 'drill, baby, drill.' Next election I'm voting for the horse n buggy party.
The rail freight movers claim they "move a ton of freight 400-plus miles on a gallon of fuel".
If we had passenger rail that tagged along with freight, that's a dozen or more patrons going 400 miles on a gallon of fuel. Out West, we have hydro... so electric trains don't add much new carbon to the National Footprint. I'd even prefer to see some mid-scale nuclear put in place, as a transition fuel to newer renewables (wind, solar, tide, geothermal, etc).
The biggest downside to bullet-train infrastructure is the threat that it presents to Port districts that operate airports, and to Boeing (& other airframe manufacturers). Of course, if Boeing weren't stuck on the Govt "Defense Titty" they'd be in the vanguard developing high-speed rail systems. I'd prefer to see this as a "New Deal"-like program... hell, bring the Army home from all those foreign lands to work on it-- and actually get Something USEFUL for our Pentagon (gone gone gone) expenditures. ^..^
High-speed trains need not be electrified, nor reach speeds in excess of 135-150mph. This stipulation cuts whole project costs by 30%. The main cost is welded rail, grade separation, double-track, etc. The environmental benefit of electrification through mostly rural routes is nil. A diesel/electric locomotive can run electrically through short segments of 'populated' inner-city districts with a raised pantograph connecting to overhead wire. Electrified high-speed rail can exceed 200mph, but their 'average' speed is closer to 135mph.
The electricity is more effectively utilized on inner-city light rail systems that deal with the primary source of traffic congestion, air and water pollution.
This mid-speed approach allows freight train operations to use the track. Mid-speed service allows more station stops and serves more communities. Ticket prices are more affordable. Projects finish sooner and go through a more reasonable planning process. Because California mandated electrification in their proposal, the project is still on the drawing board and will probably remain there for many years to come. California legislators messed up.
It would be better to restore the LA to Las Vegas high-speed rail route using the original non-electrified Talgo trainsets. Then extend north past Utah's fabulous national parks to Salt Lake City, and from there to Portland on Amtrak's unwisely decomissioned Pioneer route. This route through Salt Lake City would lead to a doubling of Amtrak's Zephyr route between Chicago and California Bay Area, from 1 daily train in each direction to 2 trains daily. The 2nd eastbound train could arrive in Salt Lake City at a more civilized hour than 3:am. Yikes!
I'm inclined to agree with your diesel train assessment as a temporary expedient. But you can't beat the efficiency of electric power. A diesel engine is at best 35% efficient An electric motor is more than 90% efficient. All of Amtrak's dedicated east coast tracks are electrified, including the Harrisburg to Philly line and no, it isn't all urban by any means.
$3 billion (Initial $1B + $2B) for the cars for clunkers versus only $8 billion for a national highrail system. This country has a lack of vision.
Life is so short - why rush through it?
I would prefer a more reasonable speed emotional pleasing outing on a train.
An how often would you take this outing? Once a year?
High speed rail is meant to be an alternative to planes. And road travel.
It's not so fast that it still isn't quite pleasant. But if you want a windows-down slow ride between cities and towns, Europe has plenty of those, as did we not that long ago.
Now, let us imagine what we could build if we got the trillions that the bankers got.
Europe has plenty of high speed rail.
It's August of 2009 and there's no money, no political will, no incentive for actually reinventing any single part (or all) of the transit system. Please repeat after me, FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! The real inventions are out here, in maybe 10,000 garages, sandbagged one and all by the federal government which is of course looking for GM to lead the way. The DOE will announce a bunch of Salieri (the patron saint of mediocrity) award winners in September. These bureaucrats, elected officials and lobbyists are now strangling your future with piano wire. But you're not paying attention to the Arctic Ocean ice pack shrinking to new records this month, are you. Nor are you paying the slightest attention to the nation's unemployment numbers.
@pjd412 - To demonstrate the difficulties of building a TGV rail system I am talking about, some points to consider.
1) Resources. Where will the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, copper, aluminum, and plastic needed to build the rails and rolling stock come from? These industrial metals and materials are presently almost mined out or depleted world-wide. Why do you think China snaps up rusting hulks of ships and demolition debris (including the evidence of 9/11) in such vast quantities?
2) Surveying and engineering. High speed and TGV trains require long flat open stretches of land to operate efficiently, with a minimum of stops and turns. To build or rebuild such now would require the re-surveying of the entire route you would wish to use, and would no doubt entail forcing long time residents off their land. Then you have to do the actual construction.
3) Power. TGV trains use overhead power lines fed from conventional oil, coal, hydro or nuclear powerplants. These are heavily subsidized. There is your 'energy efficiency'.
4) Paying for it all. The money is simply not there. Any program to build this wonder will have to be paid for somehow. And with most states and cities too broke to pay unemployment, let alone wages for workers, this pipe-dream will just never get built.
5) Cost to passengers. There is no way in hell this will be run for the average person. It will be a toy for the wealthy and well connected. Ticket prices will be such as to make a profit for the corporation that builds it.
6) Security. Think about it. Long stretches of track, unguarded and un-patrolled would be a perfect target. And you would not even need explosives to stop the train. Just pull a rail out of alignment, and simple physics does the work for you. Such an act would bring instant TV media response, along with an attendant drop in passenger traffic, which after one or two such incidents would be enough to cripple the operating company.
Galen,
You seem to be grabbing generic arguments out of the air. All these arguments could be made about any kind of transportation system, or indeed leaving the house in the morning: But here are my responses:
1. Iron for steel is hardly a depleted resource. What recycling of scrap doesn't provide the huge reserves still present in just N. Minnesota and Manitoba alone is enough. Same with Aluminum. If these resources aren't used to build railroads and trains they will be used to build cars, airliners, and highways.
2. If much more densely populated Europe can find the necessary ROW for high speed, so can the US. Displacement of a few (and routes are chosen so it is usually only a few) people is a fact of life for any infrastructure improvement. They are doing it right now on highway projects near where I live. The alternative, a multi-lane highway, displaces even more people. At any rate, the displaced are well compensated at usually better than market rates.
3. The argument regarding the degree power generation is subsidized is a red herring and besides the point. All electric vehicles are far more energy-efficient and have lower carbon footprints even if the electricity comes from fossil sources. I own two electric motor scooters which I have taken power consumption measurements. They get the energy equivalent of just shy of 400 miles per gallon, compared to 80 mpg for the equivalent gasoline version. Even assuming 100% coal-generated electricity, they get the equivalent of about 160 mpg in terms of carbon footprint compared to gasoline. This is a small rubber-tire vehicle; the efficiencies of, large, low aerodynamic drag, steel-wheeled vehicles is far greater.
4. In the 1930's, the US, in the middle of a great depression, certainly found the money for many massive infrastructure projects.
5. This is a strange argument. All kinds of ordinary people use Europe's high speed trains and the ticket prices are quite reasonable. It is assumed that Amtrak will run the trains, not a private corporation. Yes, it will be government subsidized in the same way highway, and air transportation is. It is also a strange argument that ordinary steel-wheeled vehicles rolling on rails would be playthings of the rich, while high tech, near-supersonic, stratospheric marvels, costing several million dollars per-passenger seat, requiring meticulous and expensive maintenance and inspection, and guzzling vast quantities of dwindling petroleum resources while laying down a huge carbon footprint, (aircraft are one of the few things which electric propulsion will never be practical) are "the peoples transportation".
6. Now you are really reaching. Have there been any such incidents or rail-line sabotage in Europe? If the US will change it's foreign policy, this will not be a problem her either. And, at any rate, the lines will be fenced and contain devices to instantly detect intrusion and vandalism - along with cows and fallen rocks. I'm sure the Amtrak NE corridor lines already have such devices, and probably a lot of freight lines have them too.
Hah! You got to this well before I did, kudos. Just to add a few points to yours for good measure as there's nothing I disagree with in your post enough to comment on.
1) Along with the readily available scrap, the amount of steel necessary to construct a rail system would most likely highly benefit the crushed economies of Ohio and Pennsylvania and breath some new life into their generally beaten down workforce.
2) Im a fan of the maglev trains but its not feasible at the moment. Still, elevating trains through rural areas (which most of it is considering the route from California to Florida would stream through much of the west and southwest) would reduce displacement and people would be paid off for using the swathes of land necessary and have the structures in place when maglev becomes a reality.
3)Power generation and its carbon impact should be a non-issue for a majority of the lines. California, the southwest, texas, all see upwards of 200 days a year of full sun plus, hydro, wind-farms, etc. Granted, the rest of the country is not so fortunate but it is still a massive improvement.
4)We can fund illegal wars and give trillions to wallstreet. The money is there its just misspent.
5)I think this was a sentiment of frustration at seeing the truth about "business as usual" in the US, originally. It's unfortunate, but understandable.
6)No comment.
Also, though the scale is daunting, by creating a new rail infrastructure this would be an opportune time for a worker/people owned collaborative effort to ensure that those who use, work on, or invest in can benefit from it.
Hi Galen, you point out the things that are wrong with high speed rail, fair enough. But what are your alternatives? More cars? How about giving us some of your ideas on how the US should solve it's transportation mess. It's one thing to be against something, but I would respectfully like to know what you are for.
Have you been listening to the elites rather than listening to the people? The elites have it all backwards. They think people should serve business rather than business serving people. So elites and their slaves in Washing-town won't support rail unless rail puts the people in the service of business. But cars/trucks do that far greater than rail. This is why cars/truck are the "American Way". This is the political barrier to rail. There are no technical/economic barriers. High speed rail moves people at the same speed as jet aircraft but for six to ten times less energy. The terrible inefficiency of aircraft is in the takeoff and climb. Maintenance costs are roughly equal. There are no materials issues with rail. Less than a week's volume of current global iron ore excavation volume provides the rolling stock, then wood and gravel. None of the expensive materials you claim. The right of way is cheap through the federally-owned lands. For urban right of way, you can tell the automotive elites that they will be purchasing/donating that to the project as the karmic boomerang that comes back around to them for squelching rail transport, the people's demand, early last century. The security issue apparently doesn't exist in other countries so why should it exist here?
Excellent points.
But to elaborate, the high speed trains don't go near as fast as a jet airliner at cruising speed, but since they go downtown-to-downtown, for most trips, they eliminate hours of time required getting to and from the airport and the requisite 1-2 hour ahead of departure requirement.
High speed RR use reinforced concrete ties - but of course that's far less concrete than a concrete-paved road uses, and hardly a resource in short supply.
I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I----oh, no, I can't.
No. US can't copy Europe, China and Japan's energy efficient high speed trains because it is exceptional.
Because it is special? As in Special Education?
The whole concept is pure idiocy when one does a "cost-benefit" analysis. Just like the proposed SST in the '60s for air travel, if built, it will be nothing but a "plaything for the rich"--yet the rich will still prefer to take a plane.
Do we need to expand the "traditional" track network to transport freight at much lower cost than air or highway trucking, as well as to provide a low-cost transportation service for those who are not in such a hurry--absolutely.
For those still "in a hurry", we need to focus on bringing down the cost of air travel, especially for "short hops" of 500 miles or less. The plane-to-passenger weight ratio needs to be decreased--less baggage needs to be hauled. Turbo-props have a role to play. New concepts in low-altitude flight need to be developed--maybe 1000 passenger planes that could land on shorter runways.
Any of these concepts would be a cheaper and economically more rational solution than "high-speed-rail".
So, the Shinkansen in Japan, the TGV in France, and the ever expanding rail network in Spain and other European countries are "playthings for the rich"?
I suppose the high speed rail networks that are being built in South Korea, China, Taiwan and even Vietnam are playthings for the rich?
And in reference to Vietnam, it would be the height of irony if one day, Vietnam, the country that the US bombed to bits, has a better high speed rail network than the US.
Pretty ironic for someone promoting a carbon-free electric generating solution to be opposing electric-run intercity rail travel - and instead promoting inefficient, fossil-fuel burning airliners.
You can build all the intercity electric trains you can borrow the money for, but if you're relying on clean coal, nuclear or even current wind or solar for the electricity, the overall "system" cost is going to be astronomical.
Let's not start putting the cart before the horse--FIRST, let's see significant movement on economical renewables for electricity generation, the capacity for which can be ramped up quickly--THEN I will reassess my position on intercity (long-distance) rail run by electricity.
On flat ground without many expensive bridge crossings or right-of-way disputes, rail has the edge. Over mountainous terrain, found mostly in the west, airplanes are still far ahead.
Rail evolved in Europe basically because, after the devastation of WWII and during the cold war, IT DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. In the fifties and sixties, the US military didn't want a flood of civilian flights over Europe.
In Japan, the situation was similar, the terrain was similar to Europe, and the systems were built with a lot of "surplus cash" generated by the economic boom of the seventies and eighties.
Of course, you frame all airplanes as being "inefficient". If you would take the time to view the video of the Berunelli (sp?) designs, you would see that a truly efficient airplane design, which can travel at twice the (average) speed of any high speed rail, has been politically suppressed here for more than half a century. Why am I not surprised?
When doing economic studies, one must first "optimize the base case" which is current airports plus improved airplane design before comparing it to the huge investment required by your proposal. Overall, the number of flights SHOULD ALSO be reduced so that overall, a 50% reduction in fuel for aviation can be achieved in 10 years. This is ramping down faster than oil supplies are projected to diminish.
The reason why the USSR never developed any planes with a Brunelli wing design, for mass use, is what? Since it is so efficient and all that. Because they went along with the US political suppression of it for more than half a century? The reason why ANY other country has not developed any planes with a Brunelli wing design for mass use is? There is some vast international conspiracy to block planes with a Brunelli wing design, orchestrated by the US government.
Why am I not surprised that as is usual, there are claims of magic bullets, of magic solutions, that have been suppressed by some vast conspiracy?
"Rail evolved in Europe basically because, after the devastation of WWII and during the cold war, IT DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. In the fifties and sixties, the US military didn't want a flood of civilian flights over Europe."
And now? What about the continuing expansion of high speed lines, now? What is the reason? Why is Europe not flying planes with the magical Brunelli wing design now instead of wasting money on rich peoples' playthings?
"In Japan, the situation was similar, the terrain was similar to Europe, and the systems were built with a lot of "surplus cash" generated by the economic boom of the seventies and eighties"
Japan first considered the idea of the Shinkansen BEFORE WW2, in the 1930s. Construction on several lines commenced during the war. The worsening conditions during WW2, and the aftermath of it stopped the project. However, during the 1950s, Japan started revisiting the idea. Construction on the Tokyo to Osaka Shinakansen line began in 1959, completed in 1964, before the Tokyo Olympics. By 1967, more than 100 million passengers had traveled on that line.
And what of China? What of Taiwan? What of South Korea? The US won't let them fly civilian planes too? The terrain is similar to Europe too? Or, are you going to make the ridiculous rich people playthings claim again?
And Brazil? It too is considering a high speed rail line between Rio and Sao Paolo.
AVE_fan, while I see a few claims and assertions in your post, I'll just point out a couple of things:
If, by "the terrain was similar to Europe", you mean mountainous, then you defeat your own argument. Most parts of Japan are anything but "flat ground".
And the first Shinkansen (bullet train) service in Japan was started in 1964 - way before any of the "surplus cash generated by the economic boom of the seventies and eighties" came about.
While efficiency comparisons and numbers for kWh/passenger-mile (or emissions/passenger-mile) exist for trains, planes and automobiles, it's strange that you keep talking about some mythical "truly efficient airplane design" and invoke a conspiracy that has kept this design "suppressed here for more than half a century".
A high speed link between Milan and either Bern or Zurich (I don't recall) was recently completed. Hardly flat ground. Ever heard of tunnels?
Aircraft are the most fuel-inefficient form of transportation there is aside from a single-occupant mid-size or larger car. And there will never be an electric aircraft.
pjd412, I presume you were replying to the previous poster. My point was the same - that Japan and parts of Europe have mountainous terrain. And I'm aware of the comparative energy requirements (and the emissions) per passenger-mile of road, rail and air transport modes :)
Yes. Once again, we are seeking 20th century answers to 21st century problems. Many comments here about gov't and business suppressing real advances in transportation technology.
Why does anyone still think letting this gov't assume more responsibility for anything will turn out better than it has in the past? Even in the 19th century, the "robber barons" would not have been the robber barons if gov't had not subsidized them.
A superior aircraft design has been around since before the 1920s! The Burnelli lifting body takes off and lands under 100mph and uses half the runway, cruses at subsonic speeds and uses about half the fuel as conventional aircraft. This aircraft design is far superior in crash safety!
Unfortunately when the design was classified and suppressed in 1941 by the government even though our modern fighters including the B-2 uses this design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXMopRlZLWo
This 3 part series on You Tube WILL change the way you look at the flying death traps we fly today!
http://www.youtube.com/
results?search_type=search
_playlists&search_query=
burnelli+aircraft+you+tube&uni=1
This 3 part series may be hard on the eyes because of technical difficulties, but the audio is slightly better.
Hopefully Obama will build a high-speed rail train and the entire congress will get on it and leave quickly.
Do you think they could build one that ends at the bottom of the ocean?
While TGV (Trains au Grand Vitese) are quite stylish and photogenic, they require MASSIVE amounts of energy to build and operate. They are expensive, and technically finicky, requiring constant vehicle and track maintenance.
Add to the mix the fact that most of the rail lines in the US have been abandoned, and would require massive upgrading and rebuilding, not to mention the repair/upgrading or outright construction of new rail bridges. In this economy. Not going to happen.
Walk in peace.
I was stationed at an RAF base in the UK from 1980-1982. It was way out of the sticks (RAF Bentwatwers aka Britain's Roswell but that's for another post). It was a mile in a half from a tiny village called Wickham Market. I was able to ride from Wickham Market by train to anywhere in the UK (and Europe as well via the ferry boats).
Now I live in a small community 30 miles from New Orleans called Mandeville. Mandeville used to have Greyhound bus service, but since 2005 the buses don't come to Mandeville anymore. I have to travel to New Orleans or Baton Rouge just to get a Greyhound. And unless you live in the North East corridor or on the California Coast the Amtrak train service is crap.
I read an article a few years back that our rail system is not even as good as Bulgaria's. I would love to see our rail system and even our bus systems get an upgrade from the stimulous money rather than putting more silly cars out on the road. But I forgot, this is America and Americans gotta have their cars. You can't be American unless you have a car. Train service so "Old Europe" according many Americans. High speed railroads, mass urban transit systems and Greyhound buses be damned. As for air service in the US, I avoid it at all costs unless I have to go overseas. I have no patience with the TSA nazis playing me like god.
So just keep driving our cars instead? What do you propose we should do to change our mass transit system? Cars require a massive amount of energy to build and operate (especially any SUV). Cars are expensive, and technically finicky, requiring constant vehicle and road maintenance. Your argument is a joke.
If you ask me we should use most of these "bailout" funds to re-establish New Deal like aspirations to rebuild our transit system to high speed rail. Granted it does cost money, but it also provides jobs (both shovel ready and maintenance/operator jobs), as well as provides money in the future by having an established effective transit system. The airplane and cars are coming to an end with peak oil production and rising prices of crude. Having a high speed rail system that could initial be powered by coal, and eventually fully powered by solar and wind technologies, would be a trifecta: 1) end our need for foreign oil and oil wars, 2) re-invigorate our economy by jobs created through the huge undertaking this project would be, and 3) Provide a sustainable future (at least in transit) for our country.
Walk in peace? Sounds like you are sitting on the fence nay-saying...
However, unless you can show otherwise, I assume that any high speed electric train is still much more energy efficient per-passenger than an aircraft.
And it is in exactly the current economic climate where it is most likely to happen. Ever heard of Keynes?
Regarding the article, I assume the Amtrak east coast Acela service would already qualify as high speed? It reaches 150 mph (240 kph) of a few stretches.