But the US can't have any high speed rail because...?

[babylonsister]

[Liberal Veteran]

1. And auto/airline lobby doesn't like it.

Of course, knowing our history, the TSA would probably require a cavity search and background check to board a decent high-speed rail in this country.

[MrTriumph]

2. Because HSR does not make sense

It is ridiculously expensive. Even with inflated usage numbers floated by proponents, HSR won't pay for itself without massive subsidies.

HSR won't take you from your door to your destination. HSR requires the rider to take other means of transportation to and from terminals. An automobile will take you from your door to your destination.

HSR is not always high speed. In urban areas high speed trains run slower. That defeats the "high speed" element of HSR.

When air travel ends, HSR may be an alternative. Until then there is little point.

[babylonsister]

4. Maybe 'little point' across the country,

but how about from urban to urban areas? I think it's doable, and needed. The jobs created and the results would be fantastic.

[FrodosPet]

11. As long as they don't run it through my backyard, no problem

And as long as they can convince all the property owners in the corridors to take as little money as possible, and can guarantee no loss of wetlands and habitat for threatened species, no loss of historic or human services like schools and hospitals, and will make it completely elevated, no road level crossings to avoid human and wildlife collisions, and the sound level is safe for people living near it, then I am all for it!

[babylonsister]

12. So don't get this done. Got it. Can you

imagine if every innovative thing ever done in this country was met with your sentiment? Like highways?

[DanTex]

14. What a great argument!

Because cars and highways obviously don't threaten the environment at all. And cars obviously never collide with people or animals. So, yeah, we should only have high speed rail if it has zero impact on the environment and communities, just the same as car travel!

[FrodosPet]

16. A little secret

I am an environmentalist. And I actually do support HSR.

But let us not kid ourselves into thinking that it will be able to pay for itself, or that acquiring the real estate will be cheap, or that there won't be NIMBY challenges and environmental challenges.

As much as we want to be Europe, in terms of culture, geography, and population density, we are not Europe. And China? Naturally, they don't have the effective opposition there to stop it. If the Chinese government wants HSR, the government GETS HSR.

[badtoworse]

19. You've got is exactly right

It really doesn't matter what kind of infrastructure you want to develop. As soon as it's proposed, the Neighborhood Coalition to Preserve the Status Quo is organized and in court the next day to stop it. In the case of HSR, it would only make sense in the densely populated regions of the country like the northeast and the California coast - good luck developing any kind of infrastructure there.

[A HERETIC I AM]

32. It's not NIMBY. It's BANANA.

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

[Chan790]

35. It's a shame...

it'd do great things for Florida, for example.

Imagine a train you could get on in Miami and get off in Tallahassee 3 hours later for under $100 with intermittent stops in Jacksonville, Orlando and Tampa. People don't really stop to think about how much of a distance shrinking effect HSR has. It makes a long narrow corridor like FL a small more-cohesive state and it does wonders for an economy.

[hunter]

5. Automobiles are loathsome.

I can't wait for the automobile age to end. The world would be a much better place if legs powered most transportation.

[FrodosPet]

13. Please get back to us on that when you are older

At this point in my life - one walk to the grocery store equals two days of crippling back pain.

Congrats on your good health. Protect it while you are young.

[hunter]

21. My health isn't all that great either and I'm only in my fifties.

Electric legs or wheels would be a very fine thing, maybe not for me now, but it's a possible future.

As things stand these days I get up when I hurt too much to sleep (before the sun rises) and I go to bed when I hurt too much to be awake. And sadly, NSAIDS no longer agree with my stomach. I remember fondly when I could pop four ibuprofen tablets and get some relief.

I was brutal on my body as a healthy younger person, no low impact anything, and it's that coupled with the family arthritis.

Remember Celebrex? They advertised that as being easier on one's stomach. I learned the hard way they lied, and it was an expensive lesson too. It was maybe a year or two later it was discovered they did lie, shelving longer term studies that showed it had the same bad side effects as the other NSAIDS.

Back pain is fairly rare for me (Vicodin level) but I know it's among the worst...

My brother and I joke we're becoming old farts, sitting around jabbering about aches and pains like our grandparents and their friends used to do.

I still think cars are loathsome. Cities and higher density suburbs ought to be remodeled so that automobiles are unnecessary.

[Jamaal510]

33. Besides what

you said about back pain, I just see it as an unnecessary inconvenience to be lugging a whole bunch of grocery bags either on one's bike or on the bus to-and-from home. As a person with no license or car, I really envy people who do drive. Sure, gas is expensive. But people who drive can not only play their music in their cars, but they can also get from Point A to Point B (whenever they want to) quicker and not have to wait for the bus in bad weather, and they have plenty of room in their cars to put their stuff (compared to the measly bicycle crates). Most bike crates are so small that it would take the average person more than one trip to the store just to get everything they want.

[ljm2002]

8. HSR is less polluting than air travel...

...and air travel doesn't take you door-to-door either, yet millions of people avail themselves of air travel every year. Also, while air travel is fast, not all flights are nonstop; and of course, with the security precautions nowadays, there are extra hours tacked on to each trip.

HSR is used in Japan, China and Europe and they don't seem to have a problem with it not paying for itself.

Also, we already have "massive subsidies" for various other forms of transportation, in the form of artificially low fuel prices as well as corporate tax loopholes. Just because it is not on the books as a subsidy, does not mean it is not a subsidy.

I would much rather travel cross country, or from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, via HSR than by plane (more comfortable -- you can get up and walk around on a train) or by automobile (can't sit and read, or have a drink, while driving -- and rail travel is far safer statistically than automobile travel).

There are pros and cons of any transportation method, to be sure. But just proclaiming that "HSR does not make sense", does not make it so.

[Major Nikon]

22. Not necessarily true

It depends on what type of pollution you are talking about, and whether or not you are considering the big picture or just the vehicles themselves while in operation.

A large aircraft emits about three times the greenhouse gases per passenger kilometer traveled than a train during operation. But if you consider the infrastructure that supports train and light rail travel, it effectively increases greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 155 percent. A similar calculation for jets only increases the effective greenhouse gas emissions by 31 percent.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=planes-trains-or-automobiles--air-t-2009-06-08

[ljm2002]

31. Well all right then...

...let's do the math.

x = greenhouse gases per passenger kilometer traveled for a train
then 3x = ggppkt for an airplane

So considering the infrastructure for a train, its ggppkt becomes 1x + (1.55 * 1x) == 1x + 1.55x == 2.55x
and considering the infrastructure for an airplane, its ggppkt becomes 3x + (.31 * 3x) == 3x + .93x == 3.93x

oops, looks like the airplanes still lose.

Ah, I see someone in the reply to that article did the same math:

Wait wait wait! If a train emits 100 units per passenger mile and a jet emits "about 3 times as much" (300 units per passenger mile) how does increasing the trains output 155% when accounting for infrastructure( now yielding 255 units per passenger mile) run neck and neck with the jet (300+ 31%=393 units per passenger mile)? am I missing something here?
Is a near 50% difference not statistically signifigant?

Yes it is necessary to consider the big picture with all these things. We really need to change our lifestyles if we are to tackle climate change in a realistic manner. I would start by mandating that in any profession where it is possible, people telecommute at least one day a week. Virtually all office jobs can be done from home. Not to minimize the benefits of face to face interactions -- the benefits in the work place are real -- but there is no need for every single person to physically show up every single day IMO.

[Major Nikon]

37. I have no idea how they are coming up with their math

They didn't link to the journal entry which would have been far more helpful and I couldn't find it on the web site. The Environmental Research Letters is a well referenced journal, so I'm reasonably sure their peer review process is good enough to catch such errors. Remember also that they are talking about rail in general and not necessarily HSR, which will have it's own set of dynamics. What I think is important from the article is the idea that the entire infastructure should be considered and not just how much polution each mode is generating while they are in operation.

[Kermitt Gribble]

39. Their "math" is not in question

It is the way they are presenting it. They proclaim the "155%" increase for rail compared to the "31%" increase for air, but do not provide the totals after the increase. This leads the reader to believe rail is more polluting than air, which the math above disproves. This article was written with an agenda.

[Major Nikon]

40. I can't agree

The article was written by a reputable publication addressing a reputable scientific journal. While it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that the author had an agenda and nefarious motives, I don't believe you can definitively say that without analyzing what the journal itself says.

What the article is saying is that under some circumstances, travel by rail pollutes more than travel by air. Their reasons seem quite plausible. When you are generating electricity by fossil fuel, sending that electricity down transmission lines which robs efficiency, and considering a mode that takes far more infrastructure to support then it's not that difficult to see how this can be true.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. +1 for you & K&R for the thread.

[DanTex]

10. Right, because automobile and airplane travel aren't subsidized at all...

[FarCenter]

3. It's cheaper in China since they don't have to spend billions on planning and studies

Alignment and acquisition of right-of-ways is not a problem. There are no Native American burial sites nor endangered species in China.

[hunter]

7. That doesn't seem to be the problem when it comes to highways...

Hell, we'll kick people out of their homes to build baseball and football stadiums.

[FarCenter]

15. Few new highways are being built.

The negative reactions to highway building in the '60s pretty much stopped new freeways in densely populated areas. It is mostly just lane additions in existing right-of-ways now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_revolts

[hunter]

23. It wouldn't bother me to use the same right-of-ways as existing highways.

Commuting is overrated. My wife and I used to be Los Angeles commuters. We haven't been regular automobile commuters since the mid 'eighties, partly by good fortune, partly by design. We no longer live in Los Angeles.

Cities ought to be designed with good, easily available, affordable housing very near the places people work and well served by public transportation. Automobile traffic ought to be discouraged.

[FarCenter]

43. Highway curve radius and grades are not appropriate for high-speed rail.

Light rail and commuter rail would work on highway right-of-ways.

[hunter]

44. That's okay with me too.

We all need to slow down and enjoy the ride. This fossil fueled high speed joyride has got to end.

"Economic Productivity" isn't productive at all, it is destroying us and our natural environment.

Imagine a three day work week, two month vacations, a year long vacation every decade or so, early retirement, no "business" trips, and nice housing near or easily accessible by public transportation to your work. Except in rare, life and death situations, it wouldn't matter how fast you "got there." Why cram yourself into a stuffy little cigar tube with a bunch of harried strangers and hurl yourself through space when you can enjoy a nice cruise and get to know a little about the people you are traveling with and the landscapes or oceans along your route? Or read a book. Watch a movie.

To paraphrase the opening of the Six Million Dollar Man:

Gentlemen, we can rebuild this civilization. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic society, a place where nobody is hungry, homeless, stressed out, and merely surviving. A place where humans live gently upon this earth.

[joeglow3]

6. Density population also plays into it.

[mindwalker_i]

17. I don't know, our population seems preety dense at times

[Taitertots]

9. High speed rail is the last step after buses (that don't smell like pee), street cars....

High speed rail isn't particularly desirable in the US because once you get to your location, it is constructed in a way that makes non-automotive travel difficult.

For example: I flew to Germany, walked to an ICE terminal from the airport, walked out of the train station in Amsterdam, got on a street car, took a ferry, got on a bus, and reached my destination. At every stage, it would have been more difficult to use a car.

[AgingAmerican]

18. Progress is progressive

...and thus evil.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. If we can't be like Europe, then we should be like China!

Dammit!

I so love threads like this.

Why do people have a tendency to forget that when the Chinese govt wants to build a rail system, they simply show up in your front yard with some bulldozers driven by what amounts to slave workers, and if you're not out of your house in time, well then you get bulldozed with it. Who builds the trains? Well-paid, unionized workers? Um... OTAY! Who lays the track? Well-paid, unionized workers? Um... OTAY!

Your graphic says: "...will handle more passengers by early next year than the 54 million people a month who board domestic flights in the United States,". Just exactly what does that mean? More than 54 million people per year, or more than 54 million people a month? In a country of 1.35 BILLION, that's not so much, considering nearly all of those passengers are repeat riders, agreed?

They're 83rd in the world in population density, at 365/sq. mi. The US is 179th, at 90/sq. mi. How does this factor into the feasibility of high-speed rail, if at all?

Maybe if the air in US cities looked like it does in Chinese cities, you'd have a better time with your argument.

[Live and Learn]

25. Hmm, I remember when America had the "Can Do" spirit.

Now it seems like we have a million excuses why we can't do.

[Johonny]

29. Seems that way :(

One of the things that kept this country together was rail in the 19th century. That was at a time when there was a lot lower population density and even less of the population lived in cities. Yet in modern time somehow rail isn't the solution. It is only the solution every where else in the world. Our rail like all our infrastructure is hopelessly old, out of date, and getting more so by the decade but we won't spend to renew it. Meanwhile places like China are spending. It is very depressing. We don't even try anymore.

[rpannier]

26. Oil Companies don't like it

Many Senators and House members see that as their constituents

[CFLDem]

27. Because we've lost our gumption as a nation.

70 years ago a project like this could be done. But today every little NIMBY group would rip it apart before it left commitee.

[HereSince1628]

28. Because just as in the days of the robber-barons the rich are the train-makers

not the government.

If in exchange for building such things, the corporations could be given miles of land on both sides of the right-of-way by the government, it would be done.

Just like it was in the 1860's.

[BlueStreak]

30. Republicans don't like anything they have to pay for

They like games where somebody else puts up the money and they can come in and steal the profits.

Why pay for infrastructure improvements in the USA when there are so many other countries they can rape without having to put up any money?

Oh, and let's dump another $400,000,000,000 of unnecessary debt on the American taxpayers for the military that will accomplish that exploitation for them.

[Jenoch]

34. What is high speed?

There is a proposed 'high speed' rail proposed from the Twin Cities to Chicago. The high speed rail will take 8 hours. It has stops in Winona, and Rochester, Minnesota. Driving from the Twin Cities to Chicago takes 6 hours. I am in favor of rail where it makes sense. Twin Cities to Chicago does not make sense until they cut the driving time in half.

[seattledo]

38. I rode Amtrak once

It took 55 hours to get from Seattle to SC. Even if you tripled the top speed of the train, it would probably still only reduce that to half because of the number of stops and time the train takes to speed-up and slow down. Also, the sleeper birth I had was five times the cost of a plane ticket. I paid more just because I wanted to see the country. High speed would make that even more expensive, but you could probably get away with just a seat for a 26 hour trip. People that say we need high speed rail just don't realize how big this country is. The money would be better spent on intraregion light rail.

[TeamPooka]

36. consider yourself lucky we get seatbelts in cars... nt

[Wilms]

41. ^

[B Calm]

42. We're going to have to somehow find a way to drag the whiny ass republicans

into the new century.