I'm glad to say that the Florida Train was cancled. It was a $6.5 billion dollar train from Tampa to Orlando called sarcastically, "The walt disney express."

Imagine how many Volts could be built with $6.5 billion dollars.

Reply

↓↑report

There has been an effort to build a so-called "High Speed Rail" here in California. It is "so-Called", because the plans are to use existing tracks, sharing rail lines with slow freight and commuter trains. Due to the technical problems of existing rails, it can never safely achieve the high speeds being trumpeted for it.

There have been several attempts to run high speed trains on conventional rails, all have fallen far short of original hype. The only way to get really high speed trains is to make special dedicated rails just for their use - and maintain them properly.

Reply

↓↑report

This is an example of the breakdown between the cooperation of the federal government, and the U.S. railroads. The RRs figured out long ago that passenger trains didn't produce the profits that freight trains produced. And, freight trains don't need to be on time. So they concentrated their efforts where they could make the most profits and left the states and federal government the task of developing long-range passenger travel...It's been a complete and dismal failure. And, IMO it will continue to be a failure because it will take an interested President and Congress to drive high-speed rail forward.

From what I've seen, this President isn't the least bit interested. It wouldn't make any different anyway because he has lost his credibility. The people now know he enlisted Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, etc., to turned The White House and the Executive branch, into a political army to usurp power from Congress and the American people for the benefit of only he, his friends and his party.

Reply

↓↑report

"I'm glad to say that the Florida Train was cancled. It was a $6.5 billion dollar train from Tampa to Orlando called sarcastically, "The walt disney express."

Imagine how many Volts could be built with $6.5 billion dollars."

I can't comment on the Fla project specifically but just looking at the total price tag of $6.5 billion and comparing it to the EVs is not so simple.

Example would be that rail travel has much lower fatality rates per X miles that car travel. Also factor in that rail travel uses less energy per person and less CO2 per person. And did I forget to mention that the high speed rail - it if is equivalent to the TGV - is 3 times faster than a car would be at highway speeds? Add in the fact that you can get some laptop time in on a train or sleep is just the icing on the cake.

Reply

↓↑report

could be... but are they?
the current resources are spent on SUVs and the most inefficient vehicles one can come up with...

i don't think that a better rail network and people gradually switching to EVs (or more efficient car in the short term) need to be mutually exclusive. a wiser use of what is spent every would be sufficient....

Reply

↓↑report

It's about time the U.S. join the rest of the world in high-speed rail transport for the masses. I recently read a book that discusses the future decline of suburban and ex-urban sprawl in favor of smart urban growth. Among the drivers toward this future is accessible public transit, preferably rail-based. The current transportation funding act, SAFETEA-LU is up for renewal in 2009. In light of the growing climatic, economic and geopolitical risks, now would be the time to begin lobbying Congress for a shift in spending priorities from freeways that promote sprawl to transit friendly urban environments.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/

Does anyone know of grassroots efforts toward this goal?

Reply

↓↑report

Or how about replacing the proposed (likely to be constructed) Trans-Texas Corridor, also known as the NAFTA Highway. Planned to run from Mexico, through the US heartland and up to Canada, its only purpose is to transport goods from China through Mexico to save a few pennies per item at Walmart, etc.

This super-highway is a fiasco, cutting through thousands of properties and costing hundreds of billions. Since freight-hauling is its raison d'etre, why not go with a high-speed rail network instead of adding thousands of trucks daily?

Reply

↓↑report

Rail doesn't compete with cars; rail competes with air traffic. And when comparing environmental impacts, it's a no brainer; rail is far more environmentally friendly.

Before criticizing high speed rail, I recommend critics try it out in countries that have it. In Japan, my typical high speed rail experience went like this:

I take a subway to the rail station. I get out and I'm perhaps only a hundred feet away from my train platform -- no long walk through a parking lot, long airport corridors, baggage, intrusive checks making me take off my shoes and confiscating my nail scissors or box drinks, no long terminal walks, and so on. Unlike airplanes, the trains arrive and leave so quickly that the station need only be a small fraction the size of an equivalent traffic airport. The only "checkpoint" I had to go through was to wave my rail pass at a guy behind the booth; if you use a ticket, you just insert it into the machine and walk on through. Once in, I wait on the platform for a train going to my destination -- not an hour or two, but a matter of minutes. I'm breathing the fresh air in the meantime, because it's open air, and unlike airports, there's no exhaust fumes (all electric). I don't have a specific train to catch; I can hop on any one (those with tickets can generally hop on any one that their ticket is sufficient to pay for). No need to reschedule if I "miss" my train. Of course, you can reserve a specific seat on a specific train if you want, even a sleeper car, but you don't *have* to.

I hop on the train when it arrives, and pick a comfy looking seat. And wow, are they comfty -- almost twice as much leg room as on an airplane, nice cushoning, etc. And I paid 1/2 to 2/3 what I would have had to pay for a plane ticket. I put my bag overhead. Just a couple minutes later, we're pulling out and accelerating. No loud roar, not even the clack-clack of slower trains -- just a faint electric hum. The scenery to the side speeds up, and eventually you're whizzing past the landscape on all sides of you. The train darts through cities, through beautiful countryside, and you basically tour the country. There are a few stops, which are hardly a delay, and then we get to our destination hundreds of miles away. Despite the lower speed than a plane, we get there much faster than an airplane would have because there's no "airport" delays on either end of the trip.

Reply

↓↑report

KarenRei -

I like your railway story. Sadly, one of your last sentences highlights a key difficulty for passenger rail in the US: "...destination hundreds of miles away". Much of the business travel I've done in the US involves destinations thousands of miles away, not hundreds.

I hope to see high-speed rail succeed in the US, but current technology limits it to high volume routes that can be completed without the need for overnight accommodations.

Reply

↓↑report

I agree with Phil. Almost all my flights are in excess of 1,000 miles. When you figure the stops along the way, and likely a more indirect route, a highspeed train would like take 9-12 hours to make the same trip that a plane could make in under 3.

However, I do think that the gov't should open up the land in between the lanes on the interstate high way system for rail companies to lease for $1 to build highspeed rail. I could see a high speed train paralleling I-95 being a nice idea.

But, yes as a business traveler, I have a hard time seeing highspeed rail beating aviation right now.

Reply

↓↑report

Karen: Rail does compete with cars, high speed, slow speed, taking a 70 miles train ride into New York is usually faster and cheaper for one person than driving and parking.

bluegreen: I don't know about any grassroots efforts, except that people I know are leaving their cars at home to ride the rails more often. I think the best thing we can do is choose Amtrak and other rail transit instead of driving. The numbers will tell the story to the decision makers.

Then again, I live within walking distance of a stop on the Northeast Corridor, served by Amtrak and NJ Transit - so I realize that it's easier for me than most.

Then again, I moved here specifically for that reason...

Reply

↓↑report

KarenRei,
Nice rail story in Japan, but not practical for the US. A high volume of passanger train traffic would certainly attract those who are destructively prone and check points would follow. The distance, as has been stated by Mike and Phil are right on the money. Additionally, the "hub and spoke" system of air travel is going to evolve into a greater number of smaller aircraft landing closer to business locations. Flying from Chicago to L.A. will continue to be jumbo jet territory, but Chicago to Dayton can be via small, more efficient turbo-prop aircraft and you won't have to go via Detroit.

Reply

↓↑report

"I agree with Phil. Almost all my flights are in excess of 1,000 miles. When you figure the stops along the way, and likely a more indirect route, a highspeed train would like take 9-12 hours to make the same trip that a plane could make in under 3."

Oh, not even close. The trip from Osaka to Tokyo (roughly the same length as LA to San Francisco -- 300-350 miles, somewhere in that range) on a Nozomi takes only 2 1/2 hours. The Nozomis only ~180mph. The next gen line from Tokyo to Shin-Aomori (420 miles) is expected to take only 3 hours. Now, with a big airport, factor in an extra hour or two for the delays inherent in airports, and the train is definitely the faster option. Perhaps at 1000 miles a plane would be faster, but I'd much rather take the train and be comfortable, environmentally friendly, and get a nice scenic tour of the landscape.

Without maglev, sure, high speed rail from, say, Chicago to LA doesn't make much sense. But in the Northeast and California, our more population-dense regions, it'd be a boon.

"A high volume of passanger train traffic would certainly attract those who are destructively prone and check points would follow."

You know that Japan had the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas subway attacks, right?

Reply

↓↑report

"The next gen line from Tokyo to Shin-Aomori (420 miles) is expected to take only 3 hours."

By that math the average speed is 140 mph, so to travel 1,000 miles would take 7 hours, so my original statement is not far off. Of course, that assumes non-stop service--add some stops along the way and 9- 12 hours seems very appropriate.

I don't oppose high speed rail for those regions close by with a lot of air travel currently, but saying that high speed rail can replace air travel for trips over 700 or so miles seems hard to make

Reply

↓↑report

Don't get me wrong -- there are areas of the US that might benefit from better rail, but they need to be cost effective. The US is very large compared to the countries that use rail on a large scale. I would be very interested in knowing what the fuel consumption of a 787 is, fully loaded, for a 250 mile trip, a 500 mile trip, 750 mile, 1000 mile, ect. At some point, I would think that the plane actually becomes more efficient than a car, but I don't know at what milage that would be. If I'm right about that, then we should explore using the money that would go into trains to increase air travel at the expense of road travel.

Reply

↓↑report

The Car vs. Plane debate hinges on how many seats are occupied in the Car. A Plane gets about 45-55 mpg per passenger seat. So a plane is more efficient than driving alone, but less efficient than driving with other passengers.

Reply

↓↑report

"Of course, that assumes non-stop service--add some stops along the way and 9- 12 hours seems very appropriate."

No, that's including stops. The trains go ~180mph. The average of 140mph is because of the stops.

Shinkansen (bullet trains) don't stop frequently -- only once every hundred miles or so. For shorter hops, you take a tokkyuu, which go at roughly highway speeds, or even the local trains (which go even slower) for small destinations.

Reply

↓↑report

Karen,
I love trains and I love the idea of having a Japanese or European style train system here in the US. However, the road warriors here are right that at longer distances, planes in North America look like they are not going to have competitors from rail or maglev for a while.

Practically, a high-speed rail system would be built in pieces in the Northeast and on the West Coast. I can also imagine a NY-Chicago-Minneapolis line at a later date. It will however be a cultural change for most Americans to take the train again.

Reply

↓↑report

No high-speed rail in the U.S.? What's the Acela, then? It runs from Boston to Washington at up to 150mph and is all-electric.

Reply

↓↑report

I was thinking of a feature passenger trains could have. Take your car with you. A compartment in the rear will carry your car to your destination.

Reply

↓↑report